So you have no ruling to refer to that states water-marked boos are legal for trade, so you want me to find a rule stating that they are illegal for trade?
-
The problem here is that we have two general rules in conflict...
You CAN trade boons. And, You CAN'T trade watermarked PDFs.
Basic rules assumption: When two rules of the same weight are in direct conflict, the NO rule wins the tie.
So, we have two general rule, one says YES, the other says NO. This means that the answer is NO.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I just prefer to go with the "it's ambiguous and not worth the risk" answer.
Maybe I've missed something, but where does it say that watermarked pdf's can't be traded? Beyond the whole copyright thing, of course.
Oh god, why am I getting involved in this again...
Tempest_Knight wrote: The problem here is that we have two general rules in conflict...
You CAN trade boons. And, You CAN'T trade watermarked PDFs.
Actually, only one of those is a rule of this campaign, that being that we can trade boons; the other is an intended result of copyright law.
There is no rule about trading PDFs, watermarked or otherwise. There IS a rule about not being allowed to use a PDF of an Additional Resource that isn't watermarked with YOUR name to gain access to said material, but that's a distinct difference; the rule is against using that book. The actual prevention/punishment for illegally trading it is something handled outside the scope of this campaign.
The reason we cannot trade PDFs of Paizo's books and scenarios has nothing to do with campaign rules, and it has nothing to do with the watermark; it's because copyright law makes unauthorized copying and distribution of copyright material a crime.
Since we have permission to e-mail scanned and original PDF copies of boons, we have the permission necessary to trade PDF boons without it being a crime, and since the campaign rules are silent on the topic of watermarked boons, there is no specific rule to override the ability to trade the Emerald Elixir.
RedMage, you seem to disagree and then state why it exists...
Show me were we have been given permission trade watermarked PDFs.
Explain where we have been given permission to trade the Emerald Elixir boon?
You have made a claim that we have been given permission to trade original PDF copies of boons. [Citation Needed]
-
Drake, can I trade a watermarked PDF?
If your answer requires caveats, it is NO.
There you have your general rule.
You are asking something that equates to 'where does it say I can't shoot people? Beyond that whole assault with a deadly weapon thing, of course.'
Even RedMage knows, that without special exception, we aren't to trade watermarked PDFs. This is why he is putting so much effort into justifying his ignoring of it.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Drake, can I trade a watermarked PDF?
You can trade any watermarked PDF that you can trade legally with regards to trademarks and such. The watermark doesn't play into whether or not any pdf is tradeable. It is used to track pirated PDFs. That is not the same as saying that every watermarked PDF is illegal to trade (and certainly, in fact, this is not the case).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tempest_Knight wrote: You have made a claim that we have been given permission to trade original PDF copies of boons. [Citation Needed] Are you now arguing that boons from online conventions, which are distributed as PDFs with no physical copy, are NOT tradeable? Because I'm pretty sure everyone else here would argue otherwise.
Also, Nefreet provided that citation.
Tempest_Knight wrote: Even RedMage knows, that without special exception, we aren't to trade watermarked PDFs. This is why he is putting so much effort into justifying his ignoring of it. As I stated quite clearly, I know that unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is a crime (not a campaign rule), and I know, from the second hand quote of Michael Brock that Nefreet provided you, that we have Paizo's express permission to electronically reproduce boons in order to facilitate trading them. What we DON'T have is anything ANYWHERE stating that the watermark indicates a revocation of that express permission.
If you think it DOES indicate such a revocation, back it up. Sitting there repeatedly asking for a citation that a rule doesn't exist is never going to get you anywhere; if nothing says the watermark makes the boon untradeable, then they don't need to explicitly say that the watermark doesn't mean that it's untradeable, any more than they need to say that marking a boon with the PFS number it was originally issue to makes it untradeable, or the fact it was printed during a specific celestial alignment makes it untradeable.
If you insist that it is reasonable to ask for a citation like this, then I ask you, would it be reasonable of me to insist that you provide a citation that half-elves can't shoot lasers out of their freaking butts? Would it be reasonable of me to insist that if you can't provide a citation that expressly forbids that, then clearly laser butts must be a real thing?
Of course not, because they don't NEED to make a rule about something that isn't a change from the general rule; if the general rule is that standard boons are tradeable, then we don't need a citation that says we can trade this boon, we would need one that says we can't, because that is what represents a change from the general rule.
