Phase 1 of OGL / SRD


4th Edition

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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

Only problem there is: Libraries rarely carry game books.

Of course, the REASON is they get stolen far too often (though, at least allegedly, many of those are stolen by fanatics trying to "protect the children from the great evil")

The library where I work carries D&D books - at least the core, plus a bunch of others. Since the Librarian who looks after ordering for that collection doesn't know anything about D&D I suspect he waits for requests from those who use the books for what to buy.

I remember my brother mentioning that Dad's library was stocking the 3 core books for D&D too, about four years back (he was surprised; he hadn't know 3.0 had been released, and then saw the 3.5 books)...

Dark Archive

My library is refusing to convert to 4e.

The Exchange

Brian E. Harris wrote:
CNB wrote:

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

Fake Healer wrote:
Except that you now have a copy of something that you won't be paying for which means that the people or person who wrote, edited, printed, and illustrated the book have all lost that copy as a source of revenue.
Uhhhh, no? Maybe I need to re-read what CNB wrote, but I'm pretty sure he said that he deleted it. Let me check. OK, yup, he did. Let me go make that part bold. OK, done.

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

Brian E. Harris wrote:

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

So great! You are the exception. There is always a small percentage that is. You may not be keeping the downloads for long but most people who do this type of stuff are. Read reviews, peruse a book in the store, play the trial version. All legal methods for checking something out. Stealing something is not a legal method of trying something out no matter how you warp morality. Almost every country agrees that downloading pirated stuff is illegal. Apparently you know better.


Fake Healer wrote:


Except that you now have a copy of something that you won't be paying for

No, he won't. He deleted it.

Fake Healer wrote:
which means that the people or person who wrote, edited, printed, and illustrated the book have all lost that copy as a source of revenue.

Tell me: If I get a PDF and put it on a RAID 1, do I have to buy it twice? Because essentially, the file is saved twice, on two hard disks. That means I use up two copies, and otherwise would only pay for one.

Fake Healer wrote:


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

Can you prove he will?

Are you sure he will tell everyone that he copied a PDF and didn't own and deleted it right after? And that will make 10.000 people virtually steal that book?

You assume that those people wouldn't find out anyway, and that anyone who is told about this will go and do the same.

Fake Healer wrote:


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

No, he's not. They didn't lose anything. He wouldn't have purchased that book just to delete the file. Why would he? And since it's a computer file, not a physical book, and it will probably not be on the company's servers, he won't generate any work or effort for the company and its employees.

TerraNova wrote:


Very nice attempt, but misguided. The whole term "virtual theft" is. After all, nothing is removed from the posession of anyone.

That's why I call it virtual theft, not actual theft. It's almost the same thing, but not quite. I think it fits rather nicely.

The word that doesn't fit is piracy. When people think of piracy and pirates, they usually think of brutal sea robbers who will not only foricly take other people's things, but also those other people - enslave them, rape them, kill them, maim them.

Those connotations were used to make people believe that virtual thieves are brutal, ruthless, hardened criminals who enjoy other people's suffering.

The day someone enters an electronics store, shoots one salesman to get his point across, and then forces the others to load all their windows licenses at gun point, only to shoot all witnesses and flee - that day I agree to the term "software piracy"

TerraNova wrote:


I am all in favor if buying products, even virtual ones, but "theft" just does not cut it. There is no damage inflicted on the owner (as in "the car is gone"). All they may claim is "i sold one car less than i otherwise would have" - and even that claim is dubious. Sure, i'd like a ferrari as much as the next guy. Doesn't mean i would pony up the cash for one in a million years.

Usually, the choice does not boil down to "copy or buy", but rather to "copy or just carry on living without it".

Doesn't make it right, of course, but it does put "damages" quoted by officials (especially in the music / film industries) into perspective.

You hit it dead-on.

While there surely are people who copy books they would have otherwise bought, there are also people who virtually steal books they wouldn't buy - some because they don't have the money, some because they want to test it and find that they don't like it, and so on.

Heck, there are people who got the virtually stolen copy first and then liked enough to actually buy it - something they wouldn't have done if they couldn't have browsed it first (which they can't do because there's no gaming store near or because no gaming store has that book).

The bottom line is: It's a fact that virtual theft generates losses. But it's also a fact that not every virtual theft generates a loss. (and, once we start talking about media like movies or music, not every copy is a virtually stolen copy, and not every media bought will be used to copy games or music.)

Scarab Sages

DangerDwarf wrote:

My library is refusing to convert to 4e.

A bunch of grognards, eh?

