Brian E. Harris's page

I used to think that. But as I got deeper into the PfRPG ARs, I realized that it was its own beast with as much compatibility with 3.x material as True20 has with 3.x.

Is there a "changelog" somewhere, that shows exactly what's been changed/updated?

I've got the Alpha PDF, and have found some, but it'd be nice to see a list of everything - I'm weird that way...

ASEO wrote:

Pathfinger RPG should be 3.75, not pre 4ed.

No it shouldn't. The PfRPG is its own game that backwards-compatibility with 3.x as one of its objectives.

Isn't that essentially what "3.75" refers to? An "edition" that maintains backwards compatibility with 3.5/3E and fixes a few minor issues?

Obviously, the Pathfinder RPG is going to have a bunch of different fluff...

It would be like a Star Wars setting where everyone was a force user. One of the things I hate most about the prequels (besides the horrible stories and acting and characters) was no Han Solo types. Where were the folks without jedi powers that still were able to contribute?

Well, Bail Organa drove a car.

And there was Jar Jar. He was pretty important...

:P

It also looks like their ready to jetison WoTC or at least the Dungeons and Dragons brand. Their staff has been reduced a great deal since the 3.0 release. A number of publications have been pulled from the shelves or cancelled. Licenses for materials have either been revoked or cancelled as well. I bet the lease on the WoTC office in Washington runs out at the end of 09.

The "smash" is the relase of 4.0. The "grab" will be taking your money and then selling WoTC or D&D and letting the owner of the copyrighted content try and pick up the pieces. At least WoTC will be cheap if 4.0 fails as most expect.

I just don't see them chucking either.

Magic is still huge.

The D&D brand, and all the content, still makes them money in the form of miniatures and what-not.

Sadly, I think it's more likely that they'll just let the RPG languish and die, rather than selling/licening it to anyone.

Were they to piece-meal out the property, I don't see that ending well for anyone but Hasbro's pocketbook.

Nah, we're talking pre-1999 when this occurred...

Heres my thought on the Goodman pic. Its 1 pic in 50baphuckinjillian. GG is wrong. Ill draw you a pick of a drow with 6 fingers and 3 legs and call it obvious everyone with 3 legs is a drow. And all 3 int farmers know this.

I understand, dude - the coincidence of it just bugs me - the local folks here that have heard of the dumb finger joint bit and the Goodman book would likely have a common source...

Better than citing a book that says that drow have normal hands I will cite you that no WotC book or novel states they have the extra joint. The drow have normal hands. The excuse to have every ignorant farmer with a int of 3 just happen to know some extrainious fact about drow is just a sign of a GM that doesnt know how to deal with drow players. Its called a spot check. Thats what they get. Made more dificult with cover and disguise. AND there is a chance that Mr. Ignorant Farmer would see the drow with NO cover, plane and simple, no disguise or anything, naked even. And think, "look, a black elf" and go back to farming.

And that's what we're leaning towards.

If it wasn't for that darned Goodman book bugging the crap out of me...

Maybe I'll put in an email to them.

I think you/ve nailed it. The DM interpreted that in his world, drows have an extra finger joints. He is the DM after all and should he chose to disregard official lore, that is his privilege. Take it or leave it.

Augh, I guess I could have been more clear in my tale, but it was presented as a part of Drow physiology, taken from an official source, yet said source was never named.

On reflection just recently, two other players in our group recall seeing it in an official source, as well.

This would seem to be supported by the Goodman/EN World book, but I can't find said official source.

I'm not arguing what a DM can or can't do in his/her world.

My question still stands - can anyone cite an official source for this aspect of Drow anatomy?

(Edited to fix the blasted quote tag.)

I remember one of the old 2ed books, I think it was Cormanthor: City of the Elves or some such, mentioned that elves had long fingers (and thus used a different grip on their weapons, etc) but I don't ever remember hearing about an extra joint in the finger. So they'd have four bones in every finger... man, no wonder they have -2 Constitution. It'd really such getting those trodden on by a dwarf.

Yup - the Cormanthyr book talks about the long fingers (like many other sources), and does go a bit further, with regard to elf weapons having differently shaped/designed hilts/handles due to that bit, but doesn't say anything about the extra joint...

I'd normally be inclined to write it off as some stupid idea that this particular DM had (especially knowing the guy), but then the Goodman/EN World book I mentioned details it, so I'm curious where they got the idea...

Were I the player, I certainly would have shown him the extra finger joint...

Too true! I do believe that's what ended up happening... :)

I've got a dumb question...

One of the biggest gripes I see with pro-4E folks is that Vancian magic is this heinous, horrible, baby-eating monstrosity.

If the magic system that's been around since the inception of the game 30+ years ago is this awful, awful thing, why are you still playing D&D?

I'm not trying to flame or insult anyone, I just seriously want to know.

I've seen the hatred and disgust of the Vancian system brought up in such detail, with the usual conclusion that the whole game is worthless because of it.

I just can't wrap my head around why someone would continue to punch themselves in the groin repeatedly, by playing a game they have such animosity for...

If other games out there have a vastly superior magic system, what exactly is it that's keeping you from playing it? What non-magic stuff does D&D do better?

Hi there!

So, my gaming group got together last week, and we were discussing game sessions past, and one of my fellow players brought up an issue that annoyed him with a DM many moons ago.

This play has always been a Drow fan - and no, his PCs are not a Drizz't clone, he's been playing them before Bob Salvatore started writing that stuff - and he brought a character of his into a session with a new DM.

Keeping himself cloaked/hooded/gloved when hanging out above-ground, it seems that everyone his PC ran into was magically able to determine that he was a drow, because as the DM interpreted things, the Drow's "long slender fingers" were a dead giveaway, and when that was debated, this whole concept of the Drow having an extra finger joint was then tossed up, and it was able to be seen, even through gloved hands.

Now, all idiocy aside, apparently this extra finger joint bit isn't anything new?

