|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is hard to respect IP law when IP law has deviated so far from its original intention. We as a society believed that furthering art was beneficial to us and so we granted the content producers with exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time to encourage them to produce that content with the intention it would be gifted to the people afterwards.
Now that copyright term is 90 years rather than 14, and will probably go up again in the next twenty years, it is impossible to respect IP law. I would ask Paizo how much they would like it if none of Lovecraft's, Shakespeare's or even Plato's works were available for them to draw on to produce the game.
Paizo didn't lobby congress to change the laws, but culture is the sharing of thought, restricting that sharing hurts society. I support Paizo, I buy their products and am a loyal customer. I do not however hold a negative opinion of those who can or choose not to spend their money here and pirate instead. There is more content to consume in the world than most people can afford to pay for. People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.
There must be a way to legally resale or give away a PDF. What is the process to transfer ownership?
It is hard to respect IP law when IP law has deviated so far from its original intention. We as a society believed that furthering art was beneficial to us and so we granted the content producers with exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time to encourage them to produce that content with the intention it would be gifted to the people afterwards.
Now that copyright term is 90 years rather than 14, and will probably go up again in the next twenty years, it is impossible to respect IP law. I would ask Paizo how much they would like it if none of Lovecraft's, Shakespeare's or even Plato's works were available for them to draw on to produce the game.
Paizo didn't lobby congress to change the laws, but culture is the sharing of thought, restricting that sharing hurts society. I support Paizo, I buy their products and am a loyal customer. I do not however hold a negative opinion of those who can or choose not to spend their money here and pirate instead. There is more content to consume in the world than most people can afford to pay for. People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.
This. IP law has gotten to the point where it does more harm to society's ability to comunicate, innovate and interact than it ever did good for some people. Time for it to be done away with, or at least substantially changed.
Hopefully soon the tipping point will come for copyright being viewed as bad. It is already about at that point for patents.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.
Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
QFT. I remember watching a documentary about how a major chemical company was suing farmers for allegedly collecting part of their crop of it's patented genetically modified corn (that they had lawfully purchased nonetheless) for sowing the following year (I guess there was some kind of contract forbidding that and requiring that they had to purchase seed again from the company).
EDIT: Therefore, being a food and a necessity as James said has nothing to do with it. If it is considered IP of some sort, that's the end of the story.
you can patent a DNA structure that doesn't occur naturally in nature. Monstanto patents all of it's seeds. Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto because seeds from a neighboring farm landed in his. The canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto.
So yes, as far as the government is concerned you are a Pepper Felon.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.
Kim Dotcom would likely disagree with you.
The "evil capitalist copyright system forces me to pirate things in order to access entertainment" is a non-argument. There's free music, free movies and free RPGs out there, enough of all that to knock yourself out, never spend a dime, have fun and live happily knowing that the Babylon made not a dime on you.
"IP laws stifle creativity" is a better one, but we're talking about a company which gives away free content that other companies would never even consider AND through that generates a thriving 3PP market where people quit their day jobs because they can afford to live off publishing RPG stuff. Thanks to that oppressive bunch of capitalist money-mongers at Paizo, that is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That is not generousity, that is mandated by the OGL. Giving stuff away would be contributing older art for hire pieces to the public domain. Or making pdfs of older out of print books (or dragon/dungeon issues if allowed) free.
I am not saying you should be happy people are pirating, I am saying they are not the enemy. When we played 3.5 we had pdfs of every single WotC book. Stormwrack, Completes, etc. We also had a hard copy of each in the gaming group's library. Rather than constantly borrowing books and carting them around, each person in the gaming group having the PDF collection was easier. We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too. With d20pfsrd we do not have to do this anymore, since the players have everything they need there and the DM(usually me) can read the physical book. I do not know if Paizo would avoid releasing rules content to the SRD if they were allowed to, but I would not feel guilty sharing the pdfs with my players if they did not.
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.
Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
QFT. I remember watching a documentary about how a major chemical company was suing farmers for allegedly collecting part of their crop of it's patented genetically modified corn (that they had lawfully purchased nonetheless) for sowing the following year (I guess there was some kind of contract forbidding that and requiring that they had to purchase seed again from the company).
EDIT: Therefore, being a food and a necessity as James said has nothing to do with it. If it is considered IP of some sort, that's the end of the story.
you can patent a DNA structure that doesn't occur naturally in nature. Monstanto patents all of it's seeds. Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto because seeds from a neighboring farm landed in his. The canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto.
