I agree that WOTC likely realizes that Greyhawk fans looking for something sort of Greyhawkish will purchase FR products instead. This isn't a synergistic benefit, however; that would imply that the decisions made with each line (kill Greyhawk, pump FR) would improve sales as a whole. I'm sure that that isn't the case.
While hardcore fans of the setting will disagree, I believe that both lines satisfy the same niche. The crux of my argument, then, is that FR is the more profitable way to satisfy that niche. WOTC (and Hasbro), like most companies, probably dictates a certain rate of return that their investments must earn before they will lay out cash on product development. FR obviously satisfies their criteria, as they continue to strongly support the line. If they believed that Greyhawk would earn that rate of return, then they would make Greyhawk products alongside their other two campaign settings. Maybe Greyhawk could be profitable; but since WOTC has a limited budget, would Greyhawk be profitable ENOUGH to justify throwing dollars at Greyhawk over FR? I don't think that's the case. I think an investment in an FR sourcebook will beat the same investment in a Greyhawk sourcebook nearly every time.
A good point is made in that the departure from Greyhawk is also a strategic choice. Greyhawk sales would cannibalize FR sales, no doubt. Some consumers (like myself) will buy everything WOTC puts out, but many others have more limited budgets (my wife says I should be one of them). This folds nicely into my point above; if FR is the more profitable line as a whole, then support it and avoid cannibalizing it.
Of course, this entire argument rests upon the supposition that FR is indeed more profitable dollar for dollar than Greyhawk. Hard-core Greyhawk fans will argue, but I trust the marketing gurus at Hasbro who actually have the data in front of them. There's a vocal Greyhawk fanbase out there, but it seems that on these boards at least it's the same dozen or so names carrying the torch into perpetuity. Those dozen or so fans can buy every book released for Greyhawk, but it still doesn't add up to much.
That is a political argument my friend not a legal one.
And I would argue in court that PDF use falls under the same "copyright and fair use clauses" I subscribed to as a teacher.Copyright laws these days have more shades of grey that any other single field. "Totalitarian" enforcement of outdated copyright laws is as unethical as the people that malicously abuse them.
I'm sure all the employees and owners of smaller game companies who distribute their product only in PDF appreciate your rationalization of law-breaking, especially when they fold and have to lay people off due to lack of revenue or repeat sales.
Maybe my totalitarian enforcement attitude about this is outdated and unethical in your book, and maybe I'm in the minority when I feel that piracy (yes, piracy) is unacceptable no matter how you try to rationalize it away or compare it to something like "teacher fair use" or whatever you want to justify it in your own mind, but I'm going to stick to my guns on this one--it's wrong, doesn't matter how old, how out of print, how outdated and how inexpensive the download is.
What right do you have to the material? Do you steal cars?
Umm, I purchased it legally not only once, but twice. You want to equate sharing information that you legally purchased multiple times with your fellow gamers to that of stealing cars??
Please try not to respond while brain's switch is in the "off" position. What If I am only lending it?, what if I sold it to them for a penny. You have you never lent a friend a CD or book. This kind of archaic and somewhat fascist thinking is what stifles growth in the creative arts , it doesn't encourage it.
Making illegal copies of a PDF is not the same as "lending" a copy of a book or CD to a friend. You want your friends to read the PDF you bought? Print it (once) and then pass it around all you want.
I'd like to point out that you asked "Does anyone think making extra copies of a $5 PDF is piracy?"
Obviously, I thought so. If you're going to ask a question, you might get an answer you don't like or don't agree with, such is life.
Do I think you're a hardened criminal who's only one step below Al Capone? No. Would I kick you out of my gaming group or circle of friends if you were in it? No, but I'm just pointing out that there are consequences to the little cavalier criminal acts that many people commit-speeding can lead to traffic deaths, having a few beers and then driving can cripple somebody, making extra copies of cheap PDFs can put a company out of business....
I'm sure all the employees and owners of smaller game companies who distribute their product only in PDF appreciate your rationalization of law-breaking, especially when they fold and have to lay people off due to lack of revenue or repeat sales
Hey, no one supports the little guy more than more me, you mentioned Goodman games, I own probably 20 of their products
many of them double purchased, hard copy and PDF.Seeing this only in your "absolute" view is only a diservice to the growth of out of print settings and PNP gaming as whole.
Let me be clear in no way shape of form am I condoning illegally distributing current products someone is trying to make a living on (particulary current PDF only releases)or distributing things you don't own.
My point again is people flipantly throw the word "piracy" around totally out of context, huge difference between sharing what you paid for with your gaming group, and stealing someone elses product for profit.
|
There's a vocal Greyhawk fanbase out there, but it seems that on these boards at least it's the same dozen or so names carrying the torch...
See, here is how I see it. Every 3-4 years there's a new campaign world. All these fanboys step up and say, "this is the New thing, this is the New face of D&D. Greyhawk is played out." Then most of them dry up and blow away. I'm sorry, Ian, but I've seen it before. I've heard it before. It's like parachute pants in the 80's. I still wear jeans, I wore jeans then, I'll wear jeans 20 years from now. I'm not going to hear how there's only 12 old geezers waving the Greyhawk flag and making Eric Mona dance for our amusement. It's ludicrous.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Eberron isn't the next Planescape/Darksun/Spelljammer. Maybe it's the next Forgotten Realms. I have a sneaky suspicion, though, that Greyhawk will be around in some incarnation 10 years from now, and Eberron might or might not be. They'll have a special "warforged for 5th ed." article in Dragon.