Dark Archive

Wicht wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:

My library is refusing to convert to 4e.

A bunch of grognards, eh?

Yeah, the granny librarian is a hardcore 3e'er.

The Exchange

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

Dark Archive

Fake Healer wrote:
EVERY illegal download lead to loss of sale

Ummmm....

Scarab Sages

DangerDwarf wrote:


Yeah, the granny librarian is a hardcore 3e'er.

I can't wait till I am old(er) and crotchety.

Then I can hit people with my cane and tell them about the glory days when Thac0 still meant something and red dragons were always evil.

The Exchange

KaeYoss wrote:
No, he's not. They didn't lose anything. He wouldn't have purchased that book just to delete the file. Why would he? And since it's a computer file, not a physical book, and it will probably not be on the company's servers, he won't generate any work or effort for the company and its employees.

So I should cancel my subscriptions to Paizo's products and just download the PDFs off of some website for free? How doesn't that hurt Paizo? They just lost $40 a month in revenue from me because I can get it for free elsewhere. Others do the same. Profits drop. Nick Logue and Mr.Pett don't get paid as much because the profit margin isn't there. Eventually the quality of work goes down. People no longer value Paizo's products as highly.

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

The Exchange

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

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

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

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

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


KaeYoss wrote:


Tell me: If I get a PDF and put it on a RAID 1, do I have to buy it twice? Because essentially, the file is saved twice, on two hard disks. That means I use up two copies, and otherwise would only pay for one.

Unless the product has an EXPLICIT end user license stating otherwise (or the laws changed in the last four years), under US Copyright law, you are permitted to make one archival copy of any product you legally own, regardless of the media.

Now, if you go print out that PDF, you legally *should* delete one of the copies but that's seriously splitting hairs.

Incidentally, I know several people who (at least CLAIM to) delete any files for stuff they don't decide to purchase.

Me, if there's a doubt, I don't download it.

I prefer to have one hardcopy (to read) and one PDF copy (for reference) for everything, but I rarely manage to pull this off...


I would LOVE if WotC included an official .pdf (searchable text, etc) version of the book at the back of each book they sell in hardback form, or at least provide a pin for a free licensed download. Treat it like Microsoft treats Home and Student Edition of Office: Installation on up to 3 PCs.

The Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: seems this post disappeared or something so I am re posting - sorry if you see two of them.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

KaeYoss wrote:
TerraNova wrote:


Very nice attempt, but misguided. The whole term "virtual theft" is. After all, nothing is removed from the posession of anyone.
That's why I call it virtual theft, not actual theft. It's almost the same thing, but not quite. I think it fits rather nicely.

Frankly, i would rather be put on trial for theft than for copyright infridgement these days - the penalties are usually much less severe. But this is neither here nor there.

Theft implies that you remove the stolen object from the posession of the victim, thereby creating an immediate damage to that victim. This does not happen. While you bring yourself into posession of an "object" (in the losest sense of the word), you don't remove it from anywhere.

Both Theft and Piracy are wholely wrong words to describe what is going on. Copyright Infridgement is the only appropriate term, and both Piracy (which, contrary to what you assert, seems to most frequently evoke feelings of romantic adventures in the caribean) and theft (which invokes images of shoplifters) are used for a certain purpose. But the only really appropriate term is what it is. Any analogy will fall flat, because copyright is such a tricky (and may i add, synthetic) beast.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Again, any data to back this up?

Fake Healer wrote:
Read reviews, peruse a book in the store, play the trial version.

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

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

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

Fake Healer wrote:
Almost every country agrees that downloading pirated stuff is illegal. Apparently you know better.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Open means open - as in, UNRESTRICTED.

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

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


TerraNova wrote:
Copyright Infringement is the only appropriate term

Bingo.

Scarab Sages

Brian E. Harris wrote:

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

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

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

No.

and

No.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

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

You're completely missing his basic point.

If you want to sell me a physical copy of a book, you need to produce it. Every copy you make means you have to cut down more trees, pulp more paper, manufacture more ink, and run a copy off the presses. If I steal a copy and throw it in a convenient furnace I gain nothing, and it's actually cost you money. You'll need to spend money to make an additional copy. Worse, you lose the use of the original copy. If it was the only one you had, you're out of luck.

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

There are very different acts, with very different implications. The law might treat them as exactly the same but, as Dickens pointed out, the law is an ass.

classic rationalization. MY theft doesn't hurt anyone.

The Exchange

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
They just lost $40 a month in revenue from me because I can get it for free elsewhere. Others do the same. Profits drop.