Tempest, you need to actual READ and THINK about what we're saying here, because if you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying here, I'm going to have to start flagging your posts again; I'm not going to spend the time to argue with a troll.
So, yes with caveat. Remember what I said about caveats?
So, in general no, unless specifically allowed.
-
Did you read your own response?
You state that the watermark does not denote ownership, then follow up by stating it is used to denote ownership.
I also am not making the blanket statement that ALL watermarked PDFs can't be traded, just that without specific allowance you can' trade them.
-
Have we been given a specific allowance to be able to trade the Emerald Elixir boon? If so, please provide the citation.
-
Responses I am still waiting for; (Not intended to be antagonistic, just list open issues)
* [SCPRedMage] Your compiled citation.
* [SCPRedMage] Citation specifically allowing the trade of original PDF boons. (needed to support your claim that it has been given)
* [DrakeRoberts] Citation allowing us to trade any watermarked PDF. (especially one that states your assertion)
RedMage, you keep dropping the context and a modifier...
The context was Convention boons.
The modifier was "Standard" boons.
Since the Emerald Elixir is neither a Convention boon, nor a "Standard" boon. No permission has been granted.
Do we need to enter in to a debate about the definition of "Standard" or will you just agree that it is not "Standard", hence the fact that the OP started this thread.
Since Tempest_Knight has no interest in actually listening, I'm just going to say that laser butts is now, officially, a thing.
Tempest_Knight wrote: So, yes with caveat. Remember what I said about caveats?
So, in general no, unless specifically allowed.
* [DrakeRoberts] Citation allowing us to trade any watermarked PDF.
This 'caveat' logic is HORRIBLY flawed:
"Can you trade a watermarked PDF?" "Yes, unless there is a law that prohibits it. (Such as copyright laws)" "Then, since there's a caveat, the general rule must be that no, you can't trade watermarked PDFs."
"Can you own a gun?" "Yes, unless there is a law that prohibits it. (Such as probation restrictions for having committed a felony)." "Then, since there's a caveat, the general rule must be that no, you can't own a gun."
These statements are in exact parallel to one another. The second example (a real-life example) is blatantly false. You can, in general, own a gun. Likewise, you can, in general, trade watermarked PDFs. There are specific cases (enumerated via explicit copyright laws) that you cannot trade.
I do not need citations to trade watermarked PDFs. Why? Because the electronic file is my property, and I am allowed to do with my property as I will. Copyright laws are an exception to this. I have limits placed upon me as to what I can do with things I own that are covered by copyright laws. Since the boon in question has no copyright (at least not that I've heard of, I haven't seen the boon myself, but it should be easy enough to look at the boon and see if it has a copyright or not), it is, therefore, mine to do with as I please. Or would be, if I had one.
RedMage, I am listening. But I am also asking you to provide Citation.
I am also pointing out the flaws in your position.
-
If you are willing to accept that it is ambiguous we will not have an issue.
If you keep beating your chest stating that you are right and don't need citation, then we have an issue.
-
btw, wouldn't that make it difficult to sit?
Nefreet wrote: Tempest_Knight, this quote from the Boon Trading thread is what made me retract any opposition I had to trading the Kickstarter boon:
Luke Parry wrote: Ummm... You can definitely send electronic copies.
Boons handed out at previous GenCons have actually been photocopies.
A lot of online games send out electronic chronicles.
All of the boons for the most recent PbP Games Day were sent out as electronic copies.
Also, Mike Brock has said the following: Michael Brock wrote: If you have a "standard" boon, then they can be scanned and emailed.
If you have a "special" boon (and they are all signed by me personally), with a raised seal and signed in metallic ink by me, then they have to be mailed via postal service, fedex, whatever. These are very few, including the goblin boons, auction boons, etc...
(I can't link the thread as it is on the VO boards, but Mike has said that it is fine to quote him from that thread onto the public boards.)
Also, you keep adding the word 'convention' between 'standard' and 'boon'. You did this on account of 'context'. Yet, this mentions "A lot of online games send out electronic chronicles." These are not convention boons, but are encompassed in the 'standard boons'. There are 2 enumerated types of boons: 'standard boons' and 'special boons'. The latter are all signed personally by Mike Brock, with a raised seal and signed in metallic ink. Everything else, by this statement of Mike Brock's is a 'standard boon'.
