|
My right of first sale should not be infringed because it's hard for a copyright holder to tell if his/her right has been infringed.
You keep on bringing up this strawman.
We're not discussing your right to sell, give away, or transfer property you have purchased (or otherwise accquired legally). We're taking about whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party.
You'll find many people here would agree with you that you should be able to sell (or give away) anything you accquire from Paizo. In fact in some parts of the world that's already the case. But that does not mean you are also able to retain a copy for your own use.
Wouldn't make much difference, barely anyone (at all?) reads what one has to click through to get a PC game installed too (as example), as everyone just wants to quickly be done with it. Same with downloading things.It removes the "I didnt agree to no stinking contract" defence.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, I generally do read the TOC when I click the "Yes, I've read the terms and conditions" button. Not thoroughly, but I generally skim it for the salient points. But if I choose not to, I dont think I can try and argue later that they dont apply to me.
EULA's are sticky. There's been a lot of wrangling either way on whether or not they're legally binding, for the very reason that the vast majority of folks ignore the text wall and click on through.
Additionally, many EULA's have terms that would violate right of first sale, and, there's growing legal precedent that shows that you can't do this.
My argument remains ethical, not legal. Nonetheless, I'll say in passing that I think this overstates the case - I think there is conflicting momentum as to whether right of first sale exists for electronic product. It's obviously current at the moment, but I don't think all the precedent is going the way of the "right of first sale applies" advocates. Also remember that you and I were specifically speaking of free product - I'm no lawyer, but I daresay that has a bearing. (if a contract is seen to be had, isn't the restrictions were discussing the only consideration the seller receives?)
I really don't think "ethics" comes into play, Steve. Paizo may have certain desires on stuff, and I respect Paizo as a company (and because of that respect, I'm far more inclined to go along with desires they may have), but Paizo's desires don't necessarily trump my legal rights (nor do I feel ethically or morally bound by those hypothetical desires when/if they do conflict with my legal rights).
This is why I consider it an ethical issue rather than a moral one. The right thing to do (dealing honestly and compassionately with others) conflicts with a legal right (to use your property as you see fit). Morality is a question of right and wrong, ethics a question of which "right" is more important (this may be an idiosyncratic use of the terms, but it's how I was taught to use them). The fact you don't agree with me about the resolution of that conflict doesn't imply there's no conflict does it?
As a hypothetical: Say that Paizo sells me books via the subscription model. In order to take advantage of that subscription, I agree to terms that state that I won't loan or sell my physical books, in consideration for the discount provided. I know that Paizo can't place such restrictions on me and I want the books they're selling. I don't believe that it's unethical for me to NOT abide by those particular terms restricting my right of first sale. If anything, it's unethical to attempt to place such restrictions on my property. I click through anyways, and buy the books.
I think you should refuse the discount. I'lll grant that imposing that clause might be seen as unethical, for the sake of the argument - the fact the person you are dealing with is behaving unethically doesn't imply it's ok for you to (by dealing dishonestly and undertaking to comply with a term you have no intention of obeying).
Remember though, we were speaking of free product. If I want to make some PDF available for no charge - am I not entitled to ask for something in return? (compliant behavior, in this case). It seems to me that, if you're right and I don't have the right to ask for the buyer not to distribute my free product, then I may choose not to make the PDF available. Whose interests have been served then?
Edit: rather surprisingly, I find myself in exactly this position - I'm hoping to produce a PDF under paizo's CUP. As a consequence, I wouldn't be charging for it. One of the various things I'd be asking of any of the people who accept a copy is that they not distribute it, but rather direct potential downloaders to the source. My reasons for that are my own, but suffice to say it gives me pause to think people may consider themselves perfectly free to take my offering and ignore that undertaking (which I intend to make explicit). Adopting this view really feels like an unfair restriction on my rights to enter a free contract with other consenting parties here (as well as being a poor result for anyone who would have wanted a copy of something which now won't see the light of day).
My right of first sale should not be infringed because it's hard for a copyright holder to tell if his/her right has been infringed.You keep on bringing up this strawman.
We're not discussing your right to sell, give away, or transfer property you have purchased (or otherwise accquired legally). We're taking about whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party.
You'll find many people here would agree with you that you should be able to sell (or give away) anything you accquire from Paizo. In fact in some parts of the world that's already the case. But that does not mean you are also able to retain a copy for your own use.
This is a good point, I think. As I understand things (ie very poorly and superficially) when right of first sale has been held to apply, it has also been held that the customer reselling the property must no longer have access to the product they've sold. One can't choose only some of the legal precedents one wants to rely on.
In the case of a paizo PDF, presumably you'd have to request paizo delete the PDF you'd resold from your downloads section. You'd at least have to delete all copies you own and not download another without buying it a second time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's desires don't necessarily trump my legal rights (nor do I feel ethically or morally bound by those hypothetical desires when/if they do conflict with my legal rights).