So yes, as far as the government is concerned you are a Pepper Felon.
Thanks for clarifying this... I guess I got my facts mixed up. :)
|
Coridan: There is tons of stuff for free, anybody with access to the internet can use. For Pathfinder, everything in the rulebooks is in the prd, much basic information about golarion can be found in the wiki. There are RPOGs that are completely free.
Somebody who is to broke to afford a legal pdf isn't going to whither and die.
Pirating a product that is supposed to make money for the producer (who, in case of the rpg industrie isn't among the rich either, probably) has less to do with the lack of money than with the unwillingness to spend it.
If I can't afford a book, a game, a movie or music, I will do without it - there is plenty of entertainment I don't have to spend money to get.
|
|
When we played 3.5 we had pdfs of every single WotC book. Stormwrack, Completes, etc. We also had a hard copy of each in the gaming group's library. Rather than constantly borrowing books and carting them around, each person in the gaming group having the PDF collection was easier. We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too.
Ah, now I know whom I have to forward my sincere thanks for that mad night of downloading 400 USD worth of WotC PDF's when they pulled them down due to panicking over piracy. Thanks for nothing!
|
When we played 3.5 we had pdfs of every single WotC book. Stormwrack, Completes, etc. We also had a hard copy of each in the gaming group's library. Rather than constantly borrowing books and carting them around, each person in the gaming group having the PDF collection was easier. We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too.Ah, now I know whom I have to forward my sincere thanks for that mad night of downloading 400 USD worth of WotC PDF's when they pulled them down due to panicking over piracy. Thanks for nothing!
Indeed. At least you didn't find out that the PDFs that you had bought were now inaccessible a few weeks after the fact.
We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too.
You were. However, you could have switched to a different, cheaper system to play and all bought the things that you wanted for the same amount of money. You would have been legal, the other company would not have lost out on your money, and WotC would have been sent the message that their prices were too high.
|
|
You were. However, you could have switched to a different, cheaper system to play and all bought the things that you wanted for the same amount of money. You would have been legal, the other company would not have lost out on your money, and WotC would have been sent the message that their prices were too high.
We were pirates, but we were also all paying customers too.
We as a group did (still do) own all those books collectively. Having a separate copy of Complete Warrior for each player is not only a waste of money, but a waste of paper. We liked the authors and WotC (at the time) and were happy supporting them and our FLGS. There are limits though. We are not buying personal copies of a splat book for looking up obscure feats. Not an issue with Pathfinder as I said, but I am sure WotC preferred what we did to us just going and playing something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.That is not generosity, that is mandated by the OGL. Giving stuff away would be contributing older art for hire pieces to the public domain. Or making pdfs of older out of print books (or dragon/dungeon issues if allowed) free.
Gary said "make available for free" as in the online PRD. That is not required by the OGL, so it is generosity that Paizo provides that.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
Actually, under US law, specific genetically modified (GM) traits CAN be patented. For example, the genes responsible for Monsanto's "Round-Up Ready" strains of all of the commercial crop staples (maize, soybeans, wheat, etc). Farmers who purchase "Round-Up Ready" seed sign a contract stipulating that they MAY NOT collect seed from their crops and re-plant. Monsanto regularly sends enforcement agents to fields to test the crops of farmers who DIDN'T buy Monsanto seed to see if their crops have the patented Monsanto genes-- and if they do, they sue. Hard. They litigate into the ground. Even if the seeds got the GM traits by simple polination of non-GM crop by GM pollen!
Read about one such story. There are literally hundreds.
So, no, you aren't necessarily in the clear by planting your pepper seeds. At least, if that pepper has GM traits developed by Monsanto!
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
Actually, under US law, specific genetically modified (GM) traits CAN be patented. For example, the genes responsible for Monsanto's "Round-Up Ready" strains of all of the commercial crop staples (maize, soybeans, wheat, etc). Farmers who purchase "Round-Up Ready" seed sign a contract stipulating that they MAY NOT collect seed from their crops and re-plant. Monsanto regularly sends enforcement agents to fields to test the crops of farmers who DIDN'T buy Monsanto seed to see if their crops have the patented Monsanto genes-- and if they do, they sue. Hard. They litigate into the ground. Even if the seeds got the GM traits by simple polination of non-GM crop by GM pollen!