The player fond of Drow commented about the finger joint thing being a creation of this particular DM, but a couple other players from our group countered, saying that they were also aware that the Drow had this particular feature...

I've been going over all kinds of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition sourcebooks, and I can't find ANYTHING that would indicate this - save for multiple references that the Drow have these "long slender fingers".

Goodman Games/EN World put out a book (Complete Guide to the Drow or somehing) that does state (with illustration) the extra joint, but that's not an "official" source.

We seek clarification! :)

Can anyone cite an OFFICIAL (i.e. TSR or WotC) source that has this? We couldn't find it in any of the Monster Manual/Monstrous Manual/Monstrous Compendium books, nor in the Fiend Folio or Unearthed Arcana.

Does anyone ever buy the deluxe books? Those always strike me as a waste of money, but the frequency with which they are published suggests that they are good sellers.

I finally picked up the deluxes for 3.5 this past Christmas, sold as "remainders".

I think I paid $50 for the PHB (as it's the most sought after), but only paid $20/each for the DMG and MM.

Got me an extra set of the 3 core books, for the same price as the non-deluxe cores...

My biggest complaint about the whole anti-4e movement is that people blame WotC for trying to be a profitable company. That is what companies do - all companies. I think either buy their products or don't. They are not ripping anyone off because they are producing a new product. It will be successful or it will not. They are in business to turn a profit like all companies are - like my company is - like all the companies everyone on this board work for are.

Let's just decide whether we want the products or not and give up the attacks on "Corporate Greed." It is getting boring and is frankly isn't fair.

As several people who aren't fond of 4E have already said, nobody faults the company for trying to make a profit - it's the way that they're going about it.

1> The version change, and how it's being hyped as a much-needed fix to the most broken game ever, rather than simply "hey, we want to go a different direction, and sales on this version are flagging.

2> The version change, and how it's too soon after the 3.5 version change. WotC has never kept secret the fact that the core books are the real money maker, and if people aren't buying your core books any longer, changing the number on the cover seemed to boost sales when they did it last week...

3> The version change, and the outright lies that they were working on it when asked last year, etc.

4> It almost seems like they took the results of a survey entitled "What do you love about the current version of D&D?", collected the results, took the most popular stuff, and then divided it up into 10 different books for content. Smart way to make money? Sure. Underhanded way to make money? Definitely.

5> Decisions about the game seemingly made with profit as the driver, and the health and well-being, if you will, of the game as the hostage in the trunk. Specifically, rather than marketing the game as the flagship of the D&D line, it seems that the game is an ancillary product, supporting minis, an online environment, etc.

Given how they're marketing 4E, I expect that 5E will break things down even further - the initial release will have one race, and one class: Human and Fighter.

They'll have annual DMG/PHB/MM releases, like they're doing now, so year two will get us Elf and Wizard, and year three will get us Halfling and Rogue.

It's brilliant, I tell you - Having a core release with only one race and one class means you don't have to spend any time trying to figure out what to play - that's not fun! Everyone plays the same thing, it's super-quick, and that's FUN!

Because, we all know, once 5E is released, we're all going to realize exactly how much fun 4E wasn't, and we'll be waiting with baited breath for the new version, so we can get away from the rules-bloat and general un-fun-ness of that version.

I'm going to throw my vote in and say that, while it may make strong business sense to get playtesters crowing about how great the new edition is, allowing them to talk about good stuff and barring them from talking about bad stuff just doesn't sit right with me.

They're well within their rights to do whatever they want with the new version, they're the ones holding the keys to the castle.

With that said, the game their playing is a marketing move, pure and simple - one that seems to have slightly backfired.

They figured if playtesters started talking up the game, it'd sway the negative opinion that people hold, based on official reports. Allowing the good, but restricting the bad gives the false impression that Wizards has released their testers to talk about their experiences, good or bad - or, at least, that was the intent, before the emails became public knowledge.

The only reason that Andy Collins is responding to this is because it backfired. They forgot to restrict discussion of the contents of the email, it got out, and people aren't happy with it.

The "why" is pretty simple: we wanted a few more responsible, trustworthy, and respected non-staff voices out there talking about their experiences. Is someone going to buy 4E sight unseen because Ari or John or someone else says, "Hey, I liked it"--not likely. But if it opens a few more people's minds to being open to the new edition (or god forbid cautiously optimistic about it), that's a good thing.

But, he didn't want them talking about their experiences - he wanted them talking about a limited subset of their experiences. See how he words it? The guy is playing wordgames on behalf of the marketing department.

Translation: We wanted people who aren't already assumed to be WotC shills to start shilling the game.

...but I don't believe it's helpful to anyone to hear negative comments about a game that isn't even finished (much yet published).

Conversely, that would hold true for positive comments...

Anyhow, when all is said and done, this little marketing fiasco says to me that WotC might actually be getting scared - that maybe they realized that it was a bad idea to give the finger to established customer base.

I believe it starts the end of February and lasts until the beginning of March, so about a month.

Not on my calendar... :)

Hasn't been a problem around here.

The game has plenty of mechanics and resources for dealing with the issue (artifacts, devices, alternative weapons).

The inability of a mage to chuck spells all day long with no limit or no consequence adds an element of strategy to the game - resource conservation puts a big twist on things, in a good way.

It's funny - I see a lot of complaints about the magic system as having no basis in fantasy literature, but isn't Jack Vance's work where the magic system came from?

Also, I'd be hard pressed to cite specific examples, since I haven't read a lot of fantasy lately (sci-fi has been taking up my time these days), but I know I've read a fair amount of it where the spellcasters had some heavy limitations on their casting ability - both quantity and quality.

Even Green Lantern's ring needs recharged...

My "I'm done" above to the contrary, this will be my final post in this thread:

Ironically, I completely agree with you on this. All your arguments were great. Those who do rationalize are the first to accuse others of being pious (this regarding the 'holier than thou' stuff).