What a moronic attitude. What right do you have to the material? You want it? Tough! Everything isn't created for you to use as you please without compensation. Do you steal cars? No? Just ideas? Oh...well that must be ok.
It's probably better to be civil when you tell someone that he's wrong.
Though, for the record, I don't disagree with you.
Regards,
Jack
Public domain applies to printed products, but only after some serious conditions have been met, time wise and otherwise. As far as D&D/AD&D products are concerned, Wizards bought the entire line from TSR and still has copyrights to ALL of it.
Kenzer Co. bought the rights to AD&D in order to spoof it hardcore with Hackmaster - or thats my understanding anyway.
|
|
what most Greyhawk fans seem to be asking for is a rehash of old material, and the growth opportunities for such a line are very limited.
I don't agree on this. Many GH players are waiting for good regional supplements (just like those of the FR).
Carl Sargent did an excellent job on "the marklands", "Iuz rhe evil", "Ivid the undying". Those regional softcover books were set in 585 CY (AoW is set 10 years later) and 2nd edition.
Besides updating those excellents books, there could be a players' guide to GH (specific PC, regional feats, specific rules, ...), and other regional books (Sheldomar valley, baklunish states, barbarian peninsula, Ulek + Pomarj states...).
Sorry, bou do not seem to fully know about the GH setting.
Yes, it's kind of generic. Yes, it's not that original.
No, no, no : I can assure you it has taste, flavour and crunchiness. It's not by reading the original 1978-1983 adventures that you would find GH's flavour (I went through old adventures, even the ones written by Gygax himself, and you don't usually find a detailed background, introduction notes, motivation of most of the monsters, roleplaying possibilities : monsters are here to confront the PCs).
Many of the most famous NPCs, monsters, spells and artifacts come from GH (drow, grell, aboleth, yuan-ti among others ; Melf, Tenser, Otiluke, Otto, Rary, Mordenkainen, Lolth, Juiblex among others).
Even the "cult of the dragon" is an idea that was first created for GH, not FR (cult of the dragon below in the slavers serie A1-A4).
Adventures began to improve in the mid-80's (by improvement, I mean : background, motivations, descriptions...
PLEASE people from WOTC, give Greyhawk a chance...
Public domain applies to printed products, but only after some serious conditions have been met, time wise and otherwise. As far as D&D/AD&D products are concerned, Wizards bought the entire line from TSR and still has copyrights to ALL of it.Kenzer Co. bought the rights to AD&D in order to spoof it hardcore with Hackmaster - or thats my understanding anyway.
Right, but they had to license it from Wizards and didn't buy it from TSR, correct?
The aboleth and yuan-ti were introduced in Dwellers of the Forbidden City; I don't remember that module being specifically tied to Greyhawk.
It was.
Dungeon Module I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City, page 2, second column, first full paragraph:
"Set deep in a tropical jungle, Dwellers of the Forbidden City is located on the WORLD OF GREYHAWK map in a small group of unexplored (and unmapped) mountains south of the Pelisso Swamp in Hepmonaland."
This is later confirmed in the 2nd edition Greyhawk accessory "The Scarlet Brotherhood" in the section on the geography of Hepmonaland, page 56, under the Xaro Mountains entry:
"Very high hills south of the Pelisso Swamp, the Xaro are most noteworthy for the discovery of the forgotten city of Xuxulieto built into a rift in one of the mountains. Originally owned by the Olman, the city was being used by a group of yuan-ti from Alocotla as well as several types of humanoid monsters, although there are some signs that the bat-men spent some time there. The hills are heavily covered in jungle growth."
The whole piracy argument has been given over and over. Let me sum it up using D&D as a metaphor.
Stealing copies of things is not the same as stealing physical property, although it's still wrong. It's like stealing dungeon loot before the adventurers arrive -- you're denying something they would have gotten, had you not acted illegally.
This assumes that the adventurers would have found that particular piece of loot, had it not been stolen. Many people download more music illegally than they could have been expected to buy legitimately. The word-of-mouth generated by your illegal acquiring, however, makes the music companies money. It's free advertising that either costs them sales, or (if you would genuinely never have bought it anyway) costs them nothing.
Now let us suppose that no adventurers come to this dungeon, so it's abandoned. What if I steal loot from there? It's still equally illegal, but it deprives nobody of anything, at least until such times as adventurers start coming back. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons books, Wizards still sells those, even old 2nd edition ones. You're still stealing someone's loot.
Creative Director
|
If you want to sell your PDF of an out of print book for a penny, is that any different than selling the book itself for a penny on ebay? if its out print, it's out print. Public domain takes over after time, PDF's ( virtual facsimiles) are nothing more than advertisements for the sought after originals.
For this analogy to work, you have to adjust it. Selling a PDF of an out of print book is the same, legally, as selling a copy of a print book. The problem is that it's MUCH easier to make copies of a PDF than a book. If you deleted your copy of the PDF after you sold it, that'd be one thing. But selling multiple copies of a PDF is the same as reprinting a print book and selling them. Which is where the illegal part comes in.
Scanning books that are not public domain and selling the PDF is illegal; doesn't get much more simple than that.
