>.>
...sucked in again.
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.
Since we're being deliberately literal in order to be argumentative does that mean when the customer is wrong they die? Does the spirit of Adam Smith slay them? Nonetheless, no, YOU'RE wrong and the customers' private property > a businesses' intellectual property. Beware of Adam Smith's ghost!
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.
... if anything is skewed here it's the notion that I'm under some positive obligation to protect a business's intellectual property rights when they simultaneously think it's just dandy to violate my private property rights.
Although I'm not convinced purchasing a PDF conveys property rights (and quibbling over whether that therefore constitutes a sale would be "being deliberately literal in order to be argumentative", right?)
the customers' private property > a businesses' intellectual property.
Do you have any justification for this, beyond thinking it's true?
|
... if anything is skewed here it's the notion that I'm under some positive obligation to protect a business's intellectual property rights when they simultaneously think it's just dandy to violate my private property rights.
And they violate them how? If they tell you:"If you want to buy this, you cannot give it to anyone and may not make copies of it", and then you buy it, you have agreed to the terms above. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.
Although I'm not convinced purchasing a PDF conveys property rights (and quibbling over whether that therefore constitutes a sale would be "being deliberately literal in order to be argumentative", right?)
If I buy something do I own it?
the customers' private property > a businesses' intellectual property.Do you have any justification for this, beyond thinking it's true?
This again? It's called "Hume's Guillotine". In ethics there is a separation between "Is" from "Ought". The argument I've laid out here (and about a million other places elsewhere on teh interwebz) isn't about what "is" at all, but rather what "ought". What "is" stinks and needs to be done away with before it can do anymore harm.
So no then? You'd just like it to be true.
... if anything is skewed here it's the notion that I'm under some positive obligation to protect a business's intellectual property rights when they simultaneously think it's just dandy to violate my private property rights.And they violate them how? If they tell you:"If you want to buy this, you cannot give it to anyone and may not make copies of it", and then you buy it, you have agreed to the terms above. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.
It isn't for them to tell me what I can do with my purchase. If they're that concerned about how people will use what they produce then they shouldn't produce it at all.
For example: If you respond to this post you owe me your house.
So no then? You'd just like it to be true.
LOL!
Although I'm not convinced purchasing a PDF conveys property rights (and quibbling over whether that therefore constitutes a sale would be "being deliberately literal in order to be argumentative", right?)If I buy something do I own it?
Are we talking is or ought here? (It sounds like an "is" question, but I have a suspicion that answering it will reveal some "ought-based" outrage).
|
It isn't for them to tell me what I can do with my purchase. If they're that concerned about how people will use what they produce then they shouldn't produce it at all.
Let's turn that around. What they are saying is (in effect) "if you are intending to copy our PDFs then please do not buy them as that is not allowed". If you then buy them anyway, it's you who has been duplicitous.
A bar might not be able to dictate what you do with the pint you've just purchased, but if you pour it over the guy sitting next to you and smash the glass, they will probably ban you from coming back. Same principle with Paizo and PDFs.
Or more restrictively still, it's worth noting that owning property doesn't confer upon you the right to use it however you like. I can buy a jet engine, but I can't then run it at full throttle in my back yard at 3am.
You are not entitled to use your property in a way which infringes on another's rights (and nor ought you to be so entitled, just to cover some Humean bases).
Let's turn that around. What they are saying is (in effect) "if you are intending to copy our PDFs then please do not buy them as that is not allowed". If you then buy them anyway, it's you who has been duplicitous.It isn't for them to tell me what I can do with my purchase. If they're that concerned about how people will use what they produce then they shouldn't produce it at all.
Again, I haven't agreed to anything. They've attached some caveat to my purchase and have no basis for doing so.
A bar might not be able to dictate what you do with the pint you've just purchased, but if you pour it over the guy sitting next to you and smash the glass, they will probably ban you from coming back. Same principle with Paizo and PDFs.