He was arguing positions that NOBODY ever took, and attempting to take a moral high ground on an issue as if that made him superior to others. He does not dictate the morals of society, and his attitude is what garnered him the "holier than thou" moniker.

And it doesn't matter how well off gaming companies are in terms of profits, people work and expect to be paid for their time and creativity. It's fair.

Nobody ever argued different. The argument was that all downloading does not equal lost sales, and that there are legitimate uses of the downloaded material that do not equate to theft, quite the opposite, that they actually encourage sales.

If one doesn't like the price, don't buy it. Eventually something will change if enough people agree with you. Most commercial sales will self-regulate price and quality if given the chance.

And again, nobody said "Oh, the price is too high, so it's OK to download a copy of a book you didn't pay for." The argument was that loss figured are exaggerated, and those exaggerated figures are used to justify increased price in books.

However...

What kinda irks me is the 'white republican' crack. Unnecessary, and it detracts from all the good things you have to say. Race, political affiliation, and how persecuted you feel doesn't support or add to your otherwise great post.

I'm a white Republican too, which just goes to show you that race/creed/politics/gender/etc. have no bearing on this.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out how it was a great post, with great arguments when it addressed fantasy arguments that were never posited in this thread.

The "other side" of this debate has purposely continued to ignore the majority of the debate, and made arguments in favor of their position on a subject that never came up.

Nobody said stealing is OK. Nobody said that big companies deserve to be stolen from, because they have lots of money. Nobody said that it's OK to steal, because other people are doing so.

So, since I keep getting accused of posting the same thing over and over, and, mysteriously, those on the other side of the debate still can't comprehend what I'm saying, let's try this again:

1> All downloading is not theft.
2> Theft is double plus ungood. We agree on this.
3> Downloading a copy of a book to preview and then deleting it is not theft. It is the equivalent of borrowing the book, or perusing it in the store. Nobody loses, nobody gains.
4> Downloading a copy of a book, keeping said copy of that book, and purchasing the book is not theft. The purchase was made.
5> Some people steal by downloading books. This is not being argued against. On the other hand, some people (dare I say "many" people?) download, and then BASED ON THAT DOWNLOAD make purchase that otherwise wouldn't have been made. *I* do this, yet it keeps getting argued that this is theft, this is bad, this is wrong, and people who download are thieves who don't purchase the book, and therefore the download hurts the publisher.
6> Downloading a copy of a book that you otherwise would have purchased, keeping that copy, and then not purchasing the book, is theft. This is wrong, no matter what spin you put on it.
7> Downloading a copy of a book that you would NOT have otherwise purchased, and keeping that copy is theft - but it doesn't equate to a lost sale, because the sale never would have happened. This was summarized by someone else when they said that, for many, the option isn't "copy or buy", the option is "copy, or do without". If one doesn't have the means to copy, and wouldn't purchase a book in the first place, how could this be a lost sale? I'm not justifying the behavior, I'm making a point, and asking a question. I'm not saying it's acceptable.

I'm sure other points have been made that continue to get ignored, but this is tiring.

I'm out. My gamestore just called, and my Combat Pad and some other books are in, and I've got to go purchase them.

See ya'll in another thread.

If the owner gives you permission to copy and distribute their work freely it is not theft. They have the copyright and hence can grant the right to copy. Baen Books allows this and you can download all the Baen Books you want. As far as I know Paizo, to pick an example, does not give you permission and to copy their work illegally would hence by piracy.

OK, we can agree on that. But, the website you posted (MPAA) is not the copyright holder, and as such, can not give you permission to make an archival copy.

And as for your quotation of the law. If you back up your archival copy of a physical book you are in fact making 2 copies, not one. You have the original. The archival copy and then the backup of the archival.

Uhh, no? You're defining the original copy as the archival copy. Wrong. The copy I purchased is what I use. The archival copy is the one I store in the event that my use-copy gets destroyed - not to mention that *I* only made 1 copy. I didn't make the original copy.

It is specifically addressing material that is of electric origin and I have already acknowledged I was wrong in regards to the law in this regards.

It explicitly says that there is no other provision in the Copyright Act for any other type of medium, which is directly addressing material that is not of electronic origin. It's pretty clear - you're allowed to make an archival copy of a computer program, and nothing else.

Anyhoooo...I'm done. I'm fine with where I stand, and at the end of the day, I know that my behavior in regards to copyrighted material benefits the copyright holder. The publisher makes MORE money off of me due to how I utilize their work, than if I couldn't. Were I to explicitly follow the letter of the law (and the moral advice of some here on this forum), it would financially harm those publishers. Who benefits from that, praytell?

Bad laws should not be followed, but I also know the consequences of my actions could mean that I face penalties for my behaviour. So be it. I didn't do anything wrong. Nominally illegal, perhaps, but not wrong.

I must have missed this one...

The arguments for stealing have herein been defended by the following suppositions:

Everyone is doing it.

No, nobody made the argument that it's OK to do so, because everyone is doing it.

No one gets hurt.

Again, nobody made this argument. Quite the contrary. I'm quite sure that there is harm done by the virtual theft. What I (and others) have said that not all downloading is virtual theft.

You don't know me.

??? What?!

They deserve what they get.

When was this argument ever made?

Do you read a different website than the one we read out here in reality? Maybe there's some kind of crazy-nuts filter on your web browser?

If you buy a physical copy of a book you are legally free to loan or sell your copy provided it has its front cover (I don't think this rule about the cover applies to antique books). I knew this already but its nice to have your knowledge reinforced.

Where I was wrong, and I freely admit it, was with electronic books. The law does not allow you to share electronic media.

And this is ridiculous, is it not? If you deal with honest people, they won't steal your print book. If you deal with honest people, they won't make a copy of a digital work that they don't have the intent of paying for.