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

Fake Healer wrote:
I don't need to prove that this or anything else would happen. The fact is that it could. Just like a previous poster could delete a download immediately after getting it.
And nobody is disputing that it could happen. In fact, we fully agree that it could happen. On the other hand, you're insisting that the behaviour that we've described DOESN'T happen, and you're insinuating that ALL downloads are negatively impacting the bottom line. It's not true.

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

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

I would love to hear your arguement in court to a judge. Maybe you should turn yourself in and fight this through the system to change the "unfair" laws since you are so passionate about it.
I am finished with this, I am no longer going to argue with a thief who thinks his cause is noble and decides to wear blinders to the problems with his actions. You can consider yourself the "winner" in this arguement but we both know that if your computer were suddenly confiscated by authorities you would be fearing for your freedom.

Scarab Sages

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

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

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

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

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

The first is sharing. The second is publishing.


Wicht wrote:

No.

and

No.

Wrong.

and

Wrong.

Dark Archive

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Wicht wrote:

No.

and

No.

Wrong.

and

Wrong.

Dungeons

and

Dragons


Fake Healer wrote:

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

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

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

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

No need. I'm not breaking a law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarab Sages

Brian E. Harris wrote:


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

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

Liberty's Edge

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


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

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

Liberty's Edge

Go to Borders and looky loo.


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

Stolen is a poor word to describe it.

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

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

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

Scarab Sages

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Wicht wrote:
I would advise you not to make stupid bets. You'll keep your money longer that way.
Oh, I'm quite confident that I'd end up earning a pretty penny from you holier-than-thou types...

Uh-huh. Sure.

I have absolutely nothing on my computer stolen whatsoever, not music, not movies, not books.

But you go right on believing whatever you want to believe.

Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
I don't have anything stolen whatsoever on my computer.

Stolen is a poor word to describe it.

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

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

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

Nope.


CNB wrote:
Christian Johnson wrote:
So I think even Hasbro might be a little confused as to what they are actually saying in their new OGL.
Hasbro isn't confused at all. This OGL will require the use of the Player's Handbook. Future versions of the OGL may not.

I think the inference here is obvious.

In years to come, if WOTC publishes additional "4E" games (not D&D), then they will alter the OGL to allow the publication of 3rd party items that build on the additional PHB.

I could be wrong. But I think I'm right.

Liberty's Edge

I don't like saving stuff. The viruses might swim up inside of me.

Scarab Sages

Heathansson wrote:
I don't like saving stuff. The viruses might swim up inside of me.

Ew. Didn't need to picture that.

Liberty's Edge

Did ya read World According To Garp?


Wicht wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, so wrong.

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

Wicht wrote:
The first is sharing. The second is publishing.

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

The Exchange

Heathansson wrote:
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
I don't have anything stolen whatsoever on my computer.

Stolen is a poor word to describe it.

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

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

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

Nope.

Yeah, sorry, same here. I don't steal. I did that when I was a youngin' and did some time, service, and fine for it. Taught me a lesson about stealing, and I hope you get the same pleasure.

Am I without sin? Hell no. But I no longer sin in that manner.


Heathansson wrote:
I don't like saving stuff. The viruses might swim up inside of me.

Sheesh!!

I come here ... make an innocent post ... WAY too late to be of any real use to anyone.

Then I just happen to glance south at Heathy's post.

Ewwwww!! Man, I feel violated...

[But I'll get over it.]

Scarab Sages

Heathansson wrote:
Did ya read World According To Garp?

Nope.

Scanned through it but that was years and years ago. Don't remember anything about it except the title.

Liberty's Edge

He wrote this short story about Oren Rath or something. I'd tell you more, but that'd be copyright violation.

The only thing I ever stole was a kiss from a lovely lady.

Liberty's Edge

But I'm not without sin. I'm a lover, not a larcenist.

Scarab Sages

Brian E. Harris wrote:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depends on the game and the license agreement.

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

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

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

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

Scarab Sages

Brian E. Harris wrote:


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

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

The Exchange

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

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

Open means open - as in, UNRESTRICTED.

crosswiredmind wrote:
Creative commons has a wide variety of usage restrictions in its licensing. You can set them from wide open with attribution only down to specific restrictions on use.
Yes, but Creative Commons Licese != Open License. It's similar, but it's not an open license. It's retricting things in a manner that is, by definition, closed - or slightly ajar.

Again - its a common misunderstanding. I can understand why you would see open source gaming as unrestricted but there is no such thing as an unrestricted open license.

Open in the way you are thinking of it would be public domain.


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

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

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

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

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Phase 1 of OGL / SRD All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition