Waitaminnit. What if the new license specifically removed that clause and said something to the effect of "by using this license, you agree that all earlier licenses are null and void" or similar? Aren't you, by using the new license, agreeing to it? Wouldn't that be a valid revision to the new license, which could then close off content?
That would not change the fact that the other material is still Open according to other versions of the license. Thus, the material is still Open, forever... even if you've painted yourself into a corner that prevents you from using it.
My "flaved analogy" means that the deal earlier accepted was that the cola is given out for free, anyone who would try to pull that joke on me about paying the next day would at best be laughed in the face, or if I am in a bad mood and the guy doesn't stop then the person may get a punch in the face instead.
superseding and altering terms like that would in most cases never work and you can just ignore anything that tries b*llshit you like that (unless a government does such a stuff, sadly they have the power to do silly all the time, stupidity exists everywhere, no matter what nation we talk about)
Internets toughguy!
And I would argue that, in the end, the methods used are immaterial - in the end, utilizing both methods, I have a digital copy of the book.Given that nobody has lost any tangible item whatsoever, how do you reconcile that (per my earlier statement that one owns a physical copy of the book) that PDF A is good, but identical PDF B is bad?
Do you see the grey area here?
Not really, no. The issue in this case isn't about you obtaining the material. The real problem is someone without the right to distribute it has distributed it and you helped it happen (in the theoretical case of receiving copyrighted works from someone without the right to distribute it).
It's an even more direct involvement, I'd say, that buying stolen goods because the act of giving the material to you is the primary illegal activity and you are knowingly participating. By comparison, with the sale of stolen goods, the primary crime has already been committed elsewhere without your involvement and you may not even know the item was stolen when you are buying it.So, no, I don't see the gray area.
It's also a flawed analogy since peppers are food and thus a necessity, whereas an RPG book is a luxury/entertainment and not a necessity.
It could be adequately argued from a philosophical point of view that some luxury and/or entertainment IS INDEED a necessity. The health of the mind being as/ if not more important than the body, just as we need social contact, physical contact, we need an entertain stimulation, periodically to keep sane. As far as luxury goes, that too is a point of view. Is a car a luxury or a need? A third Mercedes Benz in the driveway is. But one car that allows a person to reliably commute to work, stores, social functions, etc. and back is a need. Thus also gasoline is a NEED for the car…but that is a Master’s thesis for another day.
Mike if you were an author, and this was your source of income would you be ok with it? Those laws are in place to protect people's livelihood to a very large extent.
Protecting livelihood is one thing, protecting the gold lining on the pocket is another thing entirely. Studies showed that when music was free to share via Napster and others, the actual SALES of said CDs and .mp3s had never been higher. Post IRAA rape of civil rights piracy has increased tenfold, and the music industry has lost profits, and instituted further draconian policies that other media forms are adopting, creating a rift between the haves and haves not. Fundamentally whether or not you believe piracy is wrong, there is something horribly wrong when a person buys a CD and doesn’t own any aspect of said CD. Instead the price is a provisional right to use the product on the CD that can be revoked at any time. Meaning if a company wanted their product back you would have to give it, with no recompense.
There is no denying it is wrong. If I buy a product I should own that product fully, including what I do with it. It’s my book, my song, my artwork the moment the money leaves my hands and I get said product in return. Is that the way it is? No. Should it be? Yes. Should we write senators, members of the Supreme Court, corporations, etc. and make this fact known? Hell yes.
Days like this one remind me why EU is a good idea after all, with all those pro-consumer regulations floating around.
I think so as well. But I doubt you will see anything like that in the US where the majority of laws, and policies are made by corporations. The day they take out the clause that a corporation counts as a person in our legal system will be a great day in the history of human rights.
They were never going to make that purchase in the first place and without the "bootleg" they'd, in all likelihood, just go without and lose -or never cultivate- an interest in the product. Those laws don't protect the authors from anything but free, user-generated, advertising and in the meantime nail anyone who can't afford a good defense attorney right to the wall.
This is very true actually. The deeper the pocket the more you can get away with.
When giving out pieces of a product what is the limit?
For example if one of my players want to make a Divine hunter but he don't posses the Ultimate Combat hardbound, giving him a printout of the relevant section of the book is allowed?
If you give out a sentence of that book, it is technically piracy. Thankfully I don’t think Paizo is as petty as other companies.
There is a reason why (at least in Germany) there is an acronym floating around, dubbing the Music And Film Industry Associations as M.A.F.I.A.
Hehe that is all too true.
I'd be ecstatic if people started sharing my work en masse though are you kidding? I even have a public photo album of all the pictures I take from around town. As it is no one wants them even at the reasonable price of free... hence my day job. Were they to start circulating around (even for a profit) I've still suffered no financial injury because I wasn't making any money from my work anyway and only stand to gain recognition. I'd take fame and poverty over obscurity and poverty in a heartbeat.
For crying out loud, if this mentality existed in the stone age we'd still be there since only the guy who first rubbed two sticks together would be allowed to make fire.
As an artist myself I can agree to a point here. I don’t mind people sharing my artwork to get my name out there. But I would be thoroughly pissed off if someone passed my work off as their own. (Which sadly our laws care NOTHING about, unless you have finanical firepower at your disposal)
Paizo didn't lobby congress to change the laws, but culture is the sharing of thought, restricting that sharing hurts society. I support Paizo, I buy their products and am a loyal customer. I do not however hold a negative opinion of those who can or choose not to spend their money here and pirate instead. There is more content to consume in the world than most people can afford to pay for. People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.
Agreed. Restriction of sharing is bad. For example, I fully have every intent of purchasing the Ultimate Equipment book .pdf when it comes out on the 16th. The hardcover is on my wishlist for my birthday this month (the 25th). So bottom line I WILL buy this product. However, if someone showed me the .pdf or loaned me the hardcover to look through I would do so, even if the ACT OF reading it is technically piracy.