And yet you seem to feel it is perfectly acceptable for you to ignore Paizo's legal rights when they happen to contradict your sense of what is ethically correct. That's a double standard.
You keep on bringing up this strawman.
We're not discussing your right to sell, give away, or transfer property you have purchased (or otherwise accquired legally). We're taking about whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party.
You'll find many people here would agree with you that you should be able to sell (or give away) anything you accquire from Paizo. In fact in some parts of the world that's already the case. But that does not mean you are also able to retain a copy for your own use.
I'm bringing up no strawman. We are NOT discussing "whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party."
I think most people here (myself included) have acknowledged that this is not legal or accepted.
Please point out where I am arguing, or have ever argued, that I should be able to legally divest myself of my purchased property whilst retaining a copy.
Remember though, we were speaking of free product. If I want to make some PDF available for no charge - am I not entitled to ask for something in return? (compliant behavior, in this case). It seems to me that, if you're right and I don't have the right to ask for the buyer not to distribute my free product, then I may choose not to make the PDF available. Whose interests have been served then?
I think that, at this point, you would need to weigh the benefits of releasing the product period, vs. controlling distribution.
Keep in mind, I think that, at present, it's completely legal for copyright holders to place these restrictions on distribution of free product. The fact that it's free doesn't change current copyright provisions.
Edit: rather surprisingly, I find myself in exactly this position - I'm hoping to produce a PDF under paizo's CUP. As a consequence, I wouldn't be charging for it. One of the various things I'd be asking of any of the people who accept a copy is that they not distribute it, but rather direct potential downloaders to the source. My reasons for that are my own, but suffice to say it gives me pause to think people may consider themselves perfectly free to take my offering and ignore that undertaking (which I intend to make explicit). Adopting this view really feels like an unfair restriction on my rights to enter a free contract with other consenting parties here (as well as being a poor result for anyone who would have wanted a copy of something which now won't see the light of day).
Does the Community Use Policy allow you to place these restrictions on it? This is a different situation than your own original non-derivative work, because Paizo is allowing you use of THEIR copyrighted work to produce your own.
(Note, I ask this for my own curiosity.)
Assuming that it is legal for the recipient to redistribute an item, I can't agree that it's immoral or unethical for the recipient to do so, regardless of the desires of the entity making the item available for distribution.
In the case of Paizo's CUP, if it prohibits restriction on redistribution, I don't see that as being anything near an unfair restriction on you.
As an example, the OGL also has clauses about distribution, specifically as it relates to providing credit for other work. If a content creator was able to release open content under the OGL, but restrict it to a point that, in order to receive that content, you have to go to the original source, it would gut the usefulness of the OGL.
|
|
You keep on bringing up this strawman.
We're not discussing your right to sell, give away, or transfer property you have purchased (or otherwise accquired legally). We're taking about whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party.
You'll find many people here would agree with you that you should be able to sell (or give away) anything you accquire from Paizo. In fact in some parts of the world that's already the case. But that does not mean you are also able to retain a copy for your own use.
I'm bringing up no strawman. We are NOT discussing "whether it is legal or moral for you to copy, duplicate, or publish derivative works, or to retain a copy for your own use in addition to giving/selling a copy to a third party."
I think most people here (myself included) have acknowledged that this is not legal or accepted.
Please point out where I am arguing, or have ever argued, that I should be able to legally divest myself of my purchased property whilst retaining a copy.
Note that I also said "or otherwise acquired legally".
If a copyrighted product is free, there shouldn't be any restriction on it's distribution.
You're drawing a distinction between a financial transaction and property acquired in exchange for other considerations (such as, say, directing traffic to the distributors website).
And yet you seem to feel it is perfectly acceptable for you to ignore Paizo's legal rights when they happen to contradict your sense of what is ethically correct. That's a double standard.
Really? I do?
Can you cite where I said this? Because I'm pretty sure this entire time I've said that it's NOT acceptable for me to do so.
Please - provide quotes. Back up this claim.
This is a good point, I think. As I understand things (ie very poorly and superficially) when right of first sale has been held to apply, it has also been held that the customer reselling the property must no longer have access to the product they've sold. One can't choose only some of the legal precedents one wants to rely on.
And, as I've pointed out, one isn't advocating that they should be allowed to.
Note that I also said "or otherwise acquired legally".
If a copyrighted product is free, there shouldn't be any restriction on it's distribution.You're drawing a distinction between a financial transaction and property acquired in exchange for other considerations (such as, say, directing traffic to the distributors website).
That's right, I am. In what way does this invalidate anything I've said?
You'll notice that I'm not saying "Eff the copyright holder, I'm going to do it anyways."
I'm saying "if a product is free, there shouldn't be a restriction on it's distribution."
There's a big difference in performing an illegal act, advocating an illegal act, and advocating that statute should be changes so that a particular act is made legal.