Read about one such story. There are literally hundreds.
So, no, you aren't necessarily in the clear by planting your pepper seeds. At least, if that pepper has GM traits developed by Monsanto!
I suppose I should have said "ordinary" vegetables as my comment about the patented rose hybrids falls under, more or less, your stipulation.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's still BS that a farmer is held legally responsible for prevailing winds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.Kim Dotcom would likely disagree with you.
I do have to admit that I'm more lenient with broke college kids than I am with others. Not that I'm unwilling to tell them it's wrong (I'm certainly willing), but it's the people like my brother-in-law who's a radiologist and makes more money that God yet still brags about how many movies he's downloaded that piss me off.
Buy the damn things! You can afford it!
People are amazed at my DVD collection, especially since I could "just download them all." Sorry, I want to encourage the people making the movies I like to make more of them, not to encourage them to give up in disgust.
The farmer should sue Monsanto for letting their freak seeds infect his all natural crop.
Seriously, it's an example of how property rights go to the people who can hire better lawyers and manipulate the system better.
"Oh, you should have had better foresight than to own a farm downwind of a farm that uses Monsanto crops. You no longer own the rights to the seeds you've cultivated."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THANK YOU
I had written, then deleted a post similar to this immediately after Coridan's post. Didn't want to stir the pot too much.
However, if you can't afford it, don't buy it!
Guess that I am just too old to understand anymore. However, even my children and grandchildren understand that you prioritize and buy what you can afford, and if you need the money for groceries you don't buy a $100 set of DVDs. You also don't steal them online.
-- david
Papa.DRB
People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.Kim Dotcom would likely disagree with you.I do have to admit that I'm more lenient with broke college kids than I am with others. Not that I'm unwilling to tell them it's wrong (I'm certainly willing), but it's the people like my brother-in-law who's a radiologist and makes more money that God yet still brags about how many movies he's downloaded that piss me off.
Buy the damn things! You can afford it!
People are amazed at my DVD collection, especially since I could "just download them all." Sorry, I want to encourage the people making the movies I like to make more of them, not to encourage them to give up in disgust.
|
|
People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.Kim Dotcom would likely disagree with you.I do have to admit that I'm more lenient with broke college kids than I am with others. Not that I'm unwilling to tell them it's wrong (I'm certainly willing), but it's the people like my brother-in-law who's a radiologist and makes more money that God yet still brags about how many movies he's downloaded that piss me off.
Buy the damn things! You can afford it!
People are amazed at my DVD collection, especially since I could "just download them all." Sorry, I want to encourage the people making the movies I like to make more of them, not to encourage them to give up in disgust.
Movies make something like 90% of their profits the first two weeks in the theater. Money from DVD sales go to the middlemen (excluding small stuff like The Gamers). You want to support them, go to see it in the theater.
Same with music. Artists make a piddling amount from CDs and itunes. Support them by going to live shows.
And buying merch from the table at the live show. I did that for my favorite recent band, The Sword. I pirated all of their music, then when they came to town I bought their CD's and a t-shirt from the merch table. I bought a second shirt 6 months later when they came through again.
From a purely lawful neutral standpoint...transfer of rights or property beyond the rules and regulations, expressed or implied, of the entities having ownership of said rights or property...ain't kosher. It is possible to hang all manner of social, economical, or philosophical discussion over, around and through the point. Justification or condemnation isn't really, as the hokey pokey states "what it's all about."
TL;DR: If you find yourself no longer in complete and direct control of your pdfs, you run the risk of being penalized in some fashion. Act as you will!
|
|
wutisthisidonteven...
I didn't sign no stinking contract. I purchased a product. When I spend my money on someone's product it becomes my property. If not, I should be given my money back as no exchange has taken place.
If my computer gets hacked and Paizo thinks they can take me to court when MY property resurfaces on the net they better have a *real* good lawyer... and I mean Jack McCoy tier. Anything less is only going to cost them their (and my) litigation fees.
I find this disconcerting. Not but a few months ago I purchased some peppers from a large farming company. I enjoyed the peppers quite thoroughly, so I saved the seeds and germinated then planted them. I currently have a plant full of peppers growing in my backyard. I assumed this was legal, but what if buy buying the peppers I had unknowingly entered into a contract with the farmer that was legally binding? I might be okay though because I did not do anything as legally binding as clicking a button on a website... but pretty close.