For those who are advocating that Paizo should be happy that our PDFs are pirated because it's free advertising, I'd like to point to all the OGL content we make available for free. Our business is built on copyright, yes, but we 100% recognize the value in giving away free stuff.
You make a good point too (which is why this is such a sticky topic). Hell you can have my Master of the Fallen Fortress when you pry it from my cold dead hands, even if it was a free product. ^-^. I love Paizo, I just don’t want to see them degenerate into what the music, film and gaming industries have in terms of it. I also feel like copyright should protect you guys from someone copying your hard work and saying “This is MY GAME SYSTEM!”, but if I buy a product from you, I should be able to use it, resell it, trade it, share it, etc. That’s my two cents on the way it ‘SHOULD’ be. But I fully acknowledge it will probably never be the case.
I am not saying you should be happy people are pirating, I am saying they are not the enemy. When we played 3.5 we had pdfs of every single WotC book. Stormwrack, Completes, etc. We also had a hard copy of each in the gaming group's library. Rather than constantly borrowing books and carting them around, each person in the gaming group having the PDF collection was easier. We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too. With d20pfsrd we do not have to do this anymore, since the players have everything they need there and the DM(usually me) can read the physical book. I do not know if Paizo would avoid releasing rules content to the SRD if they were allowed to, but I would not feel guilty sharing the pdfs with my players if they did not.
My gaming group did this as well. I couldn’t have gotten into 3.5 period if I hadn’t got everything on .pdf later though when I found Arms and Equipment, Deities & Demigods, and a few others, I bought them right then and there when I had the money, as NOTHING will ever replace the feel of the book in your hands. The crisp snap of pages on your fingers, even that ‘new book smell’ will make sure digital never tops the real thing. 3/4ths of the walls in my room can be proof of that. ^-^ So I agree and said by this.
Stealing requires the person it is stolen from to be deprived of it. If you have a Lamborghini and I carjack you, you no longer have it.
If I take a picture of it and produce an exact working duplicate with a 3D printer, I did not steal your car. You still have it. And our technology is headed there. In digital property the supply is infinite. When this applies to physical property there will be no more need or want. Only have
Amen.
What you CAN do is give your friend your MP3s of the music, but erase all copies from your own system while your friend has them. If you burn a CD and give copies to your friend, erase all of your copies and give them the CD as well. THAT is sharing. What you described is copying, and yes that is illegal.
consider it this way. If you have a book, a physical printed book, and you wish to share it with your friend, there is only one copy. You actually physically give that single copy to your friend. SInce you only bought one copy, you now no longer have one for yourself until your friend returns it. Same with with digital media.
Sharing is legal.
Copying is illegal.
Sorry but your wrong. You are still a pirate if you give an .mp3 to a friend and delete off your computer. I know a friend that got burned hard on this. If you burn that CD and it goes into the hands of ANYONE, REGARDLESS if you have the product on your computer or not you are pirating. To turn the phrase here it is legally RAW. Sharing is illegal, copying is illegal, and selling second hand digital media is illegal. The ONLY currently approved use is put CD in and listen to what’s on it. And you can burn it to your computer and listen there, but even then it’s private use. If you want to be dead on the law it is illegal for someone to be able to HEAR you listening to the music as that constitutes an AUDIENCE. Which playing the music for an audience without written consent and approval, is…you guessed it. Illegal.
As a GM I have printed plenty of times the stats of a monster on recycled paper to bring it to my gaming table and after a time throw away the copy. I am not getting younger and CRB+APG+UC+Bestiary+Relevant adventure+the latest hardbound to show it around is the limit of my carrying capacity.
I want to make an encumbrance joke to lighten the mood so badly right now.
I would certainly be disappointed if Lovecraft's, Shakespeare's, Plato's, or whoever's work was not publicly available, but no more so than I'm disappointed that Wizards of the Coast's intellectual properties or the monsters from "Pan's Labyrinth" or the contents of Stephen King's Dark Tower series aren't publicly available. Pathfinder has PLENTY of options inspired by those non-open sources, and had Lovecraft's and the rest's work not been public, it could still inspire us the same way. We'd just have different monsters and themes; the game itself would pretty much be in the same place.
Now, all that said, I'm very very very not okay with IP piracy, for two reasons:
1) It disrespects the content creator and publisher and makes it more difficult for the content creator and publisher to be rewarded for their hard work.
2) It freaks out big businesses who then over-react and make their products less attractive to actual customers (DRM anyone?) while not really impacting the pirates at all.
In short... piracy makes the world suck more for those of us who aren't pirates.
I respect where you are coming from on this, but think about this, while you do have other options for inspiration, but the nature of inspiration has come under attack with laws like ACTA and PIPA, and their ilk. As someone that has their own protected IPs, it comes down to the potential for someone to say “Your creature’s eyes look like this other company’s eyes of their creature.” And so they can sue, and potentially win.
1. This has been argued by others already, but I don’t think of it as disrespect as it actually isn’t taking a chunk out of your overall pay, and they aren’t claiming your work as their own, OR making a profit off your work without any work of their own. (unlike other used products like cars, furniture, etc.)
2. You are so right on this. Things like DRMs only hurt non pirates, and encourage further pirates. But I think there needs to be a way to stop companies from doing such things in the first place. Again petition for the removal of a company’s protection as a legal individual.
Stopping piracy will only be acceptable if it comes along with reasonable IP laws.
It's like setting the speed limit on the highway to 25. It's absurd, and no one is going to respect it.