DrakeRoberts wrote: Since the boon in question has no copyright (at least not that I've heard of, I haven't seen the boon myself, but it should be easy enough to look at the boon and see if it has a copyright or not) While the boon itself does not contain a copyright notice, under current US copyright law, all works are automatically copyrighted; this includes all boons, even the ones handed out at conventions that no one has any doubts about being allowed to trade.
Now, with a physical item, such as a paper copy of a boon, in-person trading isn't stopped by copyright law, as there is no copying being performed. On the other hand, if one were to scan that boon and e-mail it to someone, that DOES constitute copying; likewise, e-mailing boon from an online convention, which is originally sent via e-mail as a PDF would also constitute copying that boon.
The reason that neither of those instances runs afoul of copyright is because we have been given express permission to do so.
Michael Brock wrote: If you have a "standard" boon, then they can be scanned and emailed. Since we have been given permission by the copyright owner, it is not a violation of copyright law.
And since the copyright owner hasn't said that the watermark indicates an exception to this, that means we still have the permission necessary to electronically copy this boon to facilitate trading it.
We have no such express permission to trade any other copyrighted works from Paizo (except under the community use guidelines), thus copying anything else is a copyright violation.
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Note: This post is copyrighted? Copy/Quote at your own legal risk.
Tempest_Knight wrote: RedMage, I am listening. But I am also asking you to provide Citation. I gave you the citation you asked for before the moderator had to step in, and you completely ignored it; I have no intention of repeating myself endlessly while you ignore my arguments.
Tempest_Knight wrote: I am also pointing out the flaws in your position. No, the only thing you are doing is repeatedly stating an unsupported position that insists a rule exists, without ever actually citing said rule.
Tempest_Knight wrote: If you are willing to accept that it is ambiguous we will not have an issue.
If you keep beating your chest stating that you are right and don't need citation, then we have an issue.
I'm not the one "beating my chest" here; I have given you rational explanation after explanation as to why there would have to be a rule against this boon being tradeable, not the other way around, and you keep responding with the same "[citation needed]" in the face of all reason.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, we get to the only reason I actually responded to this post...
Tempest_Knight wrote: btw, wouldn't that make it difficult to sit? Butts that shoot lasers are no harder to sit on that butts that shoot poop.
Drake, your assumption here is flawed.
"Can you own a gun?" If you meet a specific set of criterion, Yes.
This means, in general, No.
It also shows a US-centric view. Most western countries restrict gun ownership. In most of the world one must break the law to purchase a gun.
You want to make a point, therefor, you view your gun example as "blatantly false".
-
Now we get in to Electronic Media ownership law and Intellectual Property law.
You own the rights for personal use of the Electronic Media, but are restricted from the distribution of the Electronic Media.
At all times Paizo, LLC (or publisher of the content) retains the ownership of the Intellectual Property contain therein.
-
Legally speaking, you cannot trade the watermarked PDF, given that that would be distribution of the Electronic Media.
Actually, Tempest, the copyright protections have nothing to do with the medium in which the item is originally sent to you; a scanned PDF copy of a boon isn't treated any differently than a boon delivered to you as a watermarked PDF, and thus by what you just wrote, we would not be allowed to scan and e-mail any boon, period; we also wouldn't be able to trade boons from online conventions, as that is distributed as a PDF, as well.
Again, copyright protections have nothing to do with the watermark Paizo places on the PDFs their private content system distributes.
RedMage ~
The Electronic Media laws do not cover scans of Physical Media, thus invalidating your assertion.
The Emerald Elixir boon, on the other hand, is a piece of Electronic Media, and thus without specific permissions, follow the limitation and restrictions inherent to Electronic Media.
-
Drake ~
Digital Chronicle sheets from PbP games are covered in the cited post, but I am sure you are not trying to extent that inclusion to being able to trade them.
The other two explicit inclusions are GenCon and a digital Convention. Both are conventions, both receive convention boon support.
Now we get to the fact that Mike enumerates 2 classes of boon, that given the context in which it is quoted is making subcategories within the super-set of Convention Boons.
If we ignore the context, we are still left with the fact that defining 2 classes of boon, does not preclude additional classes.
And on to the last bit...
The definition of Standard (Note: the first two define a type or style of flag)
Merriam-Webster wrote: 3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example Now, to test for the "Standard" within the population of Boons.