Scanning books that are not public domain and selling the PDF is illegal; doesn't get much more simple than that.
Absolutely, that's the kind of piracy I was wondering about. Does it exist in any real extent.? You need to go to alot of trouble to scan a book and assemble a PDF to resell it. the scanner, the software, the trouble, the time. Are there bootleg PDF'ers out there selling homemade PDF's of new books?.
In my own case I refering to sharing the PDF of an out of print book (that I own as a hardcover as well) with my gaming group. Many RPG PDF's of old books come with multiple downloads for the one time small fee you pay. I consider my own action appropriate under the "fair use" entitled by any consumer who buys a copyrighted product, while I see what you describe above as piracy. My concern, which has been totally confirmed here, is that people confuse the two, or even worse see no difference.
It's not "fair use" to make multiple copies or take multiple downloads of a PDF, even if you don't resell it. The multiple downloads are a courtesy extended by the seller in case your computer crashes or there's a technical glitch, it's not a free license to download the PDF multiple times and share it with your gaming group.
No matter how innocent your intent.....you are trying to inject a grey area into something that is quite black and white. You're doing it to soothe your own conscience and because "everyone else is doing it" (which may or may not be true, I don't know).
PDFs are just a more convenient way to deliver a written word product--but it's still legally a book. If someone is selling it for money, PDF or not, it's not out of print as far as the copyright law is concerned.
It's the same as making a copy of a computer game CD to share with your friends....quite illegal.
Sure, it isn't practical or realistic to expect you to delete a PDF off your hard drive that you just e-mailed to your friend so he can read it, but technically you should. Making a bunch of spare copies of a copyrighted product is just as wrong, morally and legally, when done electronically.
"Fair use" and all that stuff is just a smoke screen. As far as you being "concerned" by my hard-line stance on this issue...well, you should be....if someday the publishers find a way to figure out who's pirating PDFs the way they figured out how to catch illegal music file sharers, then your concern and "fair use" excuses won't hold any water either.
Think about it this way--the "fair use" copy you gave to your friends now means they have a full fledged copy of the PDF you bought. They quit your game and move to another town. Are they going to buy this same PDF? No...now they share it with their new gaming friends...you know "fair use" and all. Pretty soon your one illegally shared copy of a PDF is being "fair used" all over the f'ing place. Now say that your PDF has your name embedded a a watermark, the way that Paizo does their PDF sales. Your name is now on potentially dozens or hundreds of "fair use" copies out there, used by people you don't even know. Whose ass is going to get called on the carpet on that one, if and when it ever happens to PDFs the way it happened to the music file sharers? Hmmmmm......????
Sharing PDF's, no matter how innocent the intent, to me, is a sneak attack and backstab against all the hard-working people who create gaming content and offer it for sale online. It's theft, theft of intellectual property. I see no difference....
It's not "fair use" to make multiple copies or take multiple downloads of a PDF, even if you don't resell it. The multiple downloads are a courtesy extended by the seller in case your computer crashes or there's a technical glitch, it's not a free license to download the PDF multiple times and share it with your gaming group.
Again context, I am not distributing in it mass. They are very low quality scans the text barely being print quality. in the old days we used to rip the covers of books we didn't want resold. The same argument can be used toward the quality of a PDF.
No matter how innocent your intent.....you are trying to inject a grey area into something that is quite black and white. You're doing it to soothe your own conscience and because "everyone else is doing it" (which may or may not be true, I don't know).
Not true, what I am trying to is explain the misconception of what "is" and "isn't" piracy. You're letting your idealogical believes override the reality of the issue. You honestly think money is exchanged for every PDF floating around the nethersphere?. better yet, you think someone is entitled to make a buck off every single piece of copyrighted information exchanged in goodwill on the internet? This is why copyright laws have been in a state of overhaul since the late 90's
PDFs are just a more convenient way to deliver a written word product--but it's still legally a book. If someone is selling it for money, PDF or not, it's not out of print as far as the copyright law is concerned.
Untrue. there is line between a facsimile and the copyrighted product. It has to deal with quality, use, effect on the market, etc. If what you say was true, fax machines and copiers would be outlawed many years ago.
It's the same as making a copy of a computer game CD to share with your friends....quite illegal.
Wrong, Software had CD Key's sold as licenses that allow you to use the software If I give away copies of my CD Key, yes that is illegal. We dont buy individual licenses for books. I do have some licenses "watermarks" for a few new PDF's of books that at are "in print" they have your name and license stamped on them. That is becoming more prevalent. again there is difference between PDF's some are facsimiles, some are the definitive published legal works. If it had a watermark, I wouldn't share it.
Sure, it isn't practical or realistic to expect you to delete a PDF off your hard drive that you just e-mailed to your friend so he can read it, but technically you should. Making a bunch of spare copies of a copyrighted product is just as wrong, morally and legally, when done electronically.
Why not? PDF's are as disposable as anything else I have deleted many I no longer wanted or were not useful when cleaning up drives. You seem to want to inject a moral argument into where there shouldn't be one.
"Fair use" and all that stuff is just a smoke screen. As far as you being "concerned" by my hard-line stance on this issue...well, you should be....if someday the publishers find a way to figure out who's pirating PDFs the way they figured out how to catch illegal music file sharers, then your concern and "fair use" excuses won't hold any water either.