Your right there as well. But reasonable IP laws won’t come along until an informed and non-biased committee is created, or a committee with equal representation of both sides. You have to take the company out of the full control of the legal process.
|
But reasonable IP laws won’t come along until an informed and non-biased committee is created
That's about the only part of that immense wall of text I can agree with. The rest of it is neither well-informed (it contains several fundamental errors about the legal state of affairs) nor non-biased (it's very obviously espousing the free dissemination of things like PDFs regardless of the desires of the copyright owner).
heh, basically everyone is a pirate then, I know my ex-schools never even bought Windows legit for the school PC-s as example, ofc they wouldn't had the budget for such either to begin with, music is also constantly shared and copied, and also played in schools and such during breaks, I know my ex-professor of Art downloaded art book copies/pdf from Pirate Bay, and at the same time also uploaded her own released image album there too
Interesting mention of the 3d print idea, by now car models can already be used to be included for games, I heard there is already much fuss regarding that in reality and caused sometimes cars be changed/renamed in the game. I wonder how long till people begin to claim copyright to angels, elves, drow, giants, beholders, or demons in RPG.
That's about the only part of that immense wall of text I can agree with. The rest of it is neither well-informed (it contains several fundamental errors about the legal state of affairs) nor non-biased (it's very obviously espousing the free dissemination of things like PDFs irrespective of the rights of the copyright owner).
Well I respect your right to disagree. But I never said I was non-biased. Alot of that is my opinion, even though I have been well informed, and the legal state of affairs is correct. I'm espousing the right of free use, not true copyright infringement or intent of copyright. Even though no analogy will ever be perfect, if I buy a piece of paper, what is on that piece of paper 'should' (read: I am not saying it IS) belong to me. If I want to copy it, trade it, give it away, or resell it as a used product I 'should' be able to. Or more to the point of the injustice it's like buying a car, and being told you can't let anyone else use it, resell it, modify it, trade it for another car, etc.
heh, basically everyone is a pirate then, I know my ex-schools never even bought Windows legit for the school PC-s as example, ofc they wouldn't had the budget for such either to begin with, music is also constantly shared and copied, and also played in schools and such during breaks, I know my ex-professor of Art downloaded art book copies/pdf from Pirate Bay, and at the same time also uploaded her own released image album there too
Your just about right. I was in college to be a teacher and this was actually covered,so that for a teacher to use any outside aid, in a classroom had to provide a written request to the source holder, receive permission, and cease use of source if a time limit is provided. This doesn't occur though, but it's the point. By law if watch a football game, if you ever notice that quick string of words that go along the lines of "no recordings, photos, or desriptions of the game is strictly forbidden, unless permission is given by the NFL, NFLPA, etc?" That means 'technically' watching the game in your living room 'can' be considered piracy if you are showing it to people outside your household, like friends over to watch for example. (It's not inforced but it 'can' be used.) Even talking about the game at work by the water cooler is 'technically' piracy unless you have written proof the NFL said you could do so.
Not really, no. The issue in this case isn't about you obtaining the material. The real problem is someone without the right to distribute it has distributed it and you helped it happen (in the theoretical case of receiving copyrighted works from someone without the right to distribute it).
But, it really is. Because the point we're arguing isn't the other guy distributing the stuff. That's shifting the goalposts.
Further, the thing that you/others need to realize is that the guy distributing it? He's just as "guilty" of infringement as someone downloading it. They're both infringements of copyright.
The act of distribution only matters when attempting to determine damages, and because it's easier for copyright holders to make up big fictitious numbers if they can say "see that guy? He distributed it to hojillions of peoples on eight different world!"
The RIAA/MPAA wouldn't stand a chance in the court of public opinion if they didn't have those giant numbers.
It's an even more direct involvement, I'd say, that buying stolen goods because the act of giving the material to you is the primary illegal activity and you are knowingly participating. By comparison, with the sale of stolen goods, the primary crime has already been committed elsewhere without your involvement and you may not even know the item was stolen when you are buying it.
So, no, I don't see the gray area.
And this is an unfortunately far-too-common weaselly emotional ploy at equating copyright infringement with theft. Worse, it's actually trying to say that copyright infringement is WORSE than theft.
And that's all nonsense, because, again, theft actually deprives someone of something real and tangible. Copyright infringement does not.
If you're going to make the case that copyright infringement is as bad as you say it is, you need to do it without hyperbole and fiction.
Even talking about the game at work by the water cooler is 'technically' piracy unless you have written proof the NFL said you could do so.You're just demonstrating your ignorance of the law again.
And again your not getting it. I know the law, so it is not ignorance. That's the way the law IS WRITTEN, and CAN be enforced. It's just not enforced so much. You legally can not record a game and give it to a friend to watch, or tell him what happened.
It's like here in my home town it's illegal to drive down mainstreet without someone walking 15 feet in front of the car and saying 'car coming'. That's a law on the books, but it's not enforced. However, tick off the wrong cop and I'll bet you if he knows that law, he will write you a ticket for it.
The law is the law.
That means 'technically' watching the game in your living room 'can' be considered piracy if you are showing it to people outside your household, like friends over to watch for example.
And again your not getting it. I know the law, so it is not ignorance. That's the way the law IS WRITTEN, and CAN be enforced. It's just not enforced so much. You legally can not record a game and give it to a friend to watch, or tell him what happened.
This is just inaccurate. There are explicit exemptions to copyright law for recording television and displaying for personal use. Recording a game and inviting people over to watch it is not an infringement, and is well established as being covered under personal use.
Now, recording TV and giving to someone else to take outside your home? I'm pretty sure that's covered under the "time shifting" case law as well. But copying pre-recorded video (VHS/DVD/BD) and distributing? That's illegal and not considered personal use.
And telling people what happened on a broadcasted show? There's simply no prohibition of such behavior, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
The law is the law.
Just not the law you claim it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again your not getting it. I know the law, so it is not ignorance.Even talking about the game at work by the water cooler is 'technically' piracy unless you have written proof the NFL said you could do so.You're just demonstrating your ignorance of the law again.
Well, one of us isn't getting it.
Even without the US constitutional guarantee of free speech, the USA is a signatory to the Berne copyright convention, and this contains explicit allowances for fair use, including public criticism. This is an area where states individual rights are ceded to the federal government, so even if there were local ordnances restricting it they would be void (and, as such, unenforceable).