1.) Take X boons. (25, 50, 100, 1000, etc)
2.) Determine the shared features. (Ignoring player/GM additions)
(Such as; Name at top, Logo in upper left, tracking panel on right, rules text in body section)
(There have been some page design and logo changes that are ignored as long as it conforms to the right design and logo for it's set.)
3.) Determine non-shared features.
(Such as; Watermark)
The "Standard" conform to the Shared Features and lack the Non-Shared Features.
-
The Emerald Elixir boon conforms to the Shared Features, but also include Non-Shared Features. (The watermark and an additional Logo)
Therefor, the Emerald Elixir boon is, by definition, non-standard.
-
btw~
I was thinking butts made out of Lasers...
Tempest_Knight wrote: Drake, your assumption here is flawed.
"Can you own a gun?" If you meet a specific set of criterion, Yes.
This means, in general, No.
It also shows a US-centric view. Most western countries restrict gun ownership. In most of the world one must break the law to purchase a gun.
You want to make a point, therefor, you view your gun example as "blatantly false".
-
Now we get in to Electronic Media ownership law and Intellectual Property law.
You own the rights for personal use of the Electronic Media, but are restricted from the distribution of the Electronic Media.
At all times Paizo, LLC (or publisher of the content) retains the ownership of the Intellectual Property contain therein.
-
Legally speaking, you cannot trade the watermarked PDF, given that that would be distribution of the Electronic Media.
So now we're playing the "look over there game"? Yes, it was a US-based comment. Fair enough. But you recognized that context. And in that context the logic is true. If it makes you feel better replace the "Can you own a gun" to "Can a 30 year old own a gun" or some similar question that gives some, but not all, of the properties that must be valid.
As for the electronic distribution, RedMage covered that.
You also ignored the very relevant point about standard vs special boons, a point you've been twisting for 2 pages now to 'prove' your point.
Either you refuse to acknowledge logic, you don't understand logic, or you're getting some sick enjoyment out of wasting my time. That's cool, cuz I can walk away. Until such a time as Mike rules otherwise, the boon is legal to trade. No amount of your protestations will change that. Everyone that has weighed in on the situation other than yourself (at least in the last couple of days) has said that it's valid to trade.
My suggestion to you.. just drop it. Don't trade for one of the boons. Don't trade yours if you have one. Stop informing people on the trade channel that it is illegal to trade as though you're an authority on the issue (you're not). Let them decide for themselves. Given the outcome of this thread I find it HIGHLY unlikely that anyone auditing a character with said boon is going to object, and if they do, I find it even less likely that the ruling would be upheld on appeal.
One way or another, I'm done. You've taken every logical argument and avoided, misdirected, or otherwise trivialized it without actually disproving the logic. You then insist on 'general policies' that you have shown no ability to support when asked. Finally, you insist that you can only be wrong if your detractors can show an explicit exception made to these imagined policies which you cannot show proof of.
If the policies do not exist, then of course there will be no explicit exception made. If the policies do exist, you should be able to show us where they are.
Until you can address these points in a direct manner, there is no value in continuing this conversation.
"Can a 30 year old own a gun"
equates to
"Can you trade watermarked, non-copy written, PDFs"
It is just moving the caveat.
RedMage has continued to ignore the fact that the Electronic Media laws exist. They do happen to exist, but unlike his twist, they cover media originally delivered to the End User as an Electronic commodity. They do not cover personally made scans. And we have already been given the allowance to limited distribution of the scan anyway.
-
Until such a time as Mike rules otherwise, the boon is legal to trade. [citation needed]
The correct statement would be that it is ambiguous and trade at your own risk.
-
I continue to address valid points, while others refuse to actually attempt to address my valid points.
I have notice that it seems that context can be ignored to support trading the Emerald Elixir, but is restricted to a myopic and ridiculously narrow breadth when opposing trading it.
-
I will ask, why must I do something RedMage has failed to do?
Why am I being subjugated for taking "every logical argument and avoided, misdirected, or otherwise trivialized it without actually disproving the logic", just as RedMage has?
-
I have directly dealt with the One and only citation that approaches covering the Emerald Elixir boon.
Unfortunately, the context of the citation does not cover the Emerald Elixir boon.
Tempest_Knight wrote: RedMage ~
The Electronic Media laws do not cover scans of Physical Media, thus invalidating your assertion.