Cayden Cailean help me for I have become a pepper pirate.
Well some of the big companies in the industry have started to patent their products, and some even fight against farmers using old plant species. Things like that worry me a lot, but fortunately courts start to side with the farmers.
However when it comes to paizo pdf the situation is clearly different.
|
|
In Germany, anything other than real estate can be bought and sold with a handshake and handing over the money - in principle.
Yeah this got me screwed over once in Germany.. We went looking for a Living room Leather Couch set at Lederland and picked some nice furniture but expensive furniture. They asked us to put a small down payment *Very small* and come back later when they have the order filled so we can sign it. While we were gone we changed our mind. I fully expected us to lose our very small down payment. When I went there they told us we could cancel the order (which was not made yet) but since I gave them money we were obligated to give them the majority of the price of the Furniture (I think it was close to 75% of the price).
I said screw that and talked to a military lawyer who told us it was true by German law. So we ended up buying the furniture... grrrr..
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit, I do not partake in the 'file sharing is eeevil' hype.
I do not mislabel copyright infringement as theft.
On the other hand, I believe in fairness.If something is worth its price, and I am able to buy it, I will.
On the other hand, if I think something is not worth it, or I am unable to buy it legally for any reason (included the oh so popular 'not available in your part of the world shenanigans), I have zero compunction with just copying it for my use.
So, if you want something but cannot get it for some reason (can't afford it, can't get it where you live ... whatever) then you feel you have the right to just take it?
Just because something is digital instead of physical is not the point. If you take something that is not yours without permission and without paying for it, you are stealing and that's a crime.
If I want a book but can't afford it, or can't buy it because it's so popular it's sold out in all the stores or something, I don't suddenly have the right to take my friend's copy or steal the book from the library.
Some people seem to have this deluded, almost self-right righteous view that digital property rights should be some big grey area of personal freedom or something. It's not. You can argue against where profits go in a capitalist, corporate society all you want (and those arguments might even be valid) but the fact remains - if you take something that is not yours without permission and without paying for it, you are stealing and that's a crime.
|
|
Stealing requires the person it is stolen from to be deprived of it. If you have a lamborghini and I carjack you, you no longer have it.
If I take a picture of it and produce an exact working duplicate with a 3D printer, I did not steal your car. You still have it. And our technology is headed there. In digital property the supply is infinite. When this applies to physical property there will be no more need or want. Only have.
|
|
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.
Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
QFT. I remember watching a documentary about how a major chemical company was suing farmers for allegedly collecting part of their crop of it's patented genetically modified corn (that they had lawfully purchased nonetheless) for sowing the following year (I guess there was some kind of contract forbidding that and requiring that they had to purchase seed again from the company).
EDIT: Therefore, being a food and a necessity as James said has nothing to do with it. If it is considered IP of some sort, that's the end of the story.
As Monsanto has patented in the US a strain of corn that has been planted in Italy for centuries and chemical companies have attempted the same trick numerous time around the world I have strong doubts when patents of genetically modified crops are involved, but that is totally different from creative works like books.
|
You can let a friend borrow music but if they burn it to a drive and copy it for themselves, it is illegal. If you burn your CD and post on a file sharing site, it is illegal. If you burn a cd for a friend, it is illegal. If you do not believe me... Ask Metallica and most ever recording artist and music company out there.Sharing media is not illegal when handled the same way that you would have shared a book in the 1920's.
What people call sharing today is actually simply copying.Making something available for other people to copy is the illegal bit. Loaning someone a legal instance is legal.
Again that is not sharing that is copying.
What you CAN do is give your friend your MP3s of the music, but erase all copies from your own system while your friend has them. If you burn a CD and give copies to your friend, erase all of your copies and give them the CD as well. THAT is sharing. What you described is copying, and yes that is illegal.
consider it this way. If you have a book, a physical printed book, and you wish to share it with your friend, there is only one copy. You actually physically give that single copy to your friend. SInce you only bought one copy, you now no longer have one for yourself until your friend returns it. Same with with digital media.
Sharing is legal.
Copying is illegal.
For some reason people have a hard time differentiating the two.