Yes the law is always smokescreen when it doesn't agree with your political or moral viewpoint, modern technology has and will be rewriting copyright law for years to come and it will have no greater impact on anything more then the creative arts.
As person who makes his living in the creative arts I see this as a good thing.
Think about it this way--the "fair use" copy you gave to your friends now means they have a full fledged copy of the PDF you bought. They quit your game and move to another town. Are they going to buy this same PDF? No...now they share it with their new gaming friends...you know "fair use" and all. Pretty soon your one illegally shared copy of a PDF is being "fair used" all over the f'ing place. Now say that your PDF has your name embedded a a watermark, the way...
Here's where you're wrong and you again lump me and my friends in with the people that steal for profit. As collectors and game enthusiasts I expected them to buy the book if it comes there way and I don't expect them to re-distibute it. I also expect them to buy their own copy should they lose it and to also continue to buy the tons of other PDF's and books we all buy on a regular basis from lots of D20 publishers.
You seem very quick to label everyone who doesn't abide by your "morals" as crimimal, maybe we should just tap their phones and computers to make sure they don't give that PDF away, right?
Again its about context, if I was distibuting 1000's of PDF's to strangers, sure, big problem. Sharing things you legally purchased with your friends and family "is" ok to certain extent under the "fair use" entitlements of any consumer. Sharing a couple copies of a low grade, cheap facsimile of a product you already own is not like stealing someone's car.
You asked if anyone thought sharing copies of purchased PDFs was piracy. I think it is. Some others agree with me. It's obviously not what you wanted to hear.
You also seem to think making copies of game CD's is okay as long as you don't share the "key". Not every game required a key in order to work. Your self-rationalization knows no bounds, apparently.
You say all this is good for the creative arts. B~~++%$!--freely distributing someone else's intellectual property because YOU think it's okay is wrong. Ask all the musicians out there who can't sell more than a few hundred of their CD's because everyone burns copies of their work and shares it with friends.
You say that's not the same? Once again, b$!#*+!!. Low-grade quality justifies stealing? B$#!~&&@. Your intentions are honorable? Perhaps, but it's still wrong.
Same as stealing a car? No, not from the severity standpoint, obviously, but it still hurts somebody.
Some things are clearly morally wrong. Am I trying to convince anybody else about my moral superiority? No, I'm answering a question you really didn't want answered unless everyone agreed with you. Now, we're just playing tennis. I appreciate that you've been civil so far. My "BS" references above are not directed at you personally, just the argument you're using, because I've heard it so often before and "BS" is just a very appropriate word that sums it all up neatly.
By the way, with all due respect, if Greyhawk had as large a potential market as the handful on these boards think it does, then TSR or WOTC's marketing teams likely would know about it.No offense, but this is really a faulty assumption. Just because the market is there, the marketing team in all their omnicient glory would know all about it. Corporatations worry about overall bottom line, not maximizing every possible marketing niche; sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.
So just because WOTC is NOT doing it does not mean the MARKET is NOT THERE; it just means it is not CURRENTLY THEIR STRATEGY.
I always wonder if I'm sending the wrong signal when I buy Eberron core books or modules. WotC probably thinks I, a power consumer of their products, actually enjoys and prefers their new setting to others. The only signal I'm trying to send is 'please continue to do well enough in business to keep D&D alive'.
So, every time I buy an Eberron book there is an accompanying twinge of guilt because some part of me wants to protest for more product coverage of my preferred game worlds. Said guilt somehow causes me to merely skim the books harmlessly before moving them to the shelf to sit there and look pretty. I think I need professional help.
|
|
I say buy what you want, free country; just when people come around with a semester of freshman eberronomics under their belts, popping off about the eternal wisdom of WOTC's marketing team, or the 12 old stodges on the Paizo board waving the Greyhawk flag, and in my opinion trying to prove that their fanboy love is the "new face of D&D" with unsupported pseudoscientific quasieconomical conjecture veiled as evidence, I get a little rash, and I start itching.
|
|
See, here's what Dungeon and Dragon magazines do. They're honey pots. You got a 30-40 y. o. guy with disposable income, who has been away from rpg's since college. He walks by the newsstand, sees the green demon head, or the isle of dread, or whatever from the halcyon days of youth, and says, "I gotta pick this up."
I'm sorry, a warforged on the cover...he has no idea what that is. He walks right by the Dungeon magazine and continues his banal existence without rolling another polyhedral piece of plastic.
OR..., he sees the Isle of Dread, picks it up, maybe talks to a buddy at work who "hasn't gamed in years, God I'd love to game just once..."so both these shmucks go down to the game store and between them shell out for a PHB, MMI,II,III, a DMG, and they go up to the game store guy and ask, "hey, is there any um... world of greyhawk stuff?" Now, here's what you go to the market analysts at Hasbro with.
"12 old stodges on the Paizo board waving the Greyhawk flag".
How magnanimous of you to acknowledge our meager existence!
I respect your opinion, Heathansson, and I would tend to agree with you in that the empirical data I'm seeing (based off of what people are interpeting from search engine numbers--hardly an accurate measure, IMHO) can't be positively said to be a direct indicator of Greyhawk being more/less popular than any other D&D setting. Still, I fail to see how your opinion is so much more valid than theirs/ours that it entitles you to denigrate their/our particular tastes.