Actually, as a US company, Paizo's IP is protected by US laws; judging by your comments on firearm ownership, it's fairly obvious you're not from the US, so let me give you a quick lesson on US IP law.
Under US law, the only special treatment digital copyrighted material receives is the anti-circumvention clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it illegal to circumvent Digital Rights Management (DRM); for the record, the watermark is most decidedly not DRM.
Because of that, the copying and distribution of physical and electronic goods are treated identically in the US, and a scanned copy of a boon is treated the same as a boon that was issued as a PDF, which both have the same copyright restrictions as a physical boon.
Basically, US law does not have special laws regarding "Electronic Media", making your argument invalid. Whatever laws your home country might have regarding this don't apply.
And even if this was not the case, your argument would, again, mean that boons from online conventions would not be tradeable, either, because they would also fall under "Electronic Media". So, again I ask, are you saying that boons from online conventions are not tradeable?
Tempest_Knight wrote: RedMage has continued to ignore the fact that the Electronic Media laws exist. You know, just because I'm not sitting here waiting with baited breath for your next complete ignoral of everything anyone says to you does NOT mean I'm ignoring these "Electronic Media laws", which...
Tempest_Knight wrote: They do happen to exist Not in the US, they don't.
Tempest_Knight wrote: Why am I being subjugated for taking "every logical argument and avoided, misdirected, or otherwise trivialized it without actually disproving the logic", just as RedMage has? Tempest, I went out of my way to actually address your points (although this seems to be a wasted effort, as you blatantly ignore the effort), whereas you avoid answering questions, put words in peoples mouths, insist on rules existing while ignoring any request to point said rules out, etc. Drake's characterization of your conduct is accurate.
We're done here; any further comments without addressing the points Drake and I have made will simply get flagged.
Quote: I will ask, why must I do something RedMage has failed to do? Because you are trying to prove a negative.
Right now, the only prohibition against trading boons, per Mike Brock, is against trading electronic copies of the special boons with special materials on them.
The Emerald Elixir boon does not havbe any of those criteria. It is a fairly innocuous boon, distributed to a fairly large audience, several thousand people, IIRC, and the only thing unusual about it, and that is because of the original method of distribution, is that it has the original recipient's email address included as part of the file.
Now, would you argue against it if there were a method for someone trading it to have Paizo remove it from their download area, and put it in someone else's, say using the gift options?
After all, it differs little, if at all, from the two Ifrit boons I received electronically for GMing at online events. I used one for one of my PCs, and gave a printout of the other to one of my players as a gift. Now, I still have the original electronic versions of both in my email, along with downloaded copies in different locations, tagged with either my PC info, or the info that I gave the one away.
So, how is it different? Other than the legacy of using an automated distribution system that puts a watermark on EVERYTHING it touches?
And, as has been pointed out previously, there exists a set of boons that can be downloaded with or without the watermark, so just being watermarked is not any sort of distinction, yes?
RedMage, having been born in, live , and work in the US, in a field that deals with Electronic Media and Intellectual Properties. I can assure you they do exist.
The boons from Online Conventions are tradable, we have been given permission to trade them.
Though we seem to be at an impasse, as you and your side are content to avoided and misdirected any opposition to your wanted out come.
Tempest_Knight: A recent scenario had a chronicle that wasn't on the last page of the PDF, hence it had a watermark on the top and bottom. I printed out six copies to give to my players. Are you suggesting that by passing on a printout of a watermarked chronicle from a PDF to someone else, I was in the wrong? What should I have done?
(By the way, I am not in the US.)
Tempest_Knight wrote: RedMage, having been born in, live , and work in the US, in a field that deals with Electronic Media and Intellectual Properties. I can assure you they do exist.
The boons from Online Conventions are tradable, we have been given permission to trade them.
Though we seem to be at an impasse, as you and your side are content to avoided and misdirected any opposition to your wanted out come.
As an objective observer, I feel the need to point out that you just took something RedMage said completely out of context, and ignored completed the point he was making.
RedMage is not saying Electronic Media laws do not exist.
He is saying that the Electronic Media laws, as you are explaining them, do not exist in the US. They exist in a different form, that say different things, which he clearly explains.
He's called you out on this tactic at least 3 times in the last two pages of the debate.
You're losing the debate here, buddy. Pretty badly and obviously. Digging the hole deeper isn't going to help you here.
|
