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

[tburdett]

If you mean using a virtual printer, that doesn't work perfectly. It tends to bloat the file massively, and removes the ocr'd text.

A wise man once said, "A copy that I can read at work (where we are limited to Acrobat Reader 5 for the forseable future) is better than a copy that won't load at all." It was me, I'll admit it.

 

[RCanning]

That's actually not strictly true. It depends entierly on what type of virtual printer you are using and how you have it configured. Hypotheticly, it can be done so well that the only loss is the loss of bookmarks.

I read stuff like this and I bang my head on the desk. Not upset at Tsyr, it is just I am caught between...

Option A) I don't want to do anything wrong. I understand the store is trying to protect their sales, and good for them.

and

Option B) I can't print the bloody things. Tell me how to do this so that I can take it somewhere and print it.

On one hand I want to do the right thing, and on the other hand I wan't to be able to use the product. {slam slam slam}

My head hurts.

I just pray they get the "loaning" system working.

Richard Canning

P.S. Can someone tell my why I don't just shut up on this issue? I feel like I am repeatedly banging my head against a wall hoping it will feel good when I stop.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I am not a lawyer, but I had a couple of comments on your comments:



Actually, to my knowledge inserting the d20 STL license is not part of the requirement; only the trademark, the "This product requires" boilerplate in no larger than 12 point font, staying away from the prohibited subjects, and abiding by the quality standards. Only the OGL makes a requirement of the license, and the product must be OGL if it's part of the d20 STL anyway.



Not to dissuade you, but it does seem reasonably clear to me: basically, anything that is not a mechanic is protected property. With that statement, they released the MECHANICS to their feats, spells, etc. But not the names to such. According to that text, if it's a mechanic, it's open; if it's not a mechanic, it's not.

Actually I have to agree here, it seemed clear to me. Anything that is a mechanic I can use however I want, anything that is a proper noun I can't. White Wolf has always been bad about trying to copyright names that can't be copyrighted. Most of their clan names are not original, and many of their mage terms are common parlance and have been for a couple decades. The fact that they tried to copyright sidhe therefore doesn't surprise me. I have no problem using it, however, since that name and any specific racial prefix that is known in mythology can not be copyrighted.

 

[Psion]

Actually I have to agree here, it seemed clear to me. Anything that is a mechanic I can use however I want, anything that is a proper noun I can't. White Wolf has always been bad about trying to copyright names that can't be copyrighted. Most of their clan names are not original, and many of their mage terms are common parlance and have been for a couple decades. The fact that they tried to copyright sidhe therefore doesn't surprise me. I have no problem using it, however, since that name and any specific racial prefix that is known in mythology can not be copyrighted.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? You can't copyright individual words, even if they are original.

Trademark is another matter, but that is context limited.

 

[Tsyr]

I read stuff like this and I bang my head on the desk. Not upset at Tsyr, it is just I am caught between...

Option A) I don't want to do anything wrong. I understand the store is trying to protect their sales, and good for them.

I sorta know where you're comming from (As a lot of people on this thread do, I suspect).

I hit A) and just stopped. I don't want to lower myself to doing crap like that to make use of a product I don't need.

So I'll do without.

But I'd like to point out that I'm not a hacker or anything. Security and encryption isn't even a hobby of mine (Other than a passing amusement at how quickly they get broken).

All the knowledge I have of how poorly DRM encryption works comes from:

10 minutes of google searching regarding DRM encryption history and security reports

and

The fact that I have published (In the sense of composed and compiled, generaly for school projects, not for sale) .PDF documents before.

So no 'techy' knowledge was needed to know this.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

A weak evasion. Let's see: "People like me, who would ordinarily have GLADLY paid you for your product are forced, on principle to seek out pirated copies". You endorsed theft as being "forced on principle", and now you're saying it was just a metaphor.



Once again, we see that you're the victim.

It also makes it a bit clear that you are doing your best to slap him, which is also somewhat childish. His comment may have been a bit extreme, but it did sum up the way a lot of people feel. Your retort, however, was unnec. and a bit confrontational, which is *also* unneeded in this forum. Please think on that while one person posting something unneeded is a hurdle, someone retorting to it and then getting a re-retort, ad nosium... is a brick wall.

Yes, I know in essence I just did what I complained about, but then Inever said I was perfect;P

 

[Funksaw]

I'd like to point out a significant development in the other name that's been mentioned for the DRM - Apple.

They just released iTunes 4.6. This "upgrade" stops playing of files that have used "Hymn" - a way to strip the DRM off of iTunes files so that they can be played elsewhere, or on Linux, or whatever. Unlike the AAC>CD>AAC workaround, it's lossless DRM removal, and many people used it for both legit and illegal reasons - but mostly legit. Why? For one, Hymn wouldn't work with a file that you hadn't bought yourself. Second, Hymn removed ONLY the DRM, NOT the "watermarking" on the file.