In Germany, anything other than real estate can be bought and sold with a handshake and handing over the money - in principle.Yeah this got me screwed over once in Germany.. We went looking for a Living room Leather Couch set at Lederland and picked some nice furniture but expensive furniture. They asked us to put a small down payment *Very small* and come back later when they have the order filled so we can sign it. While we were gone we changed our mind. I fully expected us to lose our very small down payment. When I went there they told us we could cancel the order (which was not made yet) but since I gave them money we were obligated to give them the majority of the price of the Furniture (I think it was close to 75% of the price).
I said screw that and talked to a military lawyer who told us it was true by German law. So we ended up buying the furniture... grrrr..
Wow. Yeah, it is probably true that if you make a token payment up front, then you have already ordered the item. Still, not very nice from the store - they might as well have nullified the deal... I take that as a warning and wont buy at Lederland (if I ever would, anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When dealing with issues such as copying a pattern of 1s and 0s with intent to retain said copy, instead of deleting after a quick but arbitrary time on a digital storage device, so that Party B may view it on Party B's digital reading device, instead of just viewing it on Party A's digital reading deice I also, often, look to Ancient Rome for answers.
Wow nice, completely miss the point of the statement and apply to a different point so the original poster looks dumb. Nicely played.
For those watching at home, what was actually said was "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been around since Roman times. When you read that, you see it has absolutely nothing to do with 1's and 0's and applies to pretty much everything.
|
|
Stealing requires the person it is stolen from to be deprived of it. If you have a lamborghini and I carjack you, you no longer have it.
If I take a picture of it and produce an exact working duplicate with a 3D printer, I did not steal your car. You still have it. And our technology is headed there. In digital property the supply is infinite. When this applies to physical property there will be no more need or want. Only have.
Actually, that is an interesting opinion. However, as long as there are copyright laws and patent laws that is still wrong. I can guarantee you that Lamborghini has their work patented. So what you stole was their original research and development.
You brought up supporting bands earlier. Okay by this logic you can take your favorite bands music, the lyrics and all, record it yourself and claim it is yours. You hammered out their music and the lyrics were remastered by you, so you get to claim it is yours now. I think your favorite band would be upset that you stole their music then...
And also your definition of stealing is wrong.
Stealing requires your to deprive someone of monetary value by your possession of the item.
For example, Paizo PDFs: If you have a copied PDF that Paizo sells, then what you have done is taken their work, their labor and ideas, without paying Paizo for them. That is stealing. You deprived Paizo of a sale for their work.
Now as to the bands (I so get tired of bands whining about crappy contracts!). Okay the band signed a contract with the album company. The album company then invests money in this new talent hoping to see a return. The band gets to record their music in a professional studio with professional technicians who actually make the band sound good. Ever heard a band live? Almost never sound as good as the album do they? Then the album company spends a lot of money marketing and promoting that band and the album. The band finally gets popular and people rave about them. Interestingly that band was nothing, and as you can see with most unrepresented bands (not all but most) would have remained nothing without the album company.
Now, the band says they got a rotten deal with the album company contract... Then don't sign the contract. Are they little children? Are they stupid? You want to use the company's resources to actually make you something from nothing and you whine about the contract? Seriously?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing requires the person it is stolen from to be deprived of it.
Well you might call it fraud or whatever. The point is, someone who has the copyright on something gets to choose whom he allows a copy. If a copy is not approved by the copyright owner, it is illegal, no matter how you call the act of making an illegal copy. Maybe theft is the wrong word for this, but it does not change the fact that it is illegal. Your argument is purely semantic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing requires the person it is stolen from to be deprived of it. If you have a lamborghini and I carjack you, you no longer have it.
If I take a picture of it and produce an exact working duplicate with a 3D printer, I did not steal your car. You still have it. And our technology is headed there. In digital property the supply is infinite. When this applies to physical property there will be no more need or want. Only have.
If you take a picture I was selling and then give away duplicates for free, you have deprived me of the money I would have made from people buying the picture. You have also stolen my IP, and yes it is worded as stolen.
wutisthisidonteven...
I didn't sign no stinking contract. I purchased a product. When I spend my money on someone's product it becomes my property. If not, I should be given my money back as no exchange has taken place.
If my computer gets hacked and Paizo thinks they can take me to court when MY property resurfaces on the net they better have a *real* good lawyer... and I mean Jack McCoy tier. Anything less is only going to cost them their (and my) litigation fees.