Perhaps I'm not understanding where you're coming from. Maybe you'd like to explain to me what you meant by the sentence I quoted you on above. I'm specifically interested, in that I was one of the individuals to make note of my particular preference for Greyhawk. I would dearly like to know what you know about me personally that entitles you to cover me with the blanket epithet "fanboy".
antithesis
I say buy what you want, free country; just when people come around with a semester of freshman eberronomics under their belts, popping off about the eternal wisdom of WOTC's marketing team, or the 12 old stodges on the Paizo board waving the Greyhawk flag, and in my opinion trying to prove that their fanboy love is the "new face of D&D" with unsupported pseudoscientific quasieconomical conjecture veiled as evidence, I get a little rash, and I start itching.
You also seem to think making copies of game CD's is okay as long as you don't share the "key". Not every game required a key in order to work. Your self-rationalization knows no bounds, apparently.
If I signed an agreement not to distibute it I wouldn't. are you confusing shareware with a licensed product? I don't think it's ok to share licensed software. Are there exceptions?, probably.
You say all this is good for the creative arts. Bulls%~@--freely distributing someone else's intellectual property because YOU think it's okay is wrong. Ask all the musicians out there who can't sell more than a few hundred of their CD's because everyone burns copies of their work and shares it with friends.
Your misconstruing the context and don't have very open mind It's not all black and white as much you fight to maintain that it is. Nothing is black and white my friend, especially in the world of intellectual property.
Should we start charging our players to attend gaming sessions and send the proceeds to the publishers because the players used material they didn't pay for?
Should we tax virtual facsimiles of printed material on the internet to subsidize publishers who fear of losing money to internet piracy?
That's a dangerous road and one you seem more than willing to walk to enforce your morality.
Musicians can't make money because the music industy is an overblown, bloated and broken. It's run by mega-corporations that made an industry on exploiting artists. It's not because people are burning CD's. I say that as a former working musician who knows a zillion out of work musicians.
You say that's not the same? Once again, bulls%~@. Low-grade quality justifies stealing? Bulls%~@. Your intentions are honorable? Perhaps, but it's still wrong.
Think about that for moment, quality is absolutely relevant just because someone uses abode acrobat to assemble a PDF doesn't make the content the absolute same as the physical book. There is a big difference otherwise you'd have to consider that passing xerox'd copies is illegal too. Its the same as if I printed the PDF and faxed it (although in this case it's unprintable) Again we aren't talking about "selling" anything here.
I resent your use of the word "stealing", its not, it's "sharing" the two are mutually exclusive. Stealing is that of malice and potential for profit. Sharing, within reason, is for goodwill and to educate.(or in my instance turn new people on to greyhawk, so they buy more old books, or hopefully new books)
You know there was movement back in the 15th century called "The Renaissance" where the free exchanging of ideas led to the greatest cultural explosion in human history you should check it out sometime.
Seriously you're right about the tennis thing so lets drop it. feel free to email me at oldcoast@comcast.net should you wish to convince me I am participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise. It's not that I don't like what you have to say, it's that I don't understand your closed mindedness.
"Fanboys". "Banal existence." "Schmucks." Would you like to add any more incisive, inflammatory epithets to lend your opinion any less credence than you already have?
Please ignore my above invitation to explain your earlier statements. I think I understand where you're coming from now. Consider yourself summarily ignored.
antithesis
See, here's what Dungeon and Dragon magazines do. They're honey pots. You got a 30-40 y. o. guy with disposable income, who has been away from rpg's since college. He walks by the newsstand, sees the green demon head, or the isle of dread, or whatever from the halcyon days of youth, and says, "I gotta pick this up."
I'm sorry, a warforged on the cover...he has no idea what that is. He walks right by the Dungeon magazine and continues his banal existence without rolling another polyhedral piece of plastic.
OR..., he sees the Isle of Dread, picks it up, maybe talks to a buddy at work who "hasn't gamed in years, God I'd love to game just once..."so both these shmucks go down to the game store and between them shell out for a PHB, MMI,II,III, a DMG, and they go up to the game store guy and ask, "hey, is there any um... world of greyhawk stuff?" Now, here's what you go to the market analysts at Hasbro with.
|
|
There's a vocal Greyhawk fanbase out there, but it seems that on these boards at least it's the same dozen or so names carrying the torch...
This is who I was responding to with that line Antithesis; sorry, sarcasm. Friendly fire! Friendly fire!
No it just seems like once a month somebody shows up here quoting sales figures as the final evidence that Greyhawk is vanilla, Greyhawk is played out, Eberron is the wave of the future.|
|
See, here's what Dungeon and Dragon magazines do. They're honey pots. You got a 30-40 y. o. guy with disposable income, who has been away from rpg's since college...
...OR..., he sees the Isle of Dread, picks it up, maybe talks to a buddy at work who "hasn't gamed in years, God I'd love to game just once..."so both these shmucks go down to the game store and between them shell out for a PHB, MMI,II,III, a DMG,....
I know, because I'm that schmuck. Ignore me all you want; but I think you took what I said totally out of context.
Heathansson,
You have my sincere apologies. That's why I asked you to modify your statement before! I took your statement grossly out of context. Mea culpa.
antithesis
There's a vocal Greyhawk fanbase out there, but it seems that on these boards at least it's the same dozen or so names carrying the torch...This is who I was responding to with that line Antithesis; sorry, sarcasm. Friendly fire! Friendly fire!