Creativity is the foundation of their business. Copyright laws help them to make a profit on their work, which they need to continue their business. People can only play pathfinder because it is copyrighted, otherwise, it would not have been feasible for paizo to produce it in the first place.For those who are advocating that Paizo should be happy that our PDFs are pirated because it's free advertising, I'd like to point to all the OGL content we make available for free. Our business is built on copyright, yes, but we 100% recognize the value in giving away free stuff.Oh lawd... stop, just stop. Give yourselves a little credit for crying out loud! Your business was built on the creativity of your brilliant staff of writers, and artists. Not copyright. Your business is built on giving customers a quality product that they want to buy. Not copyright. Your business is (hopefully) doing well *despite* copyright not *because* of it. Not one member here plays Pathfinder because it's copyrighted; they play it because it's fun, easy to work with, has a compelling storyline, and cool looking pictures.
How can you even say that when, if not for the Open Gaming Content (and summary restriction on copyright/trademark infringing that can be claimed), Paizo wouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place?
Claiming that illegal copying of protected works is not theft, because "it is still there" may be true on a semantical level. It does not change the fact that copying data without the copyright holders consent is still illegal. In effect, the copyright owner is cheated out of his dues.
It's the basis for why we're even calling it "theft" in the first place so I have to disagree with you here too. The financial injury caused by theft is the reason it's wrong... without that injury it isn't wrong and isn't theft. It's not semantics on my part, it's a bad choice of words on people who are on the other side of this debate.
If he gives away data free of charge and tells you "please don´t share, we´d rather have all interested parties downloading it themselves", then not doing as they ask for is at least not respecting their wishes, which is not nice. If someone downloaded free material and shares it publicly, he is practically punching the creator in the face and tells him "I don´t give a damn to your wishes". If I were the creator, I would ban this guy from further downloads.
Sure. A business can always decide to refuse to do business with someone.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Our free PDFs:
The trouble is the word [free] has two meanings - "for zero price" (which it is) and "with no restrictions" (which it isnt).
Steve is correct. When we choose to provide a given PDF for no charge, we are in actuality asking for some consideration for it: specifically, we're asking for the recipient to create an account on paizo.com, which has value to us. We have a legal right to do that, and in my opinion, it's very much ethically sound as well.
We don't add specific disclaimers to tell you that you're not allowed to redistribute our free PDFs for a very simple reason: the presence of a copyright statement on the material itself tells you that by default, you have precisely the rights bestowed upon you by copyright law, and no other rights (except, where applicable, those granted to you by the OGL, or our Community Use Policy, or the like).
This is also why there's no visible contract regarding downloads (or any other sale) on our site: common trade laws and intellectual properties laws apply.
Thanks, Vic.
I was pretty sure there was just the copyright notices, but I wanted to be sure.
What is Paizo's take on right of first sale, as it applies to your PDFs?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is Paizo's take on right of first sale, as it applies to your PDFs?
If you're talking about the notion of people being able to gift or resell their PDFs to others (meaning we'd have to have a way for customer service to complete those transactions by *at least* removing access for the seller, if not also providing ongoing access to the purchaser)... I frankly have no interest in burdening customer service with that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread seems to have gotten bogged down in the idea of getting sued over copyright infringement. I'm almost 100% certain that's not what Paizo does if they feel their PDF's are being abused.
I believe the scenario goes - 1) PDF is made available for mass download through whatever means. 2) Paizo emloyee becomes aware of it. 3) Paizo company deems the person who purchased the PDF (identified by watermark) to have breached sale contract with them. 4) Paizo refuses to do business with that person again (ie cancels their account)
I don't believe anything in there is against the law, nor is making a silly statement backed by ancient copyright laws that aren't keeping up with modern times.
They can legally refuse to do business with whomever they like, if the decision isn't just arbitrary (ie. they have some form of proof of reasoning for the decision).
I know I presented a scenario earlier in this thread that showed the difficulties inherent in protecting their gear. However, I think they have to do something.
In an era where electronic products (PDF's in this case) have made the copying of an item for mass production cost almost nothing to the user, the personal disincentives to copy and give it away have almost all been removed.
The problem I was pointing out comes from the clash between two era's and what is/was considered reasonable for both. In hard print, you can give your old stuff away without recourse to legal action for what the new owner did with it.(short of a lengthy investigation of tracking the ownership back to original purchaser). This became so entrenched in society that E-bay was able to be created and thrive. Common law would deem this perfectly legal it seems.
With the new technology, a company has to be able to protect its sellable items somehow. In so doing, they have now removed the common law practice of selling your old product to new folks without recourse to action. They have to do this, because unscrupulous individuals will happily make multiple copies of the electronic item and sell that, or make it free to use. That couldn't happen with hard copies sold over ebay, as the original item was removed from the original seller. Electronic copies aren't.