I find this disconcerting. Not but a few months ago I purchased some peppers from a large farming company. I enjoyed the peppers quite thoroughly, so I saved the seeds and germinated then planted them. I currently have a plant full of peppers growing in my backyard. I assumed this was legal, but what if buy buying the peppers I had unknowingly entered into a contract with the farmer that was legally binding? I might be okay though because I did not do anything as legally binding as clicking a button on a website... but pretty close.
Cayden Cailean help me for I have become a pepper pirate.
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.
Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
I just want to make chili with out being in the death-grip of big pepper.
As Monsanto has patented in the US a strain of corn that has been planted in Italy for centuries and chemical companies have attempted the same trick numerous time around the world I have strong doubts when patents of genetically modified crops are involved, but that is totally different from creative works like books.
I thought that ploys like that would not get through with the patents office, but I may be wrong. Honestly, something being already in use for centuries can´t be patented by anybody IMO. That is just a ridiculous claim (patenting wooden boats, writing paper, bricks ?) These things are public domain (yeah, might not be the right word here, but you know what I mean). A patent should only be granted to some company that has something new to show, not just "hey, nobody patented this for centuries, let´s do it now and rip off all people using it day to day".
As Monsanto has patented in the US a strain of corn that has been planted in Italy for centuries and chemical companies have attempted the same trick numerous time around the world I have strong doubts when patents of genetically modified crops are involved, but that is totally different from creative works like books.Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.
Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
QFT. I remember watching a documentary about how a major chemical company was suing farmers for allegedly collecting part of their crop of it's patented genetically modified corn (that they had lawfully purchased nonetheless) for sowing the following year (I guess there was some kind of contract forbidding that and requiring that they had to purchase seed again from the company).
EDIT: Therefore, being a food and a necessity as James said has nothing to do with it. If it is considered IP of some sort, that's the end of the story.
I am not familiar with the details or the full history of the Monsanto situation. Needless to say it does make me nervous that companies these days seem to try and patent everything and anything including basic necessities like food.
However what I was trying to show was that a lot of things that one might not consider as candidates for IP protection, might actually be, regardless of generally shared common sense assumptions about what is reasonable and what is not (food vs. books).
EDIT: typos
|
|
Coridan: There is tons of stuff for free, anybody with access to the internet can use. For Pathfinder, everything in the rulebooks is in the prd, much basic information about golarion can be found in the wiki. There are RPOGs that are completely free.
Somebody who is to broke to afford a legal pdf isn't going to whither and die.
Pirating a product that is supposed to make money for the producer (who, in case of the rpg industrie isn't among the rich either, probably) has less to do with the lack of money than with the unwillingness to spend it.If I can't afford a book, a game, a movie or music, I will do without it - there is plenty of entertainment I don't have to spend money to get.
I agree and I think this gets to the core of this digital generation's attitude of entitlement. If it is out there and they want it, they feel entitled to it. They have not yet had to work for a real living supporting families. Everything is handed to them on a silver platter.
I think once this generation grows up and starts working and having their work taken without receiving payment (ie stolen) they will start to grow up.
All those college kids studying computer science, music, photography, etc... and like to pirate... keep in mind that all of your labor is digital and by your own logic all of your labor is free for the taking. What a useless job to work in. Knowing that what you do to earn money for your family can be taken for free by anyone at all who just wants it... wow...
:)
No, it's an invention so he would have patented it. He'd have licensed the patent for a fee of cooked mammoth steaks and would have become fabulously wealth and well-fed. He'd have then been the first person to die of congestive heart failure.
For crying out loud, if this mentality existed in the stone age we'd still be there since only the guy who first rubbed two sticks together would be allowed to make fire.
Then he would of used his wealth to lobby the grand chief of his cave complex to extend his patent forever.
Forgive me, the problem is you have companies like Paizo kicking ass, doing their best and they seems genuinely great. But you can't divorce any discussion of copyright law away from the 'mega-corporations' who have written said laws over the last 80 years.
|
Or even accidentally leave your thumb drive with all your gaming PDFs on it on a table at a convention. You're hosed lol
I had that happen at a library. I stood up, walked about 15 feet, remembered, and turned back to find it was gone. I pray the person who took it wasn't a gamer and just wiped it in order to download whatever crap they want.
- Rebis
|
|
@ Krome
At least in the world or RPG probably because copying pieces of the books has been around for 30 years and more.