You know, you're absolutely right. In Paizo's case they've decided to ban someone for violating their TOS (something I can agree is an appropriate course of action to protect their investment). Moreover Paizo has NOT violated anyone's property to the best of my knowledge by doing so either. This fact is not lost on me. It's hard to separate the Paizos from the RIAAs & Monsantos when they're both using the same claims (intellectual property) to justify totally different courses of action. In Paizo's case (to the best of my knowledge and to their credit) they haven't sued anyone for having a "bootleg" .pdf or pushed for legislation restricting people's access to the internet... the same cannot be said for those scoundrels at the RIAA and in Monsanto.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I haven't agreed to anything. They've attached some caveat to my purchase and have no basis for doing so.Let's turn that around. What they are saying is (in effect) "if you are intending to copy our PDFs then please do not buy them as that is not allowed". If you then buy them anyway, it's you who has been duplicitous.It isn't for them to tell me what I can do with my purchase. If they're that concerned about how people will use what they produce then they shouldn't produce it at all.
They did not attach any caveat. You are beholden to the laws. In this case, copyright laws.
If you buy a car, nobody tells you what you can do and can´t do with it, as it is assumed you know that, or else, it is your duty to get informed. If you go speeding with that car, you break the law. If you crash into someone elses car, you did not only break the law, but the harmed party has the right to seek some compensation, if that crash is your fault.
Same goes here. You buy (or download free of charge) something that is protected by copyright laws, and you are expected to act in accordance with these laws. Paizo does not need to add anything to their sales, as the laws are in place anyway. And if by breaking the law some other party (in this case, the seller/distributor) is damaged, they can seek compensation, and can take action to avoid being damaged by the same party again.
With any purchase you make, you are expected to keep to the laws pertaining to whatever it is you bought. So is the seller. There is no need to enumerate all the pertaining laws time and again, as they are presupposed and assumed to be commonly known.
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.
Such a contract is what harms the buyer's rights.
You're placing a covenant on the merchandise without an offsetting consideration to the buyer.
By agreeing to such a contract, they have LESS rights than they would have, sans contract.
We've established a number of personal property rights in this country, and the ability to contractually oblige a purchaser to never divest themselves of that personal property is wrong (to me).
"You agree that, by purchasing these drinking glasses, you'll never use them to consume orange juice."
This isn't how our society works. It's untenable to think that anyone SHOULD be able to put arbitrary restrictions on the disposition of property, post-transfer - contractually agreed to or not.
The ability to do this is what suckers people into agreements they don't understand and couldn't possibly uphold. We already have enough problem with that already.
Ultimately, that's fine that you find it wrong. I don't. I do find several aspects of copyright law wrong that others don't. That's fine, too.
We seek to change that which we disagree with.
But my question is how much of all this is actually talking about Paizo vs. copyright trolls, for example?
Seems to me like Paizo is doing completely valid and legitimate things to protect their intellectual property. The same can't necessarily be said of many others out there.
This entire thread is rendered moot and goes away once you reach the conclusion that these PDFs aren't personal "property" that can be "owned" in the real sense by anyone other than the originator.
You do realize that this isn't established, don't you?
My belief is that the PDFs are just as much personal property as the physical books are.
The courts, they're still out on that, but I have confidence that they'll bear me out.
But my question is how much of all this is actually talking about Paizo vs. copyright trolls, for example?
Seems to me like Paizo is doing completely valid and legitimate things to protect their intellectual property. The same can't necessarily be said of many others out there.
And, once again, someone disagrees with someone, and labels them trolls.
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk.
|
This entire thread is rendered moot and goes away once you reach the conclusion that these PDFs aren't personal "property" that can be "owned" in the real sense by anyone other than the originator.You do realize that this isn't established, don't you?
My belief is that the PDFs are just as much personal property as the physical books are.
The courts, they're still out on that, but I have confidence that they'll bear me out.
Yes, I realize it isn't established (yet). It's my belief that the physical books are personal property because they are tangible, but that PDFs won't be declared personal property because they are intangible. As such, I think the courts will rule that you're simply buying a limited use license of some sort and that you don't actually "own" anything when you make the purchase.
And I'm ok with that.
-Skeld
|
|
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).
Just interested in this statement, is it that you can't arbitrarily refuse a customer, or that you can't refuse a customer based on prejudicial reasons?
In a lame example, if you are a goblin and walk into my book store, I can't kick you out prejudicial because 'you are a goblin' and 'all goblins are pyromaniac biblioclasts' but I can because you make me nervous with leading questions like "Where you keep fire snuffer?" or "me no see dog? you have dog?" Or put in a more realistic context, if you walk into my restaurant festooned with emblems and buttons of your support of <insert group name who typical receives a prejudicial response from narrow minded people> and start acting rude to my staff I can't refuse you service in the form "Hey you <insert prejudicial slur>, get out of my store, we don't serve your kind." but it would be acceptable to say "Hey jerkasaurus my staff don't deserve that kind of attitude."
So I guess I'm making the point you have to have a non-prejudicial rational, but the burden of proof may be on the customer to prove it was prejudicial, like providing evidence of prejudicial language, or evidence of a systemic prejudice, ie refusing the custom of all 'goblins' for a series of seemingly plausible rationals but in fact demonstrating a more systemic prejudice.
Yes, I realize it isn't established (yet). It's my belief that the physical books are personal property because they are tangible, but that PDFs won't be declared personal property because they are intangible. As such, I think the courts will rule that you're simply buying a limited use license of some sort and that you don't actually "own" anything when you make the purchase.
I think that there's more precedent on the side of "the medium doesn't matter, right of first sale still applies" than against it.
I hold out hope that, when things are cut and dried, this will be reinforced, and clearly defined.
And I'm ok with that.
I'm not. It'll be a sad day for the consumer (and, in fact, the general public) if that comes to pass.
Given the general transition of copyrighted material from physical to digital, it boggles my mind that we would want to grant an ability that could be used to keep material out of libraries, and control access to it in such a manner.
It goes against one of the very principles of our culture: free and open access to information.
Eliminating the right of first sale on digital media does just that.
|
|
Yes, I realize it isn't established (yet). It's my belief that the physical books are personal property because they are tangible, but that PDFs won't be declared personal property because they are intangible. As such, I think the courts will rule that you're simply buying a limited use license of some sort and that you don't actually "own" anything when you make the purchase.I think that there's more precedent on the side of "the medium doesn't matter, right of first sale still applies" than against it.
I hold out hope that, when things are cut and dried, this will be reinforced, and clearly defined.
And I'm ok with that.I'm not. It'll be a sad day for the consumer (and, in fact, the general public) if that comes to pass.
Given the general transition of copyrighted material from physical to digital, it boggles my mind that we would want to grant an ability that could be used to keep material out of libraries, and control access to it in such a manner.
It goes against one of the very principles of our culture: free and open access to information.
Eliminating the right of first sale on digital media does just that.
Can we have both please?
Your resale-able 'PDF' is likely to be available only via a single platform that is sealed from the user and runs draconian DRM to enable the feature that you require.
I much prefer a standards-compliant PDF that I can't resell.
On a tangential topic - is not a copy of every copyrighted work put into your national library by default?
Can we have both please?
Your resale-able 'PDF' is likely to be available only via a single platform that is sealed from the user and runs draconian DRM to enable the feature that you require.
I much prefer a standards-compliant PDF that I can't resell.
On a tangential topic - is not a copy of every copyrighted work put into your national library by default?
We've already established, via our markets, that we don't do like overly restrictive DRM, and that market has shifted some aspects to DRM free (such as music).
Restriction-free media sells better than restriction-laden.
As far as your second question, I can't answer that.
If it does, though, how does a patron of a local library access that work?
|
|
Can we have both please?
Your resale-able 'PDF' is likely to be available only via a single platform that is sealed from the user and runs draconian DRM to enable the feature that you require.
I much prefer a standards-compliant PDF that I can't resell.
On a tangential topic - is not a copy of every copyrighted work put into your national library by default?
We've already established, via our markets, that we don't do like overly restrictive DRM, and that market has shifted some aspects to DRM free (such as music).
Restriction-free media sells better than restriction-laden.
As far as your second question, I can't answer that.
If it does, though, how does a patron of a local library access that work?
Here in the UK you can either apply for a reader pass and visit the national library in London yourself, or request items from it via your local library. It receives a copy of every publication created in the UK, so the collection is quite comprehensive.
I agree about non-DRM media selling better, but I'm not sure if Paizo's business model could survive if they had to make the PDFs completely DRM free and allow resale.
I agree about non-DRM media selling better, but I'm not sure if Paizo's business model could survive if they had to make the PDFs completely DRM free and allow resale.