I don't think what Paizo and other companies do to protect their business is wrong, I think it will take a long time for folks like myself to get used to however. (I grew up in hard copy only era). People like myself constantly lend books we own to others so they can read them. I sell old novels to second hand bookstores if I feel I'm never going to read them again. It's what we grew up doing. I just need to get used to the idea that I can't lend my PDF's out, and I certainly can't try to sell them when I'm done. Nowadays if I'm done with an electronic copy and my disk space is too full, I basically delete it. This goes against the grain of who I am though, since throwing away a book is almost sacrelidge unless it's beyond repair.
I guess the next step would be for the legal abilty to transfer ownership of electronic items to others as happened in print copies. I'm sure it will come eventually.
Cheers
|
|
What is Paizo's take on right of first sale, as it applies to your PDFs?If you're talking about the notion of people being able to gift or resell their PDFs to others (meaning we'd have to have a way for customer service to complete those transactions by *at least* removing access for the seller, if not also providing ongoing access to the purchaser)... I frankly have no interest in burdening customer service with that.
You ninja'd me there Vic.
That's perfectly reasonable. Currently technology isn't available to make this easy for companies like yours. That will change hopefully.
In the meantime I've just had to adjust my thinking to modern times. Not so easy for an old dog like me :)
Keep up the good work
Cheers
Edit - the more I think about this, the more I realise how niche markets like roleplay can be badly affected by the right of first sale. You guys rely on sales hugely, since the market is so small (comparatively), and tracking who is using your product is fairly essential to production values. Seems I may need a complete paradigm shift.
Remember though, we were speaking of free product. If I want to make some PDF available for no charge - am I not entitled to ask for something in return? (compliant behavior, in this case). It seems to me that, if you're right and I don't have the right to ask for the buyer not to distribute my free product, then I may choose not to make the PDF available. Whose interests have been served then?I think that, at this point, you would need to weigh the benefits of releasing the product period, vs. controlling distribution.
Keep in mind, I think that, at present, it's completely legal for copyright holders to place these restrictions on distribution of free product. The fact that it's free doesn't change current copyright provisions.
I appreciate that i may be able to rely on copyright laws (as paizo do), but I'm still not talking about copyright. I'm talking about a purely contractual arrangement.
I don't like to see restrictions on the kinds of contracts people can enter into, particularly when it can't be exploitative and isn't a necessity (ie an rpg PDF offered at zero charge). I don't see any justification in preventing two willing adults from agreeing that the receiver of the product is contractually bound to not distribute it. We can choose to forgo our rights in certain situations and we can bind ourselves to future acts or to refrain from future acts.
This is a good point, I think. As I understand things (ie very poorly and superficially) when right of first sale has been held to apply, it has also been held that the customer reselling the property must no longer have access to the product they've sold. One can't choose only some of the legal precedents one wants to rely on.And, as I've pointed out, one isn't advocating that they should be allowed to.
True. The conversation chops and changes somewhat depending on who is invoking "right of first sale". I shouldn't have implied that it applied to your comments.
Edit: rather surprisingly, I find myself in exactly this position - I'm hoping to produce a PDF under paizo's CUP. As a consequence, I wouldn't be charging for it. One of the various things I'd be asking of any of the people who accept a copy is that they not distribute it, but rather direct potential downloaders to the source. My reasons for that are my own, but suffice to say it gives me pause to think people may consider themselves perfectly free to take my offering and ignore that undertaking (which I intend to make explicit). Adopting this view really feels like an unfair restriction on my rights to enter a free contract with other consenting parties here (as well as being a poor result for anyone who would have wanted a copy of something which now won't see the light of day).Does the Community Use Policy allow you to place these restrictions on it? This is a different situation than your own original non-derivative work, because Paizo is allowing you use of THEIR copyrighted work to produce your own.
(Note, I ask this for my own curiosity.)
Assuming that it is legal for the recipient to redistribute an item, I can't agree that it's immoral or unethical for the recipient to do so, regardless of the desires of the entity making the item available for distribution.
I don't think my desire is what makes redistribution unethical, I think it's the fact the recipient agreed to refrain from doing that when they received the file and that the receipt of the file was conditional on them agreeing to that.
Given Vic's clarifications above - none of what I'm saying here applies to paizo's site and downloads.
I don't like to see restrictions on the kinds of contracts people can enter into, particularly when it can't be exploitative and isn't a necessity (ie an rpg PDF offered at zero charge). I don't see any justification in preventing two willing adults from agreeing that the receiver of the product is contractually bound to not distribute it. We can choose to forgo our rights in certain situations and we can bind ourselves to future acts or to refrain from future acts.
I think that it needlessly complicates things, and places undue restrictions on purchased property.
Let's say you were able to agree on a contract for the item. How would you adjudicate the disposition of that item when the original recipient dies?
Under normal inheritance laws, it passes onto the next of kin, who have entered into no contract with you.
Or, would you have your contract place a covenant on the item? This just further muddies things.