The reason the rules are different for the digital medium is that it's easier to violate copyright, so it's treated different. If you could feed a book into a machine at Kinko's, and get it duplicated quickly for a nominal fee, then the rules for loaning out a book would likely be on par with the rules for loaning out an electronic file.

If you buy a movie (or rent) you are free to share it with friends and family. You are not free however to show it to large gatherings outside of a home (say a church basement) without obtaining permission.

Ah, based on the MPAA link you posted, you are "probably not" (their quote, not mine) violating copyright by exhibiting it to family/friends in your home. But, are you allowed to loan out the copy you bought/rented?

I assume the same rules cover CDs as DVDs though I could find no actual evidence. Record labels have attempted to make it illegal to copy your own property but it doesn't seem to me that they have been %100 percent successful in court and I believe the general rule of thumb is that you are allowed 1 archival copy of anything you own.

In your opinion, does this extend to physical books, and if not, why not? Am I allowed a PDF archival copy? If I'm allowed an archival copy of a CD/DVD, why not a book? Following that path, if I am allowed an archival copy of the book, what's the difference between downloading one someone else made, and making my own? If the end result is the same...

Additionally, if you want to get to the legal nitty-gritty of things:

Can I backup my computer software?

Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
you are the legal owner of the copy; and
any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.
You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

Regardless of what the recording industry, or movie industry (or anyone else, for that matter) says on the subject, the federal government says that the only thing you can make an archival copy of is computer software, and that's only if special conditions prohibiting the archival copy haven't been put in place by the terms of sale/license agreement of said computer software.

Now we're onto an enforcement issue. The above industries have chosen not to enforce certain aspects of copyright law, likely because their fear a backlash from the general populace. Were they to attempt to strictly enforce written law, they run the chance of being challenged in court, which runs the chance of other enforcement activities currently taking place being challenged. If the challenge is successful, than they're worse off than before. If they thought they could get away with full enforcement, they'd do it. These companies aren't altruistic. The bottom line is, it's more profitable to let certain transgressions slide.

Lawyers that pontificate on the issue, the ones I read, are pretty uniform in stating that the intent to buy a copy in the future does not grant one the right to illegally download a copy of a book. No more so than the intent to buy anything allows you to steal an additional copy of it before hand.

I didn't say that I had the right to do it. I said that the download of a copy for preview, which is either deleted, or a copy is purchased, is NOT theft, and that equating it theft of a physical copy is ludicrous.

You who want to steal other people's property without permission will continue to do so. And you will convince yourself that you are in the right. Feel free to believe what you want. Legally however you are in the wrong. And realize that those of us who are opposed to both law-breaking and stealing are ethically going to disagree with you.

If I steal with permission, is it still theft?

If you're truly opposed to law-breaking, you need to go delete any archival copies of music, movies, books, etc. The quote I posted above is from the U.S. Government - it's the law. You need to abide by it.

Finally, once again, just because the download of a copyrighted work is against the law, that doesn't mean it's theft. Certain criteria MUST be met before it's truly theft.

Edited to fix broken quote tag.
Edited to fix another one.
Aaaaaand...edited first paragraph for clarification.

Why do internet pirates go on and on and on and on ad nauseum with little semantics arguments? Are they trying to reinforce their justifications to themselves?

Jee whiz, what a tedious bunch of drek.

Why do people who can't present any kind of argument resort to name-calling and try to paint their opponent in a negative light?

Dear Brian Harris:

Hey mate. I see that you're fairly new to the Paizo messageboards. Welcome. There are a lot of people who post here on a lot of different topics. One might even call what we have here a community. There aren't any moderators; we mostly self-police. That means that people don't try to upset everyone by making a point, even a good one, with many, many caustic messages that turn into white noise because there are so damned many of them. Seriously, give it a rest. You made your point. Chillout. And Fakey, please stop poking him with your pointy stick. You're better than that.

El Skootro

Hrmm...

Let's see - I buy Paizo products at my local game shop, and I'm a member here...and I'm currently posting on this topic.

You can elect to pass this thread up...

This one is ripe for the Flawed Argument Hall of Fame. The debate is over the wrongness of pirating stuff. The assertion is that when someone steals information, they shouldn't If they want a book or IP, they should pay for it like everyone else.

Corrolary to that is that lost sales from piracy may be passed on to legitimate customers because companies have to make money.

Actually, the debate was originally about the exaggeration of lost sales, but ya'll keep trying to change it.

No one said all theft leads to a loss of a sale - the belief that stealing is wrong does not require that position. It hasn't been insiuated. The statement that theft equals lost sales was made, and is pretty accurate. After all, someone wanted the amterial bad enough to steal it.

But you're arguing that the mere downloading of a PDF is theft - it's not.

You, by denying there's any such component, assume that every stolen file goes to a person that would never buy the product anyway. Well, sure. because they are the type of person to steal it. But it's still a lost sale. A gaming group that doesn't purchase stuff still games. That means they aren't buying the stuff they game with. Lost sale.

I didn't deny anything of the sort, and I didn't assume that there was no outright theft. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

You're demanding facts, but you don't have any. Offer me evidence that says '83% of downloaded files and books would never have been purchased anyway, and the other 17% are always deleted and replaced with purchase copies.' You don't have the same data you are demanding. I recommend you find a more tenable position and let the man make is point.

Wow, your comprehension is AMAZING. The high-and-mighty brigade is making claims like they have some kind of data to back them up - "most downloads = theft", etc. The fact is, you can't back those claims up, and that's why I haven't claimed or insinuated any kind of numbers - because I don't have any such data. I said the claims of loss are exaggerated, and I'm proof of that.

So are my children allowed to listen to it in the car?

Do you want my opinion, or the opinion of the music industry? Some research on Google will find you published statements and opinion from industry executives on that very matter. My opinion is likely to be the more charitable one...

Ultimately, certain actions are unenforceable - or, at least, the enforcement of such proves to be more costly than simply allowing the infringement to continue.