You probably can't record the game on your DVR, download it to your iPhone, and play that for your friends at work who hadn't watched the game - that goes beyond 'fair use'. But you can certainly discuss it with your friends who have watched the game (including anyone who happened to be in your living room while you were watching the game at home).
There are good arguments to be made against some of the legislation that the film and music industry have pushed through (including the extension of the copyright period). But it doesn't help your case if you argue against them using a strawman argument based on patently false premises - it just makes it easier for anyone who disagrees with you to ignore any valid points that you make.
|
I respect where you are coming from on this, but think about this, while you do have other options for inspiration, but the nature of inspiration has come under attack with laws like ACTA and PIPA, and their ilk. As someone that has their own protected IPs, it comes down to the potential for someone to say “Your creature’s eyes look like this other company’s eyes of their creature.” And so they can sue, and potentially win.
If you were around at the time, that is essentially how GDW went under :(
They had the gall to publish a fantasy game by Gary Gygax that used dices. TSR sued for copyright infringement. After several rounds of legal debates and expenses GDW ceded all right to Dangerous Journeys to TSR in a extra judicial accord but the legal costs and the hassle of the lawsuit has already damaged the small company to the point it folded.Even more (not) funny, the English version of Wikipedia totally gloss over this little detail about why the company folded, you will find it only in the piece about Dangerous Journeys.
Sadly most of the judges are totally unable to recognize the differences between one gaming system and another so the only thing that matter is how good is yout lawyer.
|
|
heh, basically everyone is a pirate then, I know my ex-schools never even bought Windows legit for the school PC-s as example, ofc they wouldn't had the budget for such either to begin with, music is also constantly shared and copied, and also played in schools and such during breaks, I know my ex-professor of Art downloaded art book copies/pdf from Pirate Bay, and at the same time also uploaded her own released image album there too
Interesting mention of the 3d print idea, by now car models can already be used to be included for games, I heard there is already much fuss regarding that in reality and caused sometimes cars be changed/renamed in the game. I wonder how long till people begin to claim copyright to angels, elves, drow, giants, beholders, or demons in RPG.
Do you want a funny one? The Immelmann manoeuvre for flying craft was copyrighted as a emote by one computer company, so if you want to put a flying craft doing a Immelmann in a computer game you have to pay them.
I don't know how that was found acceptable by any court.
|
|
Good point, Chris.
Let's stop getting sidetracked on things like television broadcasts, and get back to the rather more relevant topic of PDFs in general, and PDFs from Paizo in particular.
I'll give you an example or two to pick holes in.
Example 1:
My wife and I occasionally run Pathfinder Society tables, including the Free RPG Day modules. When we do this we try and showcase PFS in the best light, so we try and provide everything we can for new players. In particular we like to supply table tents. The table tents we ourselves use as players contain a picture of the miniature we are using for our character, which is also the picture we print on our character sheets.
For this year's game new players would be using pregenerated characters drawn from the standard Paizo iconic characters. Last year's game was a little different - the characters were all goblins.
Paizo made the character sheets freely available as PDFs, and allow GMs to print as many as needed to distribute to players (the normal rule is to allow a single hardcopy print for personal use).
I ran into a problem, though, when I came to make table tents with the same character image as the one shown on the character sheet. While I was technically capable of extracting the image from the PDF, this part of the content is explicitly excluded from the OGL.
For the 2012 module this isn't a problem - images of all the iconic characters have turned up over the years on the Paizo blog, and Paizo's Community Use policy allows images from the blog to be used (as long as certain conditions are met). But that isn't the case for last year's "We Be Goblins!" - I was only able to find one of the four images used on the pregenerated characters in the module shown on the blog.
Example 2:
The PDFs for the Free RPG Day modules, and for the introductory PFS scenarios, are available from Paizo as free downloads. Those for other PFS scenarios, though, are not free. If my wife wants to run one of the scenarios I've already purchased I can legally lend her the hardcopy I have printed out for my own use, but I'm not allowed to print out a second copy to give to her, let alone give her a copy of the PDF for her to put on her computer or print out her own hardcopy.
Add to this the various laws over the world, which can be quite different, and you never know what is allowed and what is not. So, in the end, better be safe than sorry. Lending a book to someone should be ok in most cases (privately, not for profit). Copying digital files is not. I would be extra careful with downloading a file and giving it to somebody else and deleting your copy - you never know what can happen.
I recall copying some text out of a paizo pdf (about a deity) and sending this as pure text to a player (and good friend of mine) in preparation for a game. This is not ok either and probably illegal. It was the most convenient solution at that time. I think this should be covered by fair use as well, but it is probaly not. Where can you draw the line?
Is making private backup copies of pdfs legal? I do this routinely and make backup copies on an external hard disk.
This perfectly illustrates a major issue with copyright.
I can loan my physical book, but I can't loan my digital file.
This is a big problem.
I recall copying some text out of a paizo pdf (about a deity) and sending this as pure text to a player (and good friend of mine) in preparation for a game. This is not ok either and probably illegal. It was the most convenient solution at that time. I think this should be covered by fair use as well, but it is probaly not. Where can you draw the line?
This is another one of those funky grey areas. Because the file is digital media, the same rules don't necessarily apply.
If the book were a physical book, and you had loaned it to your friend, there's a pretty clear precedent established that he/she would be able to photocopy pages out of the book. Things get wishy-washy when trying to define the limits to that photocopying.
Certainly, they couldn't legally photocopy the entire book. A chapter? Maybe, maybe not. A few pages (say, 3-5)? This would generally be acceptable under the terms of fair use, provided that the copying is for personal use.
But YOU making photocopies and giving them to a friend? This shouldn't be an issue, but it's quite obvious that these photocopies AREN'T for personal use, so, you probably can't do this.
Printing a few pages out of a PDF to give your friend? You probably aren't supposed to do this either.
You certainly can't loan your friend the PDF so that he can print the pages.