The new iTunes 4.6 does not make a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" workarounds for the DRM. It seems to work by checking the files for the iTunes watermarks that were not stripped out by Hymn.

Of course, within minutes, a "difficult" workaround for the 4.6 DRM scheme (involving hex-editing) was invented and is being used, and of course, the next version of Hymn will probably fix it as well, stripping out watermarks, which no one really had a problem with UNTIL they were used for DRM purposes. This makes Hymn MORE likely to be used as a "pirate" tool, instead of a "fair use" tool.

Some more iTunes history: Previously, people could share iTunes streaming audio over the internet like they could with network - it was built into the application itself as a feature. Then someone invented a way to download the files and save them, which prompted iTunes to release a new version with removed that feature - new software came to put it back in.

What does this show us about DRM?

1) Just because some say "If you don't like it, you can always crack it" today, that doesn't mean it's going to hold true tomorrow, as companies will make it their business to plug such holes as soon as viable. (Therefore, the "just buy it and crack it" argument is not valid.)

2) Just as companies will make it their business to plug such holes as soon as viable, hackers will make it their business to find more holes.

 

[Funksaw]

Oh. Earlier today, I went to Dragon's Lair (my FLGS which is quite famous in Austin for good service great selection, and not looking like a typically "boys-only" android-dungeon clone.) I told them that there was a boycott, that I was particpating in it, that this wasn't a remark on them, I told them why, I told them that I would continue to purchase comics and other games not part of the boycott there whenever possible in a "buycott" but that there was a boycott on and suggested that they call up White Wolf as a retailer and tell them that customers weren't buying products because of this business move.

I suggest everyone here serious about the boycott do the same. Don't be obnoxious or pushy - chances are your local retailer doesn't even KNOW about DTRPG. Just explain why you'd like to purchase products but can't, and let them know what they can do to help get back more business.

 

[WizarDru]

I told them that there was a boycott, that I was particpating in it, that this wasn't a remark on them, I told them why, I told them that I would continue to purchase comics and other games not part of the boycott there whenever possible in a "buycott" but that there was a boycott on and suggested that they call up White Wolf as a retailer and tell them that customers weren't buying products because of this business move.

So you're advocating not purchasing material from these publishers in any form? I was under the impression that some folks were planning on avoiding purchasing PDFs through DRPG, not boycotting any publisher working with them. That seems terribly counter-productive to me, and not likely to generate the results you hope that it will.

Writing letters of intent will be a much more effective tool for change than that. How is Monte to tell if Book of Iron Might is failing due to his stance on DRM PDFs, his distrubution channels or due to people just not liking the content? Back catalog sales aren't going to be indicative, unless the whole product line suffers...and driving said publishers out of business seems self-defeating, as well. Further, I don't think that complaining to a retailer who is completely disconnected with the PDF method...and who is actively competing against it is a productive way to instigate change, either.

My complaint is with the changes to the PDF distribution method, not with the content or the publisher. PDFs, to me, are useful for their portability and their ability to have material cut and pasted out of them. DRM removes the two greatest strengths he format has, and publishers need to realize that if you make the format useless to me, I won't buy it.

 

[Tsyr]

So you're advocating not purchasing material from these publishers in any form? I was under the impression that some folks were planning on avoiding purchasing PDFs through DRPG, not boycotting any publisher working with them. That seems terribly counter-productive to me, and not likely to generate the results you hope that it will.

It's a different school of thought, I suppose... One I'm debating going with myself, though I havn't made up my mind yet.

It's probably more for people who disagree with DRM on a deeper level than just "But its annoying". I detest DRM so badly that honestly, I do have to consider if I want to give money in any form to a company that uses it.

It's the same logic that has resulted in a ton of people (myself included) not buying CDs lately, at least not from the major labels are are involved in the crap going on regarding them right now.

I have not yet made up my mind, mind you. Some of my favorite companies are on that list. But I am considering it.

Writing letters of intent will be a much more effective tool for change than that. How is Monte to tell if Book of Iron Might is failing due to his stance on DRM PDFs, his distrubution channels or due to people just not liking the content? Back catalog sales aren't going to be indicative, unless the whole product line suffers...and driving said publishers out of business seems self-defeating, as well. Further, I don't think that complaining to a retailer who is completely disconnected with the PDF method...and who is actively competing against it is a productive way to instigate change, either..

Well, according to the stated intent of DTRPG, there is theoreticly *not* competition between them and FLGS... And at their prices, I kinda-sorta have to agree.

That being said, if Monte's sales take a plumet immedietly after embracing DRM encryption, well, Monte's a smart guy.