And, let's face it - would you actually buy a seperate copy for you, your wife, and your two children to listen to simultaneously?

So, if I buy a movie I can't invite a friend over to watch it?

You've never read the FBI warning at the beginning of a movie, have you?

Technically, inviting a friend over to watch the movie you've purchased is public exhibition of that movie, and it's prohibited. You've purchased the movie for your own private use, and nobody else's.

Video rental places are exempt from the FBI warning, because they pay upwards of $100-$500 per copy of the movie they rent out.

And if I buy a cd, I have to buy another cd before I can let my brother listen to it?

Yup. Time to brush up on copyright law. You purchased a CD for personal consumption. You don't own the music, you own a license for the personal use of that music. You're not allowed to distribute that music in any way (i.e. loaning the CD out), nor are you allowed to broadcast it to the public (and we're not just talking radio transmission).

And if I buy a video game, not allowed to share that experience either?

Depends on the game and the license agreement.

Didn't know that. You convinced me, no more loaning books to my family and friends.

I'm not the one who makes up the retarded rules that do nobody any kind of good.

You just illustrated the absurdities of a lot of copyright law, and other restrictions on IP.

Note that I'm not endorsing theft - or, at least, my definition of theft. I will not agree that downloading a copy of something in order to preview it prior to purchase, and then either deleting that copy, or purchasing a legitimate copy, is theft. It flat is NOT theft. It is NO different than looking at the book in the store, borrowing a friend's copy, using the software on someone else's computer, etc. If I download something and keep it without paying for it, when I otherwise would have purchased it, then it's theft. I don't do that.

Now that I have a moment let me elucidate by offering a counter example.

If you "borrow" a car from a car dealership because you plan on paying them for it next year when you have the money, where is there any kind of loss for the car dealer?

Not even close to the same thing, and you know it.

As for the library... the library owns the book. I have said this in another thread but I will repeat it. If you buy a book you are free to loan it to anyone you want. You can even sell that copy to anyone you want. You are not free to take it to Kinkos and make copies for all your friends.

Not really. The same rules that apply to software, music and movies apply to books - books just aren't enforced, because, for the most part, copying a book isn't as quick and easy as copying software, music or movies.

Public libraries get special dispensations from the government (and are, for the most part, government entities).

If you possess a digital copy you are free to pass around exactly one copy of that to your friends. You are not free to distribute it freely to all and sundry.

Oh, so wrong.

If you possess a "lawfully" acquired digital copy of any copyrighted material, you are NOT free to pass exactly any copies around to anyone.

The first is sharing. The second is publishing.

Nah. The first is piracy/theft. The second is piracy/theft on a larger scale.

I don't have anything stolen whatsoever on my computer.

Stolen is a poor word to describe it.

If you've ever saved any bit of text from a website, or ever saved a picture that you like that didn't explicitly have a release granting you use of it, you've violated someone's copyright.

Copyright doesn't have to be declared for material to be copyrighted. If you didn't produce the item, you have no right to it.

I guarantee you that ya'll have done something like the above.

I would advise you not to make stupid bets. You'll keep your money longer that way.

Oh, I'm quite confident that I'd end up earning a pretty penny from you holier-than-thou types...

I never said that the behavior that you were suggesting doesn't happen. I said that your stated examples were the exceptions. There are always exceptions, however the majority of people downloading illegally aren't of that grouping.

I also never stated that EVERY illegal download was a negative impact for the company stolen from. Just that, once again, the majority are.

And I'm stating that unless you've got actual real data to back up your claim, you're talking out of your sphincter (or at least pulling your "facts" from that general region.

I would love to hear your arguement in court to a judge. Maybe you should turn yourself in and fight this through the system to change the "unfair" laws since you are so passionate about it.

No need. I'm not breaking a law.

I am finished with this, I am no longer going to argue with a thief who thinks his cause is noble and decides to wear blinders to the problems with his actions.

I haven't stolen anything. I've paid for every book I have. Any PDF I have is a PDF of a book I own.

You can consider yourself the "winner" in this arguement but we both know that if your computer were suddenly confiscated by authorities you would be fearing for your freedom.

Not bloody likely. Nobody is going to seize anything of mine, and if anyone has an issue with a digital copy of something on my computer, I can instantly show them the physical copy.

You know what's real funny, though, since we're making sweeping statements with no facts to back them up - I'd bet hard cash that each and every one of you in this thread that has waxed on about how sinless you are has "stolen" material in there possession - be it music, movies, books, whatever - you've all saved a copy of something to your machine, and you justify it however you want.

It's funny - let he who is without sin cast the first stone doesn't mean go buy a load of gravel and start chucking. None of ya'll are qualified for that.

No.

and

No.

Wrong.

and

Wrong.

Copyright Infringement is the only appropriate term

Bingo.

That is a common misunderstanding. Open source software s not always free. Red hat Linux is an example. In fact Mac OS X is based on open source software. In both cases those companies had limits on what they could and could not change in the code base.

I'm not using the word free. Open doesn't mean free. I know this. I never said that open meant free.

Open means open - as in, UNRESTRICTED.

Creative commons has a wide variety of usage restrictions in its licensing. You can set them from wide open with attribution only down to specific restrictions on use.

Yes, but Creative Commons Licese != Open License. It's similar, but it's not an open license. It's retricting things in a manner that is, by definition, closed - or slightly ajar.

So I should cancel my subscriptions to Paizo's products and just download the PDFs off of some website for free? How doesn't that hurt Paizo?

In that specific example, sure, that hurt's Paizo's bottom line, and that would be wrong.

But, in the specific examples we've cited (or used as an analogy), no, Paizo would not be harmed.

They just lost $40 a month in revenue from me because I can get it for free elsewhere. Others do the same. Profits drop.