What is Paizo's take on right of first sale, as it applies to your PDFs?If you're talking about the notion of people being able to gift or resell their PDFs to others (meaning we'd have to have a way for customer service to complete those transactions by *at least* removing access for the seller, if not also providing ongoing access to the purchaser)... I frankly have no interest in burdening customer service with that.
Thank you, but, I guess I'm looking for a bit more clarity.
Does Paizo agree or disagree that their PDFs are a copyrighted item subject to right of first sale, and that purchasers of PDFs from Paizo have a legal right, under copyright law, to transfer their purchased PDFs to another person, assuming that they have obeyed all copyright laws and disposed of or destroyed all other digital or physical copies of those PDFs prior to transfer?
Or does Paizo officially not wish to take a stance on that?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is Paizo's take on right of first sale, as it applies to your PDFs?If you're talking about the notion of people being able to gift or resell their PDFs to others (meaning we'd have to have a way for customer service to complete those transactions by *at least* removing access for the seller, if not also providing ongoing access to the purchaser)... I frankly have no interest in burdening customer service with that.Thank you, but, I guess I'm looking for a bit more clarity.
Does Paizo agree or disagree that their PDFs are a copyrighted item subject to right of first sale, and that purchasers of PDFs from Paizo have a legal right, under copyright law, to transfer their purchased PDFs to another person, assuming that they have obeyed all copyright laws and disposed of or destroyed all other digital or physical copies of those PDFs prior to transfer?
Or does Paizo officially not wish to take a stance on that?
Our stance is that US copyright law should be applied, and last I'd checked, there was no precedent one way or the other. I'd heard there are/were cases working their way through the legal system, but I'm not aware if they've been concluded.
I don't think my desire is what makes redistribution unethical, I think it's the fact the recipient agreed to refrain from doing that when they received the file and that the receipt of the file was conditional on them agreeing to that.
1> If you are legally allowed to place such a restriction on the distribution, or such a restriction already exists, violating that restriction is unethical.
2> If you are not legally allowed to place such a restriction on distribution, then your requirement that one agree to an illegal restriction in order to receive the item is unethical (not to mention, quite probably an illegal requirement in the first place).
If someone distributes the item received under item #2 above in disregard of your desire to control distribution, I do not think that they are acting unethically.
Under item #2, I think it's perfectly legitimate to REQUEST that they don't redistribute, and instead direct those that want the item to come directly to you, but I don't think there's any bad behavior on their part by not doing so.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
To answer Steve's question about the Community Use Policy, we state that "you cannot sell or otherwise charge anyone for access to content used under this Policy," and require that you state, among other things, that you "are expressly prohibited from charging ... to use or access this content."
I have no problem with you (for example) requiring that people create a login on your server to access the content, so long as it's ultimately accessible to them at no charge.
Also, though whatever you create under the CUP may use our IP under license, if you were a US author*, you would own the copyright to your original content and the original presentation of your content, so restricting others from redistributing it is legal (and, in my view, ethical and moral).
Indeed, unless you're specifically *waiving* your rights under US copyright law, the *default* is that others may not redistribute your copyrighted materials (except as provided for within the law).
*I'm not familiar with Australian copyright law, so I can't say whether or not that applies to you.
|
|
Thanks again for the input Vic, very much appreciated. Is there any advice you can give me in terms of helping this new group get off the ground. Moreso for the DM than anything else.
I've pointed out the website to them, and the SRD and PRD which means they can get rules and character stuff sorted.
I have a stack of old Dungeon Magazines which have lots of stimulus for the DM to at least get his head around running games again. Technically I have enough he could run games for years, but this doesn't really support you in terms of sales.
I firmly believe that if I can get them set up, they'll become purchasers since many of them are teenagers who tend to have disposable income for the latest interests to take their fancy.
PM me if you'd prefer that form of discussion.
Not even sure if this belongs in this thread anymore.
Cheers
edit - just realised you may not have read my original post on this thread which discussed helping a new group get established without compromising myself or breaching my contract with you guys by lending them PDF's I own. I could do this with hard copy books, but the PDF's carry far greater risks and and ease of use for young teenagers to abbuse that I'm not so willing to take.
Cheers again
I don't think my desire is what makes redistribution unethical, I think it's the fact the recipient agreed to refrain from doing that when they received the file and that the receipt of the file was conditional on them agreeing to that.1> If you are legally allowed to place such a restriction on the distribution, or such a restriction already exists, violating that restriction is unethical.
You seem to always phrase it in that one way nature - im not unilaterally restricting anything, we are freely entering into an agreement on future behaviours. I would find it wrong if the buyer is prevented somehow from agreeing to be bound by such a promise.
It's about freedom of contract, in the situation I'm talking about. Your interpretation harms the buyer's rights as well.
To answer Steve's question about the Community Use Policy, we state that "you cannot sell or otherwise charge anyone for access to content used under this Policy," and require that you state, among other things, that you "are expressly prohibited from charging ... to use or access this content."