Yet again, we have multiple different acts, each resulting in the same net result of the friend having physical reproductions of a few pages of material. One is clear-cut allowed by copyright, one is definitely not, and the others are muddled, but probably not kosher.
It's completely twisted, and it shouldn't be.
|
|
In Italy, you can photocopy up to 20% of a book (discounting the advertising pages, if I recall correctly) but you have to pay a small copyright sum to the SIAE (the Italian Society of Author and Editors).
Little problem, they never ask what book was photocopied, they simply take the money, give a share to the major editors/music firms and so on and keep what was left.
The editor is not associated to the SIAE? They take the money and divide it with the associated editors.
You are a small music author? You pay to be associated to the SIAE but you never see a euro for your works even if they are transmitted by the radio.
You buy a USB storage device, a CD, a DVD? Part of the price go to the SIAE as it is taken for granted that you will be recording something protected by copyright, even if you use it to store the back up files of your doctorate thesis or the pictures taken with your camera.
Beside the big companies that get the lion share of what they take there is little love for the institution. I doubt Paizo as ever seen a cent from them.
There is a similar thing in place in Germany. Every sale of blank media and/or copying machines hs a small sum in it going to the representatives of the artists, as it is assumed that some copies are made of copyrighted material. I think it applies to digital media (blank CDs/DVDs as well as the drives and software) and to photocopiers.
I have no idea how much of this actually ends in the artists hands - probably next to nothing. It is given to the music labels, publishers etc. mostly, I think. If this payment can be seen as a blanket payment for copying is not clear at this point. The GEMA (a society for taking and distributing fees for public music use, be it concerts, radio, or clubs) has several not quite crystal-clear procedures for taking money and distributing it.
There's a similar royalty in the United States on blank media.
Tape cassettes had this, but they're not really prevalent any longer. Blank CDs marketed as "for music use" have this royalty, but CDs marketed for data use do not.
I don't see many "for music use" blank CDs for sale anymore. There was a propaganda campaign going around for a while that was pushing the notion that "music" blanks were of higher quality than "data" blanks. I wouldn't be surprised if this was spread by the various industry organizations.
It intrigues me to no end that such a royalty exists, yet purchase of that media does not exempt one from copyright laws when utilizing said media.
It intrigues me to no end that such a royalty exists, yet purchase of that media does not exempt one from copyright laws when utilizing said media.
If it were even that... Over here, these royalities exist, but still, it is unclear whether these exempt you from copyright laws. Raking cash in first, clearing the legislative paperwork (much) later seems to be the order of the day. But then, with the GEMA, it does not surprise me at all. Their latest move was to up their fees for clubs and discos playing music for next year. These increases can be as high as 1400 per cent in certain cases, effectively pushing these clubs out of business, eating up all their net gain.
And this is an unfortunately far-too-common weaselly emotional ploy at equating copyright infringement with theft. Worse, it's actually trying to say that copyright infringement is WORSE than theft.And that's all nonsense, because, again, theft actually deprives someone of something real and tangible. Copyright infringement does not.
If you're going to make the case that copyright infringement is as bad as you say it is, you need to do it without hyperbole and fiction.
I'm not using any hyperbole at all nor am I saying that copyright infringement is worse than theft. That's a gross misread on your part. What I'm saying is that your involvement is more direct than, for example, buying stolen goods. That doesn't meant it's worse in some absolute sense, just that you are even more involved in the illegal activity because that illegal activity doesn't happen without you to complete the act. Thus no gray area. Trying to claim you're in one is the weaselly aspect of what's going on here because it's attempting to cover the behind of someone who is clearly enabling an illegal activity. In that position, you either need to get out of it if you want to wear the white hat or man up and admit you're wearing the black hat.
What I'm saying is that your involvement is more direct than, for example, buying stolen goods
This is pure nonsense. Would you care to explain exactly how? Downloading a file anonymously isn't any direct involvement in another person's choice to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
just that you are even more involved in the illegal activity because that illegal activity doesn't happen without you to complete the act.
Really? So, the illegally distributed files don't exist until I choose to search for them? They just magically appear once I type a search string into my browser?
Again, pure, unadulterated nonsense. Infringing copyright is illegal. Making a file available for download is an infringement of copyright. It doesn't matter that nobody downloaded the file. There's no need for anyone to "complete the act" because the act is already complete. It's infringed. That's one act. Another person downloading the file? That's a whole new complete and separate act.
Thus no gray area.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Once again: If I own the copyrighted source material under discussion (a physical book) and if I manufacture the file on my own AND I "illegally" download the file, the end result is that I have two identical files. One is "legal", but one is "illegal". If I put them on separate, identical USB sticks, and then put those in an opaque container, shake them up, and display them, I challenge you to tell me which one contains the "illegal" file, and which one contains the "legal" file, you won't be able to do so.
Trying to claim you're in one is the weaselly aspect of what's going on here because it's attempting to cover the behind of someone who is clearly enabling an illegal activity. In that position, you either need to get out of it if you want to wear the white hat or man up and admit you're wearing the black hat.
See, this is what I mean by weaselly. You've already equated the behavior of copyright infringement to theft. You've used weasel words to manipulate the conversation on an emotional level, rather than sticking to rational debate.
Now, because I'm arguing a counterpoint to you, I obviously must be engaged in illegal behavior. Yet another example.
It's incredibly distressing that this is the manner of debate that you (and many, many others) choose to take. You can't debate rationally with irrational arguments such as "copyright infringement is theft" and claims of financial harm with zero credible evidence to support that.
I would ask you if you could conceive of the possibility that one could argue that a particular behavior isn't a bad thing, and not engage in that behavior, but you've made it quite clear that you lack the ability.
|
Paizo has the support of a very loyal fanbase who are going to buy their product period, not because it's "illegal to download it" (it is actually only infringement to upload) but because they like the company and support it.Copyright is literally the right to copy, and when you initiate a download, you are initiating the creation of a copy that may be in violation of copyright law. It's true that content owners rarely pursue litigation against downloaders who don't also upload, but that doesn't mean that downloading is not an infringing act.