Not neccessarily. The only time you get to count it as a loss is when the "free" download of the digital copy directly impacted the purchase. If the purchase never would have been made, it's not a lost sale. If the download prompted the purchase, then the download WAS A GOOD THING.

I don't need to prove that this or anything else would happen. The fact is that it could. Just like a previous poster could delete a download immediately after getting it.

And nobody is disputing that it could happen. In fact, we fully agree that it could happen. On the other hand, you're insisting that the behaviour that we've described DOESN'T happen, and you're insinuating that ALL downloads are negatively impacting the bottom line. It's not true.

Where did anyone ever post that EVERY illegal download lead to loss of sale? I didn't. But the majority of them do.

A> Nobody said that, but it's been insinuated - both here, and in statements made by those claiming the loss.

B> The majority of them do? Cite data to back it up, or stop making such claims. You can NOT prove that it is happening, any more than I can disprove it. If you're going to debate my opinion, do so. Stop making spurious, specious claims.

Yeah, I'm sure lots of people go downloading thing and immediately deleting it. I just wanted to give my PC and internet connection a workout....make sure it could do it and all.

Do you have any evidence that they don't do this? Do you have any statistics on who does this?

I'm not asking your opinion on whether or not it happens, I'm asking your opinion on WHEN it happens. Don't change the subject.

So great! You are the exception. There is always a small percentage that is. You may not be keeping the downloads for long but most people who do this type of stuff are.

Again, any data to back this up?

Read reviews, peruse a book in the store, play the trial version.

Reviews are inadequate. I like making up my own mind, not making someone else's opinion my own. Perusing a book in a store? Yeah, you know, I don't like the idea of someone messing with my stuff before I buy it. Most gamestore owners get a little tired of the mooches who stand/sit there for hours, reading a book, but not buying.

All legal methods for checking something out. Stealing something is not a legal method of trying something out no matter how you warp morality.

The dictionary definition of theft is incompatible with the realities of a digital world. I'm not stealing anything. To use your own words, I'm perusing a virtual book (the PDF) in the virtual shopkeeper's virtual store. By deleting the book, I'm putting it back on the shelf. Nothing has been taken from the owner, the owner has lost no money. Theft has not been committed.

Almost every country agrees that downloading pirated stuff is illegal. Apparently you know better.

Almost every country, huh? Yep, I'm quite sure that the vast majority of Africa has any sort of laws related to this on their books. If we want to talk about developed/industrial countries, but even then, there's very large, notable exceptions - Russia (and lots more of the former ComBloc), China, etc. But, now we're arguing semantics, and you're once again trying to stray from the subject at hand.

Likewise, if I don't have money to buy that book I want, I would like to think I have the patience and decency to either save up for it or, if I am feeling impatient, go to the local library.

So, please, elucidate: If you download the book with the intent to buy when you have the money, and then you buy when you have the money, where is there ANY kind of loss for the publisher?

Isn't this the equivalent of borrowing the book from the library until you have the money to buy your own?

Conversely, if you utilize a library book and never purchase one for yourself, aren't you, in essence, stealing from the publisher, because you're getting the benefit of ownership, without actually purchasing it?

For digital copies of a book, it essentially costs you nothing to make another copy. If I steal an electronic copy and immediately delete it, I gain nothing, but you lose nothing either. You'll probably never even know I did it.

Except that you now have a copy of something that you won't be paying for which means that the people or person who wrote, edited, printed, and illustrated the book have all lost that copy as a source of revenue.

Uhhhh, no? Maybe I need to re-read what CNB wrote, but I'm pretty sure he said that he deleted it. Let me check. OK, yup, he did. Let me go make that part bold. OK, done.

Then you tell your friends about it. Snowball. If 1,000 people or 10,000 download a book instead of buy it that can put a real strain on a business trying to make some money on a book.

Rationalize all you want. You are still doing a wrongful and ignorant act and possibly hurting a company and it's employees.

You're rationalizing your opinion on this matter. How do you know what he's going to do? If 1,000 people, or 10,000 people, or 100,000 people download the book, you don't know one bit how many of those represent a lost sale. Conversely, you don't know how many of them represent a sale that otherwise wouldn't have happened, since they didn't know about the book or it's contents prior to said download.

I myself am living proof that the free and unrestricted access to music equates to MORE sales for the music industry. I regularly download stuff from artists that have been recommended to me, and then go out and buy their CD. If I don't buy their CD, I chuck the download.

Additionally, I got my hands on several PDFs for the old RPG "Morrow Project". Due solely to my ability to download these PDFs and evaluate them, I'm now in the process of purchasing (and already have purchased) original print versions of this great game. There's rumor that there's a new version going to be seeing print soon, and, again, due solely to my "evil black sin" of downloading the PDFs, I'm going to buy the new version, when/if it his the stands.

But, you know, piracy = theft, loss of sales, and is a bad thing could never help a publisher, only harm it.

Dickens may have been a great writer but that doesn't make him a voice of morality. If people had made tons of illegal copies of his works and he died penniless, he would have changed his thoughts on the law.

Likewise, your posts here don't make you a voice of morality. Who are you to dictate my morals?

Well, I see the old switcheroo is still popular.

Hey, I just continued your game. :\

Your first point is unsupported. You want to assail WotC for exaggerating losses, but that's an assumption. Unless you have the secret video tape of WotC lawyers padding the effect of piracy.

But you know you can't support that position with no facts, so the rest of your post becomes about faux lost sales and music and unsupported product.

And just like I can't support my position with facts, WotC (or anyone else) can't support their position that digital "theft" = lost sales. It's all anecdotal.

Whatever. I'm not on some pointless crusade to stop piracy. Can't be done. There's not enough integrity among gamers to maintain that position without somehow being thought of as the bad guy. But I won't rationalize the act and play some 'down with corporations' card. As if we have some sort of Constitutional right to RPG books and music that shouldn't be hampered by concepts such as people getting paid what they're worth and people paying for what they have.