Paizo's restrictions are not particularly impacting on normal use of the PDF.
As far as your second question, I can't answer that.If it does, though, how does a patron of a local library access that work?
ILL. Inter Library Loan. A lot, but not all, material is available by one library loaning it to another (and hence to you). There are restrictions, of course, for rare and delicate material. And libraries are not required to loan material although most will (if you ever want to borrow material you better loan material). I haven't done a lot of that since I was a grad student though, and that's been many moons...
No, but they would have to go to allow resale.
Not really.
There's no technological impediment, at this point in time, to a Paizo customer reselling their PDFs.
They'd just be watermarked with someone else's name on them.
ILL. Inter Library Loan. A lot, but not all, material is available by one library loaning it to another (and hence to you). There are restrictions, of course, for rare and delicate material. And libraries are not required to loan material although most will (if you ever want to borrow material you better loan material). I haven't done a lot of that since I was a grad student though, and that's been many moons...
So, if, in fact, a single copy of every copyrighted work is placed into the national library, that's one copy for 300+ million citizens.
That's effectively useless.
Yes, I realize it isn't established (yet). It's my belief that the physical books are personal property because they are tangible, but that PDFs won't be declared personal property because they are intangible. As such, I think the courts will rule that you're simply buying a limited use license of some sort and that you don't actually "own" anything when you make the purchase.
And I'm ok with that.
-Skeld
I would be very hesitant to call data of any sort "intangible" adn thus not personal property. A digital format of storing information (data) like a pdf contains said data as much as a physical hard copy.
If your reasoning applied then perhaps with a similar pattern of thought money, stocks and everything else stored in electronic format worldwide would be intangible and perhaps considered not personal property, where actual banknotes or stocks in hard format would be? I think everyone would agree that this would be a bad idea.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I am not saying that pdfs and money are the same thing here; what i am trying to say is that the tangible/intangible dichotomy as an argument is not likely to go very far.
ILL. Inter Library Loan. A lot, but not all, material is available by one library loaning it to another (and hence to you). There are restrictions, of course, for rare and delicate material. And libraries are not required to loan material although most will (if you ever want to borrow material you better loan material). I haven't done a lot of that since I was a grad student though, and that's been many moons...So, if, in fact, a single copy of every copyrighted work is placed into the national library, that's one copy for 300+ million citizens.
That's effectively useless.
More than one library will have copies of anything but the rarest of books, especially relatively new ones. I didn't say it was going to provide access to all, just that it was one avenue. Libraries loan electronic books these days as well. They are licensed for "X" copies and only loan out that amount at one time. The copy expires on the due date. I haven't tried this, but that was the plan a few years ago.
|
|
If your reasoning applied then perhaps with a similar pattern of thought money, stocks and everything else stored in electronic format worldwide would be intangible and perhaps considered not personal property, where actual banknotes or stocks in hard format would be?
I can go to my bank and exchange my 1 electronic dollar for 1 physical dollar. However, I can't go to Paizo and exchange my 1 PDF for 1 physical hardcopy.
Additionally, I can't have my electronic dollar stored on my computer harddrive along with the capability of creating as many copies of that electronic dollar that I want.
I think everyone would agree that this would be a bad idea.
No one has suggested that either.
-Skeld
I can go to my bank and exchange my 1 electronic dollar for 1 physical dollar. However, I can't go to Paizo and exchange my 1 PDF for 1 physical hardcopy.
If you could, this could potentially be a legitimate reason to look at draconian DRM on the electronic file.
Additionally, I can't have my electronic dollar stored on my computer harddrive along with the capability of creating as many copies of that electronic dollar that I want.
Yes you can. People get in trouble for this all the time.
Yet, we don't place ridiculous prohibitions on money or the technology that people use to illegally copy it.
If your reasoning applied then perhaps with a similar pattern of thought money, stocks and everything else stored in electronic format worldwide would be intangible and perhaps considered not personal property, where actual banknotes or stocks in hard format would be?I can go to my bank and exchange my 1 electronic dollar for 1 physical dollar. However, I can't go to Paizo and exchange my 1 PDF for 1 physical hardcopy.
Additionally, I can't have my electronic dollar stored on my computer harddrive along with the capability of creating as many copies of that electronic dollar that I want.