FYI, that's in fact not the case in some European countries; in Austria, downloading is as a matter of fact not an infringing act. (Uploading is.)
Does it matter at all that it's a US-sourced work released under US copyright laws?
I'm curious how the various copyright laws overlap, because I know that we in the US aren't the only ones to recognize other country's copyright laws in certain respects when they differ (usually in relation to term).
Does it matter at all that it's a US-sourced work released under US copyright laws?
I'm curious how the various copyright laws overlap, because I know that we in the US aren't the only ones to recognize other country's copyright laws in certain respects when they differ (usually in relation to term).
I´d guess that it doesn´t matter where the material is from. This would make for a very fractured copyright law if it were.
It seems that downloading from filesharing hosts is only legal in Germany if the uploader has had the rights to upload the data in question - which would obviously not be the case with most copyrighted material. It is legal to download a copy of legally published and accessible material for private use (say, a youtube video).
Regarding copying: It is expressly permitted in Germany to make a so-called private copy of protected material for family and close friends - that is what the royalties on blank CDs etc. are for. But it is not allowed if a CD/DVD/whatever has some sort of copy protection. Of course, family and close friends is subject to some interpretation. But I guess if you would buy the CD/DVD/material in question as a gift for that person, then it would be ok to make a copy for them as well. This is true for other material (photos, texts) as well, unless the usage conditions explicitly state something different. So, according to (my less-than-complete understanding of) German law, I could copy any file and give the copy to a friend. Printing it and handing it over is ok as well. I don´t know how this is in relation to international material not published by a german publisher (or german branch, as is the case with the music industry), however.
Downloading a file anonymously isn't any direct involvement in another person's choice to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
Is there some reason you emphasized anonymity in this statement? I don't see what bearing anonymity has on the present discussion.
So, the illegally distributed files don't exist until I choose to search for them? They just magically appear once I type a search string into my browser?
In the case of a file stored on its owner's computer, illegally distributed copies don't exist until someone downloads the shared file. The act of downloading the file is the only part of that particular file-sharing transaction that creates an actual copy of the data.
Compare to the case of illegally-distributed photocopies of a book. If the owner of the book leaves the book sitting next to a copy machine with the intent of distributing illegal photocopies, the copyright violation doesn't occur until at least one person actually uses the copy machine to make an illegal photocopy. Until that point, no illegal copies of that particular book have ever existed. All you have until then is intent to illegally distribute copyrighted material, not an actual infringement.
(If performing an action with the intent to distribute copyrighted material isn't already against the law, give the lawyers of the RIAA and their friends some time. If it were up to them, I'm sure they'd make it illegal to even discuss copyright law on the internet. Their lobbyists are, after all, the same people who praised China's internet censorship as a model of proper internet regulation.)
EDIT: I keep forgetting to post my counterpoints to my arguments in this thread using my Devil's Advocate alias.
Is there some reason you emphasized anonymity in this statement? I don't see what bearing anonymity has on the present discussion.
It has bearing inasmuch as it was being argued that downloading the file means you're involved in the distribution.
In most cases of downloading the file, you're anonymous to the source. you're not actively involved in distributing the file, you're procuring the file. Downloading is not distributing. Uploading is distributing.
Perhaps it wasn't the best way to attempt to illustrate the removal of the downloader from the act of distribution.
In the case of a file stored on its owner's computer, illegally distributed copies don't exist until someone downloads the shared file. The act of downloading the file is the only part of that particular file-sharing transaction that creates an actual copy of the data.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the file doesn't need to have been downloaded to have effectively been distributed. If you place a book up on Google Docs (say, like the morons who uploaded the 4E stuff early on), you've placed the book in distribution. Whether or not it was downloaded, or how many times, matters only in the sense of determining the scope of the offense, damages and reparitions.
Compare to the case of illegally-distributed photocopies of a book. If the owner of the book leaves the book sitting next to a copy machine with the intent of distributing illegal photocopies, the copyright violation doesn't occur until at least one person actually uses the copy machine to make an illegal photocopy. Until that point, no illegal copies of that particular book have ever existed. All you have until then is intent to illegally distribute copyrighted material, not an actual infringement.
Yeah, but that's not digital media. Placing a file in a location available for illegal download is an infringing act. It does not require that someone actually download that file to "complete" the act. the upload is an act of distribution, regardless of subsequent download.
(If performing an action with the intent to distribute copyrighted material isn't already against the law, give the lawyers of the RIAA and their friends some time.
No need, they took care of that a while ago. See above.
If it were up to them, I'm sure they'd make it illegal to even discuss copyright law on the internet. Their lobbyists are, after all, the same people who praised China's internet censorship as a model of proper internet regulation.)
Yeah. They're maggots, and everyone who supports them are maggots.
It'd be REAL nice to see publishers who support copyright reform espouse those ideals by releasing their content in a manner consistent with their claims of support, rather than simply releasing it under existing copyright statute.
|
I´d guess that it doesn´t matter where the material is from. This would make for a very fractured copyright law if it were.Does it matter at all that it's a US-sourced work released under US copyright laws?
I'm curious how the various copyright laws overlap, because I know that we in the US aren't the only ones to recognize other country's copyright laws in certain respects when they differ (usually in relation to term).
Depending on the software in use on the server, you might be creating a duplicate of something copyrighted under US law, on a server located in Lithuania which is then buffered in the UK (transient copy) before finally being downloaded to create a new duplicate in Austria. Figure out jurisdiction in that one.
Clearly delineated copyright rules with a maximum period of 20 years would probably be my third wish out of the ring. The first two would be way more fun :)
|
|
Waitaminnit. What if the new license specifically removed that clause and said something to the effect of "by using this license, you agree that all earlier licenses are null and void" or similar? Aren't you, by using the new license, agreeing to it? Wouldn't that be a valid revision to the new license, which could then close off content?I suppose it's possible, but you'd have to *agree* to using it—you can't be forced to use it.