No it just seems like once a month somebody shows up here quoting sales figures as the final evidence that Greyhawk is vanilla, Greyhawk is played out, Eberron is the wave of the future.
Someone really knows how to press farewell2king's buttons....
For the record, farewell2kings is a police officer, and has a commendable appreciation for the law as a result.
Yes I would classify making a xerox of a book to give a friend as piracy. During a campaign, I would argue forcefully that making a xerox of a players map to give players, a single page of the document, would be fair use. Copying a "player history" for the players I would also cite fair use. These are both clearly intended for you to copy or otherwise make available for your players.
Edit: in my own editing of this post before it's initial posting I omitted a paragraph somehow... here it is:
Making a complete copy of something for someone else is not fair use. Even in educational settings it's not fair use.... colleges and universities spend a fortune on copyright permissions fees for a reason.
farewell2kings, my friend, you were going to let this one go, I know I read it on werecabbages. You're right, he's wrong. We're clearly not going to change his mind.
Heathansson,
::heh:: I'm that guy, too. I suppose that's why I reacted as scathingly as I did. Far too often, I suppose, I'm forced to defend my campaign of choice to people that really know little about what makes it so dear to me.
We're two of a kind, I guess. I'm a 36-year old man who hasn't played in a ongoing campaign since college (a dearth of players here in NE Ohio, it seems!). Upon hearing about its release, I *swore* to myself that I wasn't going to get into 3.5e. I was still reeling from late-2.5e's treatment of the Greyhawk Setting and saw the new edition as little more than a WoC money-making venture that really had little to do with the spirit of the game I loved. Then, one of my old players that I really respect let me know he was playing the new game--and that it was far BETTER than any previous edition. That gave me pause. Then, when I saw "MAURE CASTLE" on the cover of Dungeon...well, the rest is history.
I guess I fit the profile. :) But still, I did my due diligence. I wouldn't have made such a significant financial commitment (well into the $2k, by now) blindly. I learned as much as I could online (and yes, sometime through pirate .pdfs; for the sake of an earlier post, I find them an excellent resource in *deciding* what to buy and what I deem to be junk) before getting back into the hobby. Ultimately, I chose to do so.
I do not regret getting back into the game, even without players (yet!). My only regret is that I saw all the high-quality Forgotten Realms books being published, with their beautiful artwork and slick production--and I figured that Greyhawk would *certainly* have its day, as well. To this day, I am disappointed. I have commented on this in an earlier post in this thread. As of now, my only hope is that Erik Mona continues to get promoted in the WoC heirarchy and continues to promote the Greyhawk setting as he has with Paizo.com.
We shall see what comes now.
Again, sorry for the venom, Hethansson. I was being far too sensitive and reactionary.
antithesis
I know, because I'm that schmuck. Ignore me all you want; but I think you took what I said totally out of context.See, here's what Dungeon and Dragon magazines do. They're honey pots. You got a 30-40 y. o. guy with disposable income, who has been away from rpg's since college...
...OR..., he sees the Isle of Dread, picks it up, maybe talks to a buddy at work who "hasn't gamed in years, God I'd love to game just once..."so both these shmucks go down to the game store and between them shell out for a PHB, MMI,II,III, a DMG,....
|
|
Heathansson,You have my sincere apologies. That's why I asked you to modify your statement before! I took your statement grossly out of context. Mea culpa.
antithesis
No problem. I can see, looking at what I wrote, that sometimes I jot things out without fully thinking about how they sound or read. I promise to do a more vigilant job of self-editing in the future.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Think about that for moment, quality is absolutely relevant just because someone uses abode acrobat to assemble a PDF doesn't make the content the absolute same as the physical book. There is a big difference otherwise you'd have to consider that passing xerox'd copies is illegal too. Its the same as if I printed the PDF and faxed it (although in this case it's unprintable) Again we aren't talking about "selling" anything here.
I'm not particularly interested in participating in a copyright debate, but it's hard to let a gross mistatement of the law to go unchallenged.
There is no difference under copyright law between xeroxing something, copying it by hand, or reading it out loud and recording it to a tape. All three are copyright infringement. Period.
What people get confused about is that there is a fair use exception that provides a safe harbor for an activity that is otherwise infringement. The fair use safe harbor is ugly, complicated, and not a well defined area of law. If I remember correctly, the purpose of the use is one of the factors considered in a safe harbor analysis. Further, I believe there is even a statutory exception for certain educational purposes, which exempts things like teachers making xerox copies for students.
Selling of the material is only relevant in showing fair use. If you are making a profit, you are probably not engaged in fair use. That does not mean that because you do not sell a copy you are not infringing.
There is no magical "xerox copies are exempt from copyright law." Passing xeroxed copies is a violation of the owner's copyright unless that passing constitutes fair use or falls within another exception.
Now, with all that disclaimer and such, the activity you describe is almost certainly copyright infringement. Even if it is not copyright infringement, I can guarantee it's a violation of the terms of the license you agreed to when you downloaded the .pdf.