"Look, Dragon has this cool class/spell/magic item/whatever. I want to use it." After bringing around that number of Dragon a few time it start to self destruct, so you photocopy the relevant pages and bring those around.
A harbound and even Paizo softcover are solid enough to survive staying in your gaming backpack for ages, the old dragon issues weren't so sturdy. Then there is the problem that sometime you need 4 pages of a 300 pages harbound and one from 3 different softcover. As a GM I have printed plenty of times the stats of a monster on recycled paper to bring it to my gaming table and after a time throw away the copy. I am not getting younger and CRB+APG+UC+Bestiary+Relevant adventure+the latest hardbound to show it around is the limit of my carrying capacity.
That situation leave you the impression that a partial copy of a book is an innocuous thing and it is if it is meant simply to be a way to avoid lugging around 5 extra books. As a GM the character sheet are in my hands [unless we are playing], so if I want to put in them a copy of my PDF with the class information for reference it should be kosher.
The problem is when you do complete or near complete copies and they go around beyond the level of "handy stuff to consult to the table instead of searching 300 numbers of a magazine".
The advent of tablets, reasonably priced portables and other electronic supports is slowly removing the need for this kind of copying, but at the same time it make you dependant from access to an electrical outlet and sometime to Internet access. Having enjoyed playing RPG while camping or even simply in the house garden I am still partial to paper copies.
|
|
I thought that ploys like that would not get through with the patents office, but I may be wrong. Honestly, something being already in use for centuries can´t be patented by anybody IMO. That is just a ridiculous claim (patenting wooden boats, writing paper, bricks ?) These things are public domain (yeah, might not be the right word here, but you know what I mean). A patent should only be granted to some company that has something new to show, not just "hey, nobody patented this for centuries, let´s do it now and rip off all people using it day to day".
As Monsanto has patented in the US a strain of corn that has been planted in Italy for centuries and chemical companies have attempted the same trick numerous time around the world I have strong doubts when patents of genetically modified crops are involved, but that is totally different from creative works like books.
The thing is that these are STRAINS that are patented. Not the originals. So yeah there is something new being patented. For example they develop strains of corn that are resistant to disease or pests (okay, granted I don't really want pesticide built into the corn that I eat, but hey I at least get to eat corn- and with the world's population that is something to consider).
BUT what you said about not patenting something that has always been... in 2010 (or there abouts) a guy was granted a patent for a way to take bread and heat it up to alter its form from soft to drier so it is available for other uses. That is, he patented toast. Yes, in 2010 he was awarded the patent for making toast... Think about that a minute and see if your brain doesn't explode... :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is hard to respect IP law when IP law has deviated so far from its original intention. We as a society believed that furthering art was beneficial to us and so we granted the content producers with exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time to encourage them to produce that content with the intention it would be gifted to the people afterwards.
Now that copyright term is 90 years rather than 14, and will probably go up again in the next twenty years, it is impossible to respect IP law. I would ask Paizo how much they would like it if none of Lovecraft's, Shakespeare's or even Plato's works were available for them to draw on to produce the game.
Paizo didn't lobby congress to change the laws, but culture is the sharing of thought, restricting that sharing hurts society. I support Paizo, I buy their products and am a loyal customer. I do not however hold a negative opinion of those who can or choose not to spend their money here and pirate instead. There is more content to consume in the world than most people can afford to pay for. People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.
I do agree that copyright law and similar laws probably need some major revision and adjustment now that the world has chanced so much.
I would certainly be disappointed if Lovecraft's, Shakespeare's, Plato's, or whoever's work was not publicly available, but no more so than I'm disappointed that Wizards of the Coast's intellectual properties or the monsters from "Pan's Labyrinth" or the contents of Stephen King's Dark Tower series aren't publicly available. Pathfinder has PLENTY of options inspired by those non-open sources, and had Lovecrat's and the rests's work not been public, it could still inspire us the same way. We'd just have different monsters and themes; the game itself would pretty much be in the same place.
Now, all that said, I'm very very very not okay with IP piracy, for two reasons:
1) It disrespects the content creator and publisher and makes it more difficult for the content creator and publisher to be rewarded for their hard work.
2) It freaks out big businesses who then over-react and make their products less attractive to actual customers (DRM anyone?) while not really impacting the pirates at all.