(I'd also point out the Wizards hasn't revised the OGL in 12 years... I don't think they have anyone there who's even *thinking* about it.)
Didn't they in a sense, try to do this? With the 'poison pill' in the GSL? Which is why the GSL failed so miserably?
GSL?
GSL = Game System License. It's the replacement for the OGL in respects to D&D 4th Edition.
The early revisions of the license contained a "poison-pill" clause that effectively said that if you use the GSL, you don't ever get to make OGL stuffs again.
This is pure nonsense. Would you care to explain exactly how? Downloading a file anonymously isn't any direct involvement in another person's choice to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
Weasel, weasel, weasel. By taking the copy, you have completed one of his counts of illegal distribution. You are directly involved in that. Had you not accepted the copy, he would have one fewer count of the illegal activity.
Again, pure, unadulterated nonsense. Infringing copyright is illegal. Making a file available for download is an infringement of copyright. It doesn't matter that nobody downloaded the file. There's no need for anyone to "complete the act" because the act is already complete. It's infringed. That's one act. Another person downloading the file? That's a whole new complete and separate act.
If it is distributed to no one, is it actually distributed? Suppose the perpetrator put the file on a server that immediately got disconnected and the file never actually gets distributed? Has he really infringed the copyright?
Once again: If I own the copyrighted source material under discussion (a physical book) and if I manufacture the file on my own AND I "illegally" download the file, the end result is that I have two identical files. One is "legal", but one is "illegal". If I put them on separate, identical USB sticks, and then put those in an opaque container, shake them up, and display them, I challenge you to tell me which one contains the "illegal" file, and which one contains the "legal" file, you won't be able to do so.
That just makes the whole topic hard to enforce because it's difficult to detect the evidence. Difficulty in keeping the evidence straight and clear doesn't make the topic a gray area. The fact is - you have an illegally obtained copy. Full stop.
See, this is what I mean by weaselly. You've already equated the behavior of copyright infringement to theft. You've used weasel words to manipulate the conversation on an emotional level, rather than sticking to rational debate.
Again, I have not. I have used theft as analogy to illustrate your relationship to the illegal activity. I have not equated it to theft in the slightest.
incredibly distressing that this is the manner of debate that you (and many, many others) choose to take. You can't debate rationally with irrational arguments such as "copyright infringement is theft" and claims of financial harm with zero credible evidence to support that.
I would ask you if you could conceive of the possibility that one could argue that a particular behavior isn't a bad thing, and not engage in that behavior, but you've made it quite clear that you lack the ability.
I find it far more distressing to witness people weaseling out of responsibility for their actions by falsely claiming that this is a gray area. If you're going to wear the black hat, wear the black hat and not shilly-shally around what you are doing.
Weasel, weasel, weasel. By taking the copy, you have completed one of his counts of illegal distribution. You are directly involved in that. Had you not accepted the copy, he would have one fewer count of the illegal activity.
A> I'm not, regardless of what you're trying to suggest, downplaying the fact that, if one downloads an illegal copy of a copyrighted work, that they have infringed on copyright.
B> I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's downloaded or not, making the file available for download IS infringement. It doesn't require anyone else's involvement.
If it is distributed to no one, is it actually distributed? Suppose the perpetrator put the file on a server that immediately got disconnected and the file never actually gets distributed? Has he really infringed the copyright?
Yes and yes. This is how things work under our current laws.
That just makes the whole topic hard to enforce because it's difficult to detect the evidence. Difficulty in keeping the evidence straight and clear doesn't make the topic a gray area. The fact is - you have an illegally obtained copy. Full stop.
And you're completely ignoring what that grey area is, and, regardless of what appears to be a willfully ignorant assessment of the situation, it IS a grey area under our current law.
The two files are COMPLETELY identical. How can you rationally say that one of them is wrong, and one of them is not, when they are identical?! This is an absolutely ridiculous supposition.
Again, I have not. I have used theft as analogy to illustrate your relationship to the illegal activity. I have not equated it to theft in the slightest.
Yes, you have so. Using that analogy IS equating it to theft.
I find it far more distressing to witness people weaseling out of responsibility for their actions by falsely claiming that this is a gray area. If you're going to wear the black hat, wear the black hat and not shilly-shally around what you are doing.
Who's doing this? Are you accusing anyone here of infringing copyright? Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I'll point out, yet again, that one can argue/support a position without acting on that position, and the weaseling happening here is your attempt at demonizing someone based on implied accusations of actions for which you have zero proof is happening. This typically happens when one has a weak, unsupported argument.
One is able to oppose current copyright restrictions, yet still abide by those same restrictions.
The more I read the thread the more I am happy that a lot of the US nonsense laws don't have their equal in Hungary/EU, that people don't get into trouble here for absurdities like some stuff mentioned, and while some things are against law there, here they are everyday natural occurrences.
Then again, I heard that the US already got to enforce its internal laws through borders, that it shuts down non-US websites. So I guess such enforcements could happen soon enough anywhere if true. Given time, will US commandos break down doors in let's say Austria, Italy or Turkey where people use the net in a way where local laws are not against but USA ones are? I do hope it never comes to that, and that independent sovereignty will prevail.
Anyway, I want to point out that people started to take a bit too personal/insulting tone recently, and you should watch out for that, it could result in the thread getting locked.
Easy people.
Don't post with your emotions up. Unless it gets locked, the thread isn't going anywhere. Take a break and a breath.
The more I read the thread the more I am happy that a lot of the US nonsense laws don't have their equal in Hungary/EU, that people don't get into trouble here for absurdities like some stuff mentioned, and while some things are against law there, here they are everyday natural occurrences.
Then again, I heard that the US already got to enforce its internal laws through borders, that it shuts down non-US websites. So I guess such enforcements could happen soon enough anywhere if true. Given time, will US commandos break down doors in let's say Austria, Italy or Turkey where people use the net in a way where local laws are not against but USA ones are? I do hope it never comes to that, and that independent sovereignty will prevail.