I have no problem with you (for example) requiring that people create a login on your server to access the content, so long as it's ultimately accessible to them at no charge.
Also, though whatever you create under the CUP may use our IP under license, if you were a US author*, you would own the copyright to your original content and the original presentation of your content, so restricting others from redistributing it is legal (and, in my view, ethical and moral).
Indeed, unless you're specifically *waiving* your rights under US copyright law, the *default* is that others may not redistribute your copyrighted materials (except as provided for within the law).
*I'm not familiar with Australian copyright law, so I can't say whether or not that applies to you.
Thanks, Vic. I appreciate the clarity. (I'll be confusing things even more, hopefully, by paying someone else to write it, but anyhow...)
|
For example if one of my players want to make a Divine hunter but he don't posses the Ultimate Combat hardbound, giving him a printout of the relevant section of the book is allowed?No, as it is not for personal use. Yes if you print it from the PRD.
A digital copy of the Archetype chapter?As above - a screen-scrape of the OGL stuff in the PRD would be ok, but extracting the pages from the PDF not.
Over here (in Finland) the IP and copyright laws define "personal use" also to include close friends and family members. For example, I could scan any book and store up to three copies on digital devices (e.g. memory sticks or external hard drives) that my friends could use while we're playing. Or even print the whole book, if I want to. And I don't even have to own the book myself; it's legal to check out a library book and scan or print it for personal use (distribution is still illegal, though). This is due to USBs, hard disks, iPads and such including an extra fee (which is paid to authors and artists) in their prices.
Ugh. To me this whole argument sounds like a bunch of people who want to justify getting free copies of stuff that they know darn well they ought to be paying for.
People worked to make this stuff. They even give away giant swaths of it for free. Is it so hard to comprehend that they would like to actually be paid for what they worked to do?
It seems rather disingenious to work so hard to justify copying something that it's pretty darn clear should be paid for.
|
I am all for people paying for digital products and I do not condone piracy, however, let's be real here. Paizo's whole line is out there on the web. If piracy was a serious problem, Paizo would be going bankrupt. People know a good product and will buy it if it is worth buying. I KNOW I can download Paizo's PDF files on the web, but I buy them so Paizo will keep making the fine products they do. I own all of the hardcovers so it makes it difficult to pay up again when I want a PDF for a book I physically have, but I do.
I don't care how secure you try to keep a digital product, if it can be copied it will be. It is of my opinion that companies need to focus on quality and forget about protecting digital products. It never works... Ever.
I don't think Paizo would miss a dollar if their PDFs weren't personalized. The only thing it might do is make someone spend time scrubbing the PDF clean before they post it. Then again if someone doesn't care, it may still find its way out there watermarked. It is out there and nobody can do anything about it at that point. Sure you can stop selling to the person, but someone else is going to do it. The new guy will just be more careful.
The bottom line is... If it is digital and people want it for free, they will get it for free. If they can't do it themselves, they will find someone they know to get it for them.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Thanks, Vic. I appreciate the clarity. (I'll be confusing things even more, hopefully, by paying someone else to write it, but anyhow...)
No confusion there...
The writer is, by default, the copyright owner; your contract with him should specify whether or not he's fully transferring that copyright to you, or if he's just giving you limited and/or temporary rights.
(Again, I'm speaking about US Copyright Law; I suspect Australia is the same, but I nevertheless suggest consulting a legal expert.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
edit - just realised you may not have read my original post on this thread which discussed helping a new group get established without compromising myself or breaching my contract with you guys by lending them PDF's I own. I could do this with hard copy books, but the PDF's carry far greater risks and and ease of use for young teenagers to abbuse that I'm not so willing to take.
I don't have a lot of advice to offer, except to agree that "loaning out" your PDFs would potentially be exposing Paizo (and yourself) to risk.
I will note, though, that we do allow people to purchase PDFs (or buy gift certificates) for other Paizo account holders; maybe the players would be willing to kick in a couple bucks to buy their GM an AP volume every couple months.
Heh. I'm in court as we speak, representing myself. This experience is proving the wisdom of your words. :p
Re: Our free PDFs:
The trouble is the word [free] has two meanings - "for zero price" (which it is) and "with no restrictions" (which it isnt).Steve is correct. When we choose to provide a given PDF for no charge, we are in actuality asking for some consideration for it: specifically, we're asking for the recipient to create an account on paizo.com, which has value to us. We have a legal right to do that, and in my opinion, it's very much ethically sound as well.
We don't add specific disclaimers to tell you that you're not allowed to redistribute our free PDFs for a very simple reason: the presence of a copyright statement on the material itself tells you that by default, you have precisely the rights bestowed upon you by copyright law, and no other rights (except, where applicable, those granted to you by the OGL, or our Community Use Policy, or the like).