So, can you do me a favor, and point out where I said I'm anti-corporate, or encouraging outright theft of IP? I own at least 75 print-versions of WotC books. Do I need to take a picture of my bookshelf?

I make $32k a year supporting my family. Sometimes I have to choose not to buy a book until later. I suppose since that's not really a sale, it would be ok to teach my kids that the company that wrote, marketed and illustrated the book aren't entitled to whatever price they ask for it. I'll just accuse them of having enough money already (whatever that means), and claim that since we can't afford the book anyway,we might as well steal it.

That's not what I said, and, may I compliment you on your beautiful strawman. How long did it take you to build it?

If you want to go back and actually read what I wrote, and address that, cool. If you want to twist my words, well, feel free.

Oh, come to think of it. I guess all stealing is a nonsale. I'm getting my ski mask and headed to the bank.

Is straw on sale somewhere, and I never got notified?

In my "Little Billy" analogy, I didn't say that what he did was right - I said that what he did didn't constitute a lost-sale, as he wasn't in the position to purchase the physical merchandise in the first place.

There's a big difference between the "theft" of virtual material and the theft of tangible material. If I snag a pirated copy of something to evaluate, decide I don't want it, and then chuck it, there's nothing lost, nothing gained, by either myself or the IP-owner. If I travel to the store, listen to the demo CD, and don't buy it, I've accomplished the exact same thing.

Shoplifting a physical CD is much different. Equating it to the digital evaluation I just described is ludicrous.

It is definitely open. Open source does not mean that it is free. The open source movement is about allowing others to use your intellectual property in the production of their own products without having to give over a share of the profits. Open source and creative commons licenses often contain clauses that restrict the use of IP - there is nothing odd about that.

The Open Source Movement is about unrestricted access and use, without someone curtailing what can and can't be done with it.

If you want to restrict how someone uses something, don't call it "Open", because it's not.

Stealing is stealing no matter how much you rationalize it. Using a trial version of software to test software is OK, downloading a pirated full-version of Campaign Cartographer to "test it" isn't.

In your mind, perhaps. I don't know about you, but I don't buy software that I can't test first. If the developer doesn't release an unrestricted trial version, and I can't test it in another manner, it doesn't get purchased.

That said, would the developer of Campaign Cartographer rather I *NOT* purchase a copy? I'm not the one distributing the pirated software, you know...

Sure lil' Bobby's MP3 player doesn't demonstrate an accurate accounting of lost sales because Bobby has no real income, but how many people did Bobby point towards the site he got his music? How many times did he send some of his stuff to other kids in school to listen to and add to their MP3 players? Now you might argue that Lil' Bobby wouldn't do that but why not? It's against his principles? He just stole a music download, so I would question his moral standing in the matter.

This smacks of the same logic of suing firearms manufacturers because criminals killed someone with a gun...

People feel that they should have anything they want and it is leading to an overall sense of entitlement in the general populous.

Not really. People, in general, like the idea of trying before they buy. If you couldn't test drive a car, would you buy it? The software industry and anyone wishing to do business in the new digital market needs to get with the program.

Certain things are Black and White, it's the people of grey moral character who try to blur the lines.

There's no black and white. Everything (and everyone) is grey.

ETA: Quote tags apparently don't work quite right (or I'm using them wrong...)
ETA, again: Fixed it.

Brian E. Harris wrote:

If Little Bobby is 13, he was never in a position to purchase that music legitimately in the first place.

I going to form a ninja clan of 13 year old shoplifters.

Hohohoho!

(I've edited my post slightly, for clarification.)

I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.

I can play this game too!

So, two wrongs make a right? It's OK for them to falsify and exaggerate losses because, hey, they're taking losses?

Now that we're on the subject...

Digital "theft" is not a black and white arena, my friend. Sure, on one hand, you can say "you didn't pay for that, it's theft."

Fine, dandy.

But, counting 100% of virtual theft as a lost sale is dishonest. Look at the music industry. The RIAA is going after kids in their early teens (or their parents), claiming Little Bobby's MP3 collection represents tens of thousands of dollars of lost sales. If Little Bobby is an average 13-year-old, he was likely never in a position to purchase that music legitimately in the first place.

Theft? Sure. Lost sale? Not in the slightest.

If the purchase would have never been made, then the theft isn't a loss. Is it still theft? Sure, fine.

There's a benefit to digital piracy, though, and that's the try-before-you-buy aspect. I personally have bought countless CDs because I've been able to download MP3s in an unrestricted environment, decided I liked the music, and purchased the CD. I've purchased software in the same manner.

Finally, what about books that aren't in print anymore, and aren't readily available?

I've got a ton of old Battletech stuff on my bookshelf, and with the exception of some stuff on eBay, the print stuff just isn't out there in any force. If I can't buy a print copy of something I'm missing, but want to read the old stuff, am I still "stealing" when I download a copy of that book that's been out of print for 15 years?

If I steal a tangible object that is for sale, I directly affect someone's profit/loss. If I obtain a virtual copy of an object that is not available, I don't.

I like books.

Books that fit on a shelf. That I can read in the bathroom. That I can crack open at the dinner table. That I can read on an airplane without worrying that my laptop isn't plugged in or that it might cause the plane to crash. That won't be inaccessible if my roommate spills a soda on it.

I want to use my books at the table-top. I want to stick sticky-notes in them and draw on them and makes notes in the margins with pencil and have a big crack in the spine so that it always opens to "Drow".

I love my books, and I do not foresee ever, EVER going to PDF for my gaming needs.

Oh, by no means would I *EVER* trade my books for a PDF, but I do find them handy.

That said, they're a secondary resource. My use of the PDF version of the book is for something to read at work during downtime, and for a quick "CTRL-F" search of the document for something, so that I can then figure out where it is, and pull the real book off the shelf.

If I can't find the PDFs, it's not a huge deal. If I can find them, sweet! If the original copyright holder wants to charge a nominal fee for them (say 10%-20% of the cost of the print version), I'll gladly pay it, but I'm not going to buy a $39.95 print book, and then pay $39.95 for a PDF copy of it. I'll scan it and OCR it myself, if I have to.

It's funny, though - if books were only in PDF form, I'd have binders full of printed PDFs (God forbid the RPG industry ever teams up with the wood products industry in some kind of cross-promotional marketing!).

I think that all of the books we purchase today should have a business-card CD inside containing a PDF of the book, and other supplemental material.

Soooo...

The 4th Edition OPEN Gaming License...isn't?

There's a shocker.

Hrmm.

OK, well, hopefully it wasn't deleted for some violation or something, and I'll post it again.

Was kinda curious about a couple things regarding these PDFs, and the general attitude about them.

First off, does WotC sell PDFs of their books, and if so, where does one buy these?

Next, what's your opinion of fair use, in relation to the books you own?

I'll freely admit that I don't see an issue with me downloading a PDF of a book that I've bought - and virtually all of them were purchased new, not used.

I see some decrying the downloading of a PDF for any reason, but the same people suggest borrowing a copy, or paging through a store copy to determine if you want to purchase the book. How is this any different than downloading a PDF to peruse, and, if deciding not to buy it, chucking that PDF?

I don't have an issue paying a nominal fee for an official PDF (usually going to be a LOT better quality than some of the crap out there), but, like I said, if I own the print copy of the book, I don't see my download of the PDF version as any kind of theft - it's simply an alternative way for me to utilize what I've already payed for, much like making MP3s of my legally purchased CDs, so that I can listen to them on my MP3 player, or condense several CDs to one, so that I can put more music in my car, without having to change them out all the time.

Did my post get deleted? Whyfor?

So, I have a couple questions here, and I guess I need some background information.

Does WotC offer their books in PDF form? If so, where does one purchase them?

What's the general interpretation of fair use around here?

Am I seen to be doing something wrong if I go online and download a PDF version of a book I already own, and if so, why?

On another note, I see some here that are decrying the downloading of PDF versions of D&D books, but advocate the borrowing of the book, or viewing of a book at a retail location.

How is this any different than downloading the PDF, previewing the book, and if deciding not to buy it, chucking the PDF?

(Nevermind the fact that a bunch of tards putting their grubby mitts all over the books on the shelf, cracking the spines, wrinking the pages, etc. being the main reason I don't buy anything but newly arrived books from my FLGS, and order them online.)

Well now, 1249 posts, and I finally made it through all of them!

Let me first answer the main question at hand: I'm a 3.0/3.5 player, and I'm staying that way. I'd like Paizo to stick with the 3.5 ruleset, rather than go 4E. If the Pathfinder stuff goes 4E, I'll finish buying the stuff that's 3.5, but that'll be it.

As far as publishing an "alternate" ruleset goes, I'd love to see it, provided it stays as close to 3.5 as possible. This does seem to be the idea that the Paizo folks have, from their comments.

To the folks who say "well, the SRD is there, and can't be revoked, so why bother putting out a ruleset?", one must remember that the SRD doesn't contain character creation or character advancement rules.

Ongoing publication and sale of such is required, if we have any hope of keeping 3.5 alive. Further, altering/modifying the rules significantly defeats the purpose of publishing such a ruleset - if the goal was a new game, we'd buy 4E, right? The goal here is to keep a ruleset in print that is as fully compatible with published 3.5 material as possible.

It's my plan to buy a couple extra 3.5 PHBs in the next month or two, to keep on the shelf for new players that we introduce to the game, but I'd much rather put that money towards a Paizo version of the same.

On that note, what about the possibility of a "team-up" with other OGL publishers? Perhaps a "co-written" d20-ish PHB that any or all of you can print/re-print as needed? I can't imagine that the development costs of such a book would be that high, as the majority of the information is in the SRD, and as such, most would be copied verbatim.

Now, on to my obligatory opining of why I won't be going 4E:

As of a count a couple days ago, there are 62 WotC 3E/3.5 books on my shelf (not counting a couple extra copies of 3E and 3.5 PHBs). There's a pretty sizable number of 3rd-Party 3E/3.5 OGL books on the shelf, as well.

I don't know anything about 4E, save what's been published, but it's pretty insulting to be told that I'm essentially an idiot for deciding not to "upgrade" to 4E before I know everything about it. I don't need to know a thing about the game to know that I have zero interest in dumping over $100 on another set of core books, and, over the next few years, dumping much more than that on a repackaged version of the material that I already have. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that it's simply a matter of time before there will be a 4E version of the various "Races of <Fill In Blank>", "Complete <Fill In Blank>" or "<Fill In Blank> Campaign Setting".

I've got a lot of that now, and instead of buying it all over again, I can turn my wallet towards buying the stuff that I don't have, for the version of the game that I already own.

Further, I'll freely admit that I'm still a little bent over the shafting we got with 3.5 - a new set of core books of errata pushed on us a little more than three years after the initial release. 3E was supposed to fix all the problems in 2E. 3.5 was supposed to polish 3E, and fix the few problems that it had. The reason for 4E is that 3E/3.5 was inherently flawed, as it relied too much on 2E and previous versions, and that it's unfixable (but that sure didn't stop them from selling us 3.5, or all the various sourcebooks/splatbooks/updates, right up until the last minute, did it?).

Screw that. To my mind, Sean K Reynolds explained it best in his "Donut Cores and Forgotten Rums" essay. As much as WotC wants you to believe they're being altruistic about 4E, it's 100% about the money.

If I wanted to click my mouse, watch flashy-shiny on my computer screen, and play mindless, plotless hacky-slashy, I'd go play a market-leading MMORPG.

If I wanted to play miniatures, I'd go play a market-leading miniatures game.

WotC/Hasbro doesn't have either of those, and as much as they're trying, they can't turn D&D into one.