I'm not certain that this rises to the level of criminal copyright infringement (I don't know off hand what needs to be proven), but it may rise to the level of common law theft. The intent element for common law theft is not malice and it's not the intent to inflict harm. It's something along the lines of the intent to misappropriate the property of another. The problem is that common law theft doesn't map well onto IP, and I honestly don't know the how far outside the scope of a license you can go before you are committing a crime. I know that if I let you borrow my car, and you don't return it for a couple days, but do eventually return it and always had that intent, that's not common law theft. It is a tort, but not a crime. On the other hand, if I let you borrow my car, and you itend to return it, but you enter it into a crash-up durby and destroy it, that is theft.
Anyway, this is just all off the cuff. Yes, it's not black and white, but you're a lot closer to black than white.
For whats its worth I agree with Farewell2Kings, in the piracy debate
I am of the opinion on of the principal reasons so much game content is marginal is because so many gamers pirate rather than pay, thus forcing the most creative people to find other ways to make a living instead of focusing their energy on producing lots of great game material.
It's cool, oldcoast--some topics are just meant to be never agreed upon.
It's my fault for keeping it going as long as it did. I think I enjoy pushing buttons as much as I enjoy a spirited debate. I enjoy these forums because the intelligence and literacy level here is much higher than elsewhere on the internet, not to mention a common ground of gaming.
Like I said before, I disagree with you, but you'd be welcome at my gaming table any time (just don't ask me for a copy of a PDF ;) and I appreciate you keeping it civil, even though I showed my definitive appreciation of an ancient English vulgarity.
Think about that for moment, quality is absolutely relevant just because someone uses abode acrobat to assemble a PDF doesn't make the content the absolute same as the physical book. There is a big difference otherwise you'd have to consider that passing xerox'd copies is illegal too. Its the same as if I printed the PDF and faxed it (although in this case it's unprintable) Again we aren't talking about "selling" anything here.I'm not particularly interested in participating in a copyright debate, but it's hard to let a gross mistatement of the law to go unchallenged.
There is no difference under copyright law between xeroxing something, copying it by hand, or reading it out loud and recording it to a tape. All three are copyright infringement. Period.
What people get confused about is that there is a fair use exception that provides a safe harbor for an activity that is otherwise infringement. The fair use safe harbor is ugly, complicated, and not a well defined area of law. If I remember correctly, the purpose of the use is one of the factors considered in a safe harbor analysis. Further, I believe there is even a statutory exception for certain educational purposes, which exempts things like teachers making xerox copies for students.
Selling of the material is only relevant in showing fair use. If you are making a profit, you are probably not engaged in fair use. That does not mean that because you do not sell a copy you are not infringing.
There is no magical "xerox copies are exempt from copyright law." Passing xeroxed copies is a violation of the owner's copyright unless that passing constitutes fair use or falls within another exception.
Now, with all that disclaimer and such, the activity you describe is almost certainly copyright infringement. Even if it is not copyright infringement, I can guarantee it's a violation of the terms of the license you agreed to when you downloaded the .pdf.
I'm not certain that this rises to the level of...
Sincere thanks to you, Sebastian, for your thoughtful lesson in the law. You made that all quite easy to follow.
|
|
I've been to the game store a few times, looking around. Sometimes I'll see a few guys my age (37) come in, ask for help, get lined up with a PHB, a DMG, an MM, then they look at the clerk and say "is there like, a Greyhawk world book?"
The clerk'll say no.
"When are you gonna order one? This is a game store, right?"
The clerk'll show them a gazetter.
"But, um, don't they make like a Book? This gazetter, I have it already. I got it in 8th grade."
No, no book. Doesn't exist. Buy FR. if you want a world book.
Sometimes they look at me, like I know something? They don't understand it. Neither do I, bro, neither do I. Go google it on line, bro.
I'm sorry I don't have any marketing figures for this, but I've heard this conversation more than once in a game store.
I'd never write Eberron off for future play, but when I read the source books and sat down to a game of it I just didn't have the desire to plan to campaign there. Not yet anyway. Some I know think it's the best thing ever. Some equally qualify their opinions to the contrary. I just haven't felt the call to action is all.
I don't want to appear stodgy in my harmless dedication to a game world that brings me joy in this miserable life but I guess I still like Greyhawk because it's a world I've daydreamed in for many years. Despite the discontinued product line and the exodus of many D&D players to newer pastures, That cozy familiarity with Oerth is as valid and worthy as say, someone else's buzz as they rip into the burgeoning land that is Eberron.
I haven't played much in The Realms, but I've read the sourcebooks, and though years later, have begun to dream of the place and begin to design plans for a stay. Am I years too late? Doesn't matter if I get a group of open minded people together for a session. It takes me time to move on to newer things is all. Diff'rent strokes to move the wooooooooooorld.
EDIT: As for piracy? Well I THINK--"
::tomatoes from the crowd pelt and torment The Jade into a fruity red fetal position upon his soapbox::
For the record, farewell2kings is a police officer, and has a commendable appreciation for the law as a result.
yes, cops and educators rarely see to eye to eye, thus is life. I appauld his public service thou, thanks F2K
Even in educational settings it's not fair use.... colleges and universities spend a fortune on copyright permissions fees for a reason.
True but you aren't totally correct here are the basic tennants of fair use we use.
1-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2- the nature of the copyrighted work;
3- amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
if you apply these rules of thumb, my definition of fair use clearly holds up in my situation, I won't bother talking about consumer "fair use" which far more broad.