Anyway, I want to point out that people started to take a bit too personal/insulting tone recently, and you should watch out for that, it could result in the thread getting locked.
This already happens. When the Ukranians shut down demonoid it was a gift to the US on the eve of a state visit. In NZ, the police have conducted raids with exessive force just for the benefit of the American FBI agents observing. Hopefully most countries have a shred of self-respect left and can follow the Chinese example of telling the US to shove it.
The US government effectively has jursdiction over the internet because the root DNS servers are under the jurisdiction of California, and thus also Federal law. The fact that the base DNS system can be screwed wit is basically the last vulnerability of the internet, but they are working on p2p DNS solutions so that a government cannot fragment the internet like the US governemnt has expressed interest in doing.
Then again, I heard that the US already got to enforce its internal laws through borders, that it shuts down non-US websites. So I guess such enforcements could happen soon enough anywhere if true. Given time, will US commandos break down doors in let's say Austria, Italy or Turkey where people use the net in a way where local laws are not against but USA ones are? I do hope it never comes to that, and that independent sovereignty will prevail.
You heard incorrectly. There are undoubtedly powerful and influential people in the U.S. that would love to see legislation like SOPA and PIPA succeed. But so far, even a nation of super villains like the US hasn't stooped so far as to allow that tripe to pass (the baby seal skin boots they offered us were out of fashion). Check back after Congress gets back from vacation though :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully most countries have a shred of self-respect left and can follow the Chinese example of telling the US to shove it.
Using a country that has no respect for anybodies property, whether it's IP, physical property, even geographic locations, as a "good" example is not the way to score points in an argument.
Using a country that has no respect for anybodies property, whether it's IP, physical property, even geographic locations, as a "good" example is not the way to score points in an argument.
Hopefully most countries have a shred of self-respect left and can follow the Chinese example of telling the US to shove it.
Well, its the only way to end the trend of the US overreaching on other countries' laws, especially in the area of IP. Also countries can have self-respect for their own sovereignty without being a freewheeling as China.
The Chinese mostly have a nearly pathological response when they think that other countries are telling them what to do more than they care about making a statement about property. Considering their history it is kind of understanable.
Brian, while I don't like Bill's aggressive attitude, one thing to keep in mind is what he's ultimately saying is this: how you get things matters.
To you, it does not. The end result is the same, so what's the big deal?
To put the argument you're espousing in another way:
"(In certain circumstances,) the ends* justify the means."
His response: "No, they don't. Only go the right way."
It's a very lawful v. neutral response.
Think of it like a one-way parking lot. When I lived in south Florida, we were at an apartment complex that had a parking lot that had an entrance on one side, and an exit on the other side. You were supposed to go only one way, make a loop around the parking lot, and find a space appropriate for you. There were speed bumps. The reason for this rule was safety and convenience of cars. Here's the thing: it was hardly enforceable. Many, if not most, ignored it for their own convenience. This led to very frustrating situations for those (like me) who always sought to do the right thing, even when it wasn't convenient. Occasionally, this got me in trouble with other residents! After all, they wanted to go the other direction, but not only did I have right of way, I had legal backing, and they didn't. Occasionally they got in trouble for entering/exiting the wrong ways and had to pay for it. I heard many complaints about that.
Yet they weren't speeding recklessly (aside from the one guy in six years that I lived there, and he wasn't a resident and was arrested for drunk driving anyway). They weren't being dangerous. They didn't hurt anyone. But their actions did have consequences. The end result was the same: they ended up in their parking place in the lot. But they did it the wrong way.
Because they continued to do things the wrong way, eventually they gained a sense of entitlement... they presupposed that none should interfere with their way, because, really, who are they hurting? And the end results are the same! And yet. It wasn't the same. An inappropriate culture was cultivated there. It was because of that inappropriate culture that, shortly after we left, a pretty bad accident occurred. Of course, one person got in trouble for going the wrong way, the other for driving drunk (although slowly). Both were penalized for their fault in the accident, and both protested that it was the other!
Point is, that even when things seem harmless, they aren't necessarily. Sometimes doing things the right way, and requiring others to hold to that standard, helps create a society that, surprisingly enough, does things the right way.
I myself am on the fence. I can certainly see how people could see things in terms of black and white. I've also been a pirate-before-you-buy it (specifically of Princess Tutu, an amazing anime you should all purchase and watch, preferably in that order, though I did the other), at least on YouTube. I've also received digital copies of old PDFs (though I don't have them now) and made some myself to share with friends. I wasn't thinking about the morality of the publisher at the time... I was just thinking I wanted to share with my friends.
Yet, I can definitely see how it could be a clean cut issue to some. There is, after all, a correct way to do things, and continuously encouraging a culture to follow the non-correct way, even if apparently harmless or "victim-less", even being cautious, could cause bad results in the end.
I'm not siding against you, I'm just trying to show how it could be clear cut to some.
* Presupposing the ends are apparently harmless.
Well, its the only way to end the trend of the US overreaching on other countries' laws, especially in the area of IP. Also countries can have self-respect for their own sovereignty without being a freewheeling as China.The Chinese mostly have a nearly pathological response when they think that other countries are telling them what to do more than they care about making a statement about property. Considering their history it is kind of understanable.
The Chinese are busy trying to assert their control of everything in the South China Sea at the moment, most of which lies within the recognized territorial waters (the 200 nautical mile zones) of four other nations. The U.S. is backing the claims of the Phillipines, Brunei, Borneo, and, ironically, Vietnam. The Chinese have put military bases on four islets in the area, several of which are definitely in somebody elses territory. They claim islands which are over 600 miles from mainland China and lie just a few miles off the coast of the Phillipines for example. They have pretty much the same attitude to anybody elses property, intellectual or otherwise. If they want it, magically, it becomes theirs. They can't just take everything they want fortunately. The U.S., Australia and other nations will not let them.