In short... piracy makes the world suck more for those of us who aren't pirates.
Peppers, like most items of produce, are not intellectual property, and thus are not protected by copyright laws. Germinate all you like.Now, if you take a cutting without permission of a unique patented rose hybrid, you might get in trouble, so I'd just stick to vegetables to be safe. :)
Actually, under US law, specific genetically modified (GM) traits CAN be patented. For example, the genes responsible for Monsanto's "Round-Up Ready" strains of all of the commercial crop staples (maize, soybeans, wheat, etc). Farmers who purchase "Round-Up Ready" seed sign a contract stipulating that they MAY NOT collect seed from their crops and re-plant. Monsanto regularly sends enforcement agents to fields to test the crops of farmers who DIDN'T buy Monsanto seed to see if their crops have the patented Monsanto genes-- and if they do, they sue. Hard. They litigate into the ground. Even if the seeds got the GM traits by simple polination of non-GM crop by GM pollen!
Read about one such story. There are literally hundreds.
So, no, you aren't necessarily in the clear by planting your pepper seeds. At least, if that pepper has GM traits developed by Monsanto!
So even IF my peppers are open source peppers, but a Bee comes along and helps it get freaky with a copyrighted pepper plant from a farm down the road then I am a pirate? Arg! Where can I purchase an eyepatch?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.That is not generousity, that is mandated by the OGL.
Aha, careful.
Anything that's declared as Open content is free to copy according to the rules of the OGL, true.
But Paizo doesn't have to declare any new rules in our books to be Open content.
The Open Content statement on a product's title page says what is and isn't Open content.
Paizo's policy is to declare all rules content as Open (only limiting stuff in the Product Identity section, which includes proper names, art, and so on).
That is generosity, and should not be glossed over.
People spend what they can afford to, it isn't the wealthy who are pirating.Kim Dotcom would likely disagree with you.I do have to admit that I'm more lenient with broke college kids than I am with others. Not that I'm unwilling to tell them it's wrong (I'm certainly willing), but it's the people like my brother-in-law who's a radiologist and makes more money that God yet still brags about how many movies he's downloaded that piss me off.
Buy the damn things! You can afford it!
People are amazed at my DVD collection, especially since I could "just download them all." Sorry, I want to encourage the people making the movies I like to make more of them, not to encourage them to give up in disgust.
You should slap your brother in law. For real. just smack him upside the head.
Though I would guess the wealthy radiologist is probably not the standard profile of the dreaded downloader.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if I think something is not worth it['s price], or I am unable to buy it legally for any reason (included the oh so popular 'not available in your part of the world shenanigans), I have zero compunction with just copying it for my use.
I've bolded the contradiction there.
You don't get to decide if something is "not worth its price" and take it anyway. The creator decides what price he/she/it wants to sell it for, probably so he/she/it can pay rent/food/employees.And if you don't think it's worth its price, you shouldn't be bypassing the creator to acquire it anyway. That's rude.
Reasoning: Whether I abstain from getting a product (thus creating no revenue for the publisher) or illegally get myself a copy (thus, again, creating no revenue) results in exactly zero difference for that publisher.
But if you decide to illegally get yourself a copy, and then use the $10 you saved to go see a movie in a theater, or buy yourself a pizza or cigarettes, that is NOT an "exactly zero difference" for you, is it? You're using $10 (money you wouldn't have if you had purchased the product) to provide some other benefit for yourself. You're saying "I can acquire Luxury-A without cost to myself, allowing me to acquire Luxury-B (which I can't acquire for zero cost) with the money I save."
Don't get me wrong—I, personally (not speaking for Paizo) don't think that people downloading files are likely to have bought them legitimately. And I, personally (not speaking for Paizo) think copyright laws should be closer to 10 years rather than life+70 years.
But people downloading files shouldn't get to think they're innocent of any wrongdoing. If purchasing X gives money to the creator of X, and you don't need X to survive, and you choose to acquire X without purchasing it even though you can afford to purchase it, then you're not the good guy in this story: you are deliberately choosing to acquire X in a way that doesn't benefit X's creator. You are saying, "I know you put time and effort into creating this thing, and I want to have it, but I don't want to give you money for it." That makes you a jerk.
And I'm saying that as a guy who's given away entire books that he used to sell. It's my decision as a creator to give it away for free, not yours.