I once had a colleague who taught in public school who consistently was forced to make copies of books to make up for supply shortages. shall I call her to tell her she's a thief?
let me concede, that I will in the future be more sensitive to the issue as I only sent the whole PDF out of sheer laziness when I could have spent 30 mins creating the relevant sections. While what I did isn't a big deal, it does seem to push people buttons correctly or not.
I do wish you guys were more sensitive to the realities of what "is" and what "isn't" piracy the lack acceptance of context is frightening. I find this almost draconian black and white view of things held by many fellow gamers I meet on the net to be quite unsettling. This has an overall negative effect on spreading interest in PNP gaming.
I can guarantee it's a violation of the terms of the license you agreed to when you downloaded the .pdf.
Except there wasn't a "terms of license", No such stipulation was put on the purchase. you usually find that with new products released on PDF, in term of watermarks,etc. We're talking about old out of print books here made of crappy not printable scans. Anyway, I'm done on this, I made as much of a point as I can. To all- thanks for being civil about it.
This debate popped up before on another thread, and it was much more civilized in this one than on the one before. Take care, being an educator is a tough job and you're very used to dealing with argumentative people as well.
Cops & educators not seeing eye to eye? Unprecedented!! ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The problem is that you do not have a complete understanding of how these factors are used, what weight they have, and how to apply them. There's a reason that people employ lawyers to interpret the law.
True but you aren't totally correct here are the basic tennants of fair use we use.
1-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Your purpose is non-commercial, however, it is not non-profit or for the public good. It's not sharing theIP in a normally accepted context (i.e., reading a book aloud). This factor is at best neutral, and at worst, cuts against you.
2- the nature of the copyrighted work;
I can't even remember what the heck this factor is about. I think it's whether the copyrighted work contains a lot of non-copyrightable material (i.e. a phonebook). The more that you are using factual material, the less chance you are infringing copyright. This is a work of fiction, and therefore (I believe) this cuts against you.
3- amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
You're using the whole work. You're not taking out pieces to use for a review. This cuts against you.
4- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
You have reduced the potential market for the copyrighted work by giving it to your friends, particularly when the cost of them acquiring it is minimal.
if you apply these rules of thumb, my definition of fair use clearly holds up in my situation, I won't bother talking about consumer "fair use" which far more broad.
If you apply the legal test for fair use as courts of law apply them, you will see that your situation is ambiguous at the absolute best, and most likely does not constitute fair use.
It's even easier to see if you take the example of a video tape. If you bought a used video and copied it for you friends, that would not be fair use.
The problem is that you do not have a complete understanding of how these factors are used
The problem is I beg to differ with your analysis and have the personal experience to back it up. I won't bother beating a dead horse where #1 and #4 go, quality of fascimilie and lack of licensing aside. #3 is hard to get away from and is where I conceded above I should have taken the time to only use relevant sections and thus kill the argument.
If you want to continue to hash out the legal wrangling email me and I will go into detail.Unless you'd like to take me to court to prove your assertions, lets loosen up a little bit and look at this way. I gave out 5 PDF's as a game aid to group of people I know very well who are all ethical professional people and gaming enthusiasts (Not one of whom said to me, "How dare send this to me and make me a participant in your behavior!")
All of them spend countless dollars of disposable income various things we all support. Two of them had never been played in Greyhawk and now are fans who'd like to support the setting and are currently buying old books, PDF's etc. Did I cheat some distibuter out of $20?? no, In the long run I made them money and we have two more supporters of the setting. So I gave them something they never would have purchased anyway and in turn they are interested in alot more, everybody wins. You can disagree with my methods, sure that's fair. But tell me I am breaking the law? sorry only in some fantasy court where iron masked judges throw down absolutisms without ever considering the context.
Hell after I tell them about all the grief I've gotten I can probably guilt them into paying for it and re-download it, as it's $4. Call me a criminal if you want, but I say the complete lack of understanding that context is the key to this debate, is the real crime. D20 and an open gaming license wouldn't even exist, period with the lines of thinking I see here.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Edit: Bah. I retract my retort. This is why I try not to bother with copyright debates. It's the area of law where everyone thinks they're an expert because they once read something about the subject or like to use file sharing software. What I presented above is the law and the correct analysis. Take it or leave it.
EDIT: As for piracy? Well I THINK--"::tomatoes from the crowd pelt and torment The Jade into a fruity red fetal position upon his soapbox::
ROFLMAO....I should have made my will save a long time ago, like you did.
Right, but they had to license it from Wizards and didn't buy it from TSR, correct?
Thats my understanding except that the copyright for AD&D would be held by Kenzer Co. as opposed to WotC.
Sincere thanks to you, Sebastian, for your thoughtful lesson in the law. You made that all quite easy to follow.
Yeah, that was a good post.
Sincere thanks to you, Sebastian, for your thoughtful lesson in the law. You made that all quite easy to follow.Yeah, that was a good post.
Agreed.
I've worked in publishing for years, and I can tell you that "fair use" is extremely vague, although it is usually applied to educational purposes. I have no wish to continue the debate, except to say that if you are distributing something for free to people that might have purchased it otherwise, you're not helping the hobby. Besides, PDFs are cheap. 'Nuff said!Can we get back to the Greyhawk argument now? ;)