This is also why there's no visible contract regarding downloads (or any other sale) on our site: common trade laws and intellectual properties laws apply.
meh.
a) If this is the case I don't understand why we're even referring to the money spent on copyrighted products as a "purchase" or "sale" at all. It ain't. If it's a genuine purchase or sale, I own what I paid for. Period. The rights to that property are mine alone. If that's not the case (and copyright holders continue to retain all rights to "their" product) then it wasn't really a purchase or sale; it's a rental fee for intellectual property. In which case I'm entitled to a full refund as you've changed the terms of my "purchase" around by being disingenuous about the nature of our exchange. If a Toyota dealer sold me a car and, after taking my money, told me that I couldn't use it on weekends or after 9 p.m. without being held legally accountable to Toyota I'd (rightly) demand my money back and so would most other people.
b) If I have to be a lawyer just to buy a stinking book for a hobby of mine and (by nothing more than some supposed implication) agree to a bunch of TOS I don't even understand, I think this is going to be a gigantic disincentive to purchase books (or download the allegedly "free" .pdfs) in the future.
To be clear though I dunno what "the law" is and don't care. You folks can argue that back and fourth until you're blue in the lips for all I care. The law was written on the backs of people who couldn't afford a legal defense against corporate conglomerates who spent billions to ensure their "right" to rip people off trumped everyone else's right to not be ripped off. Inasmuch you're going to have to appeal to a higher ethical agency than the morally bankrupt US legal system to convince me there's any wrong-doing going on here. I'm suggestible to reason.
Also, to be clear, I don't lump Paizo in with the likes Of the RIAA or MPAA just for wanting to make sure they can make money. Just make sure that, in your attempted adaptation to new technology, doesn't result in a malignancy. You start suing your fans over something as trivial as this you're going to lose customers and fans....just ask Lars Ulrich.
Ugh. To me this whole argument sounds like a bunch of people who want to justify getting free copies of stuff that they know darn well they ought to be paying for.
People worked to make this stuff. They even give away giant swaths of it for free. Is it so hard to comprehend that they would like to actually be paid for what they worked to do?
It seems rather disingenious to work so hard to justify copying something that it's pretty darn clear should be paid for.
Who is doing this?
Who is doing this?Ugh. To me this whole argument sounds like a bunch of people who want to justify getting free copies of stuff that they know darn well they ought to be paying for.
People worked to make this stuff. They even give away giant swaths of it for free. Is it so hard to comprehend that they would like to actually be paid for what they worked to do?
It seems rather disingenious to work so hard to justify copying something that it's pretty darn clear should be paid for.
Seems to me you are destined to be pursued through this thread with the cry of "IP thief!" No matter what you say. :p
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a) If this is the case I don't understand why we're even referring to the money spent on copyrighted products as a "purchase" or "sale" at all. It ain't. If it's a genuine purchase or sale, I own what I paid for. Period. The rights to that property are mine alone. If that's not the case (and copyright holders continue to retain all rights to "their" product) then it wasn't really a purchase or sale; it's a rental fee for intellectual property. In which case I'm entitled to a full refund as you've changed the terms of my "purchase" around by being disingenuous about the nature of our exchange.
I'm sorry that your views don't match up with the way commerce actually works. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, or PDF, or a copy of Microsoft Office, or a portrait of yourself from a photo studio, you are *not* buying the copyright to it unless you're told otherwise, and so you don't get to do anything you want with it.
This is not unique to PDFs, or even digital media; it's not unique to Paizo... it's not even new. It's how it has been longer than you or I have been alive. And there's nothing the least bit disingenuous about it. (On the rare occasions that sales of creative works *do* include copyrights, that is when you're informed differently.)
I would like to get a bit of clarification on something, though. Obviously you can't put these online, or start handing PDFs out on the streets, or otherwise widely distribute them, especially when you have no idea who they're reaching, and you DEFINITELY can't make money off of them in any way. But what about passing it around your own gaming group? For example, is it alright to give a copy of the core rulebook to your own gaming group? I only ask because I've seen different policies on this sort of thing from different companies, and I'm not sure what Paizo's stand on it is.
|
Odds are this has been answered somewhere else, but I'm safe to assume that we're okay if we print copies of the adventure path player guides for our players when we GM. I hate to tell someone to create a Paizo account on the spot just to download the guide before they can play.
Having said this, I hate people who are too cheap to pay $10 for the rules. That's cheaper than two extra value meals people!
That's very true - $10 is more than worth it, and you and I know that. People who haven't tried the game before, though, don't. It makes the game a lot harder to get people interested when I have to end my pitch with "and it'll only cost you $10 to get the rulebook."