I think everyone would agree that this would be a bad idea.No one has suggested that either.
-Skeld
I don't disagree with either of your points. However it becomes obvious (even from your remarks) that the issue is not about the "tangibility" of the item in question but about the ability to create multiple identical copies of it without authorization. This has been mentioned in this thread and I believe is the core of the issue.
The tangible/intangible distinction is tangential really (and potentially misleading) and becomes only somewhat relevant by the fact that people are able to easily create unauthorized copies of some digital formats, but not of hard copies.
EDIT: too many copies of the word "points" :)
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
*I* am not telling you what you can and can't do—I'm telling you what US Copyright law says.
While you may view the fact that copyright law says you can't copy our copyrighted material as an abuse of your basic rights—and clearly the law itself disagrees—*I* see the fact that copyright law says you can't copy our copyrighted material as *protection* of my rights.
|
|
Additionally, I can't have my electronic dollar stored on my computer harddrive along with the capability of creating as many copies of that electronic dollar that I want.Yes you can. People get in trouble for this all the time.
You're right. You can do that. Nothing is stopping you. When I said, "I can't," I really meant, "I wouldn't because I'm a reasonable person that doesn't want to go to jail." My mistake.
Yet, we don't place ridiculous prohibitions on money or the technology that people use to illegally copy it.
No, we don't place ridiculous prohibitions on money of the technology people us to copy it. Instead, we punish them when they do (severely). Similarly, Paizo doesn't put any ridiculous restrictions on the PDF or computer to keep someone from making copies of it. Instead, they punish the people they catch by refusing to do business with them.
-Skeld
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.
Such a contract is what harms the buyer's rights.
You're placing a covenant on the merchandise without an offsetting consideration to the buyer.
They're getting the product (if it's a free PDF, the undertaking not to distribute it may, in fact, be the only consideration the vendor receives).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wedding photos. Done.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.)
Yep. Wedding photos. A professional wedding photographer who actually knows what they're doing will tell you in their contract whether or not you're purchasing the copyrights as well. Many professional photographers offer copyrights as an option for a higher price, and many don't offer the option at all. That industry does include many small business and individuals who operate without a full understanding of copyright law, and don't even realize that copyrights don't transfer by default—but it's absolutely true: if they don't specifically *tell* you they're transferring the copyright to you, they retain the copyright.
I would think if one is blatantly going to brag about not following the purveyor of PDF's instructions for the purchase of PDFs, on their own forum, they should consider themselves lucky that they can still do so.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a tangential topic - is not a copy of every copyrighted work put into your national library by default?
No—only registered works. For full legal protection of copyrighted works, registration is recommended, but copyright exists without registration, upon creation of the work.
I am not sure that the discussion is even about copyright anymore...
When you purchase a hard copy of a book the copyrights obviously (at least to me) are not transferred. That is fine and reasonable. However you can still sell your hard copy to someone else.
When you purchase a pdf it is not clear if you can do the same. Note here that it is not clear that copyright law is or should be any different depending on the medium (hard copy vs. digital).
The problem lies that in the re-sale of a hard copy you don't create a new unauthorized copy of the work and thus you ar enot violating copyright law.
In the case of the pdf the likelihood that this happens is greater. It is not clear if it is really enforceable to make sure that the seller deletes his copy etc. etc. to make absolutely sure tha this does not happen.
However we are faced with a serious issue: Do we violate certain property rights (resale) to prevent a possible (and perhaps likely) crime (copyright infringement) or not? And how far do we go?
|
On a tangential topic - is not a copy of every copyrighted work put into your national library by default?No—only registered works. For full legal protection of copyrighted works, registration is recommended, but copyright exists without registration, upon creation of the work.
Thanks, I was getting e-mails asking me in which US state do I practice, so that the relevant bar association may be notified of having a totally ignorant lawyer on their turf.
Sheesh, Americans.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
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!
We recognize the value of GMs sharing certain materials with their gaming groups—printing a few pages for them here and there is ok (but copying entire books or sharing your actual PDF with them is not).
...but when it comes to the free Player's Guides, we really would like your players to download them themselves. Having them create an account on paizo.com helps us have a better understanding of who our customers are and what they like, plus it lets us notify them directly if we update their materials. And it's free—that's infinitely cheaper than an extra value meal!