The PRD and PFSRD are both free and have all the rules. There's also Pathfinder Wiki for a bit of Golarion flavor. Why not point people there to start out?
|
|
a) If this is the case I don't understand why we're even referring to the money spent on copyrighted products as a "purchase" or "sale" at all. It ain't. If it's a genuine purchase or sale, I own what I paid for. Period. The rights to that property are mine alone. If that's not the case (and copyright holders continue to retain all rights to "their" product) then it wasn't really a purchase or sale; it's a rental fee for intellectual property. In which case I'm entitled to a full refund as you've changed the terms of my "purchase" around by being disingenuous about the nature of our exchange.I'm sorry that your views don't match up with the way commerce actually works. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, or PDF, or a copy of Microsoft Office, or a portrait of yourself from a photo studio, you are *not* buying the copyright to it unless you're told otherwise, and so you don't get to do anything you want with it.
This is not unique to PDFs, or even digital media; it's not unique to Paizo... it's not even new. It's how it has been longer than you or I have been alive. And there's nothing the least bit disingenuous about it. (On the rare occasions that sales of creative works *do* include copyrights, that is when you're informed differently.)
Wedding photos. Done.
|
|
a) If this is the case I don't understand why we're even referring to the money spent on copyrighted products as a "purchase" or "sale" at all. It ain't. If it's a genuine purchase or sale, I own what I paid for. Period. The rights to that property are mine alone. If that's not the case (and copyright holders continue to retain all rights to "their" product) then it wasn't really a purchase or sale; it's a rental fee for intellectual property. In which case I'm entitled to a full refund as you've changed the terms of my "purchase" around by being disingenuous about the nature of our exchange.I'm sorry that your views don't match up with the way commerce actually works. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, or PDF, or a copy of Microsoft Office, or a portrait of yourself from a photo studio, you are *not* buying the copyright to it unless you're told otherwise, and so you don't get to do anything you want with it.
This is not unique to PDFs, or even digital media; it's not unique to Paizo... it's not even new. It's how it has been longer than you or I have been alive. And there's nothing the least bit disingenuous about it. (On the rare occasions that sales of creative works *do* include copyrights, that is when you're informed differently.)
To reinforce what Vic is saying, if you pay a professional to take photos of your workplace for a publication, you how the rights to use those photos for that publication (and related advertising) only. If you want to use the same photos for a website you have to reach an agreement with the photographer and probably pay him again.
On the other hand in that specific situation the photographer need to ask your permission and get an agreement to any commercial use of those photos.Purchasing all the rights for those photos has a different cost.
And when you discover that a US firm has taken those photo from the website and is selling them for advertising you get very cross.
I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war, I will not start a flame war...
I'm starting to lose my patience... and since I'm intent on not hating Paizo and it's employees or breaking this forums TOS (as a courtesy, not because I was told to by some Paizo employee with a Napoleon complex) this is going to be my last comment on this thread.
a) If this is the case I don't understand why we're even referring to the money spent on copyrighted products as a "purchase" or "sale" at all. It ain't. If it's a genuine purchase or sale, I own what I paid for. Period. The rights to that property are mine alone. If that's not the case (and copyright holders continue to retain all rights to "their" product) then it wasn't really a purchase or sale; it's a rental fee for intellectual property. In which case I'm entitled to a full refund as you've changed the terms of my "purchase" around by being disingenuous about the nature of our exchange.I'm sorry that your views don't match up with the way commerce actually works.
Ditto and I'm sorry that your views on how commerce works don't match up with how privately owned property works.
When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, or PDF, or a copy of Microsoft Office, or a portrait of yourself from a photo studio, you are *not* buying the copyright to it unless you're told otherwise, and so you don't get to do anything you want with it.
Watch me. I'm not one of your employees, inasmuch, you don't get to tell me squat. If that's a problem feel free to not to sell anything, go broke, and find some other business that allows you to abuse your customers' most basic legal rights. For you I'd suggest government work.
This is not unique to PDFs, or even digital media; it's not unique to Paizo... it's not even new. It's how it has been longer than you or I have been alive. And there's nothing the least bit disingenuous about it. (On the rare occasions that sales of creative works *do* include copyrights, that is when you're informed differently.)
There's historic precedent for a lot of really, really horrible stuff. Racism, sexism, slavery, pederasty, witch-burnings, drinking out of lead cups, etc. Just because there's a historic precedent or it is "the way it's always been done" doesn't mean it's an example to follow. But hey, if you're really looking for an example in history to follow why not "the customer is always right"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the customer is NOT always right. Quite often, the customer is dead wrong, and sometimes, they need to be told that. This is one of those times.
This is the problem with trying to have a rational debate with folks about a contentious matter - someone always comes in with completely skewed, off-base ideas, and valid debate gets lost in the noise.
That's very true - $10 is more than worth it, and you and I know that. People who haven't tried the game before, though, don't. It makes the game a lot harder to get people interested when I have to end my pitch with "and it'll only cost you $10 to get the rulebook."
If people are unwilling to throw down $10 for a copy (that includes free reprinting updates that physical book owners do not recieve), or use the PRD for free, or share your physical copy while at the table...then they probably aren't really into the game in the first place and you might want to do something else with those friends that is less than $10.
???Hold on ..... Now you're equating this to slavery?
NO!