sometimes laws change on their own as time passes, due to how the majority doesn't find them acceptable anymore
Fwiw, I'm not "shifting the debate", I've been talking about contracts (or terms and conditions) since page one of this thread.Sorry, you're not a member of the collective bargaining group I was referring to earlier.
I was referencing that, for the last few pages, we were discussing copyright law, not contracts, and that, if we're going to more specifically discuss any contract, I'd like to be able to read that contract before proceeding too much further.
Apologies for the confusion.
No worries (I'm usually responsible for my own confusion anyhow). I was just looking to be clear as this thread has wandered all over the place.
I personally dont find it useful to debate legislation on the internet - I just go with whatever the lawyer says. I'm happy to discuss the morality of 'what we should do' though, and in my mind we implicitly agree to abide with Paizo's wishes when they give us access to a PDF. I dont think it's right to accept that, then not comply with how they want us to use those files (irrespective of the law).
EDIT: And to be clear again, I understand you're not advocating any illegal activity. I'm responding to your posts largely to clarify where our disagreement lies (if anywhere) not to argue against it, as such.
I personally dont find it useful to debate legislation on the internet - I just go with whatever the lawyer says. I'm happy to discuss the morality of 'what we should do' though, and in my mind we implicitly agree to abide with Paizo's wishes when they give us access to a PDF. I dont think it's right to accept that, then not comply with how they want us to use those files (irrespective of the law).
This might be where we break, a bit.
I see it as, I'm a customer, it's a product. It's either a free product, or it's a paid product, but it's still a product. When that transfer happens, it's mine.
I should have the right to transfer that iteration of the product at my leisure. I have the right with the physical, I should have the right with the digital.
In regards to free (and digital) products, I should have the right to redistribute that product.
The funny thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you - in regards to stuff, including free product (like the Beta PDFs), I directed a number of people to the website to get their own.
It's not so much that I WOULD actually distribute copies of free PDFs, were I allowed, because I see benefit to multiple parties to direct them to Paizo's website - it's just that I think that I SHOULD be allowed to distribute those copies, and I don't think that anyone should be punished or penalized for distributing a copy of a free product.
EDIT: And to be clear again, I understand you're not advocating any illegal activity. I'm responding to your posts largely to clarify where our disagreement lies (if anywhere) not to argue against it, as such.
Cool!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civil Disobedience is an established tactic for effecting societal change though.
Civil disobedience as protest usually involves making sure as many people as possible know that you are breaking the law in question, and being prepared to suffer the penalty. That's not the same as doing something you know to be illegal because you think you can get away with it.
And, as discussed earlier in the thread, if you're going to protest via civil disobedience for copyright reform, you need to be consistent.
If your platform is "Copyright terms should last 10 years, with no renewal" then you shouldn't be infringing copyright of content younger than that.
I personally dont find it useful to debate legislation on the internet - I just go with whatever the lawyer says. I'm happy to discuss the morality of 'what we should do' though, and in my mind we implicitly agree to abide with Paizo's wishes when they give us access to a PDF. I dont think it's right to accept that, then not comply with how they want us to use those files (irrespective of the law).This might be where we break, a bit.
I see it as, I'm a customer, it's a product. It's either a free product, or it's a paid product, but it's still a product. When that transfer happens, it's mine.
I should have the right to transfer that iteration of the product at my leisure. I have the right with the physical, I should have the right with the digital.
In regards to free (and digital) products, I should have the right to redistribute that product.
The funny thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you - in regards to stuff, including free product (like the Beta PDFs), I directed a number of people to the website to get their own.
It's not so much that I WOULD actually distribute copies of free PDFs, were I allowed, because I see benefit to multiple parties to direct them to Paizo's website - it's just that I think that I SHOULD be allowed to distribute those copies, and I don't think that anyone should be punished or penalized for distributing a copy of a free product.
I think that's an ethically reasonable position (without expressing a view as to the legality) without any stipulation from the seller. However, as I see it, there's nothing stopping a seller imposing a non-resale (or a non-distribution in the case of free product) stipulation. Again, I'm talking ethically here, not legally (although I have definitely seen several cases in the sale of shares in a business where the seller restricted the rights of the buyer to dispose of those shares).
.Provided you know, ahead of time, that ownership of this PDF is only granted to you provided you not give it to anyone else, then I think you are agreeing to that by downloading it. It's a contract between two parties and any legislation forbidding or over-riding this kind of clause is a restriction of freedom in its own way and one for which I cant see any justification. (Again, we're talking free product here).
If I create a PDF and want to provide it to people for no charge on condition they not distribute it but it turns out it's illegal to impose such conditions - arent I being unfairly treated? Arent the potential recipients of my file (who would gladly have agreed to my terms but are prevented from doing so, since I'm not allowed to offer them)?
Civil Disobedience is more than just not following bad law. It's a method for enacting change in which people invite prosecution and publically challenge the authorities in an attempt to get the law changed. If you're just downloading stuff in your basement and justifying it with a clenched fist and a silent "Civil Disobedience!" then I think you run the risk of kidding yourself that you're fighting the good fight, when you're actually rationalising your own self-interested behaviour.
If you do so, then email the people whose work you've downloaded, publicise your actions and seek to bring the debate to the public, then I think you can much more accurately be labelled an activist.
Holy balls. This thread sure blew up.
So, um. Everyone claiming that they "wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it isn't stealing," I have a quick question!
Well, I'm one of the ones who thinks that file-sharing isn't stealing but not for the reason you suggest. It isn't stealing, imo, because for something to be "stolen" the owner of it must not have original. If I were to steal your car, for example, you wouldn't have it anymore. Copying still leaves you with the original and therefore cannot be honestly called "stealing" at all.
If there was "stealing" going on (like hackers broke into Paizo headquarters, stole the originals like a nerdier version of a diamond heist and then distributed them for their own profit) THEN you and I could agree that this was "stealing" and these people should be punished.
What if you like the pirated item so much that you decide it would've been worth the price, if you'd paid for it? Do you go back and buy it even though you've already got it? Be honest.
Absolutely. In fact were it not for a (LEGALLY) shared copy I wouldn't even know that this game existed and would still be lamenting the fall of D&D to Hasbro and playing 3.5. By the way, I've since bought the copy I had (LEGALLY) downloaded along with about $250 of other materials with more in my cart awaiting purchase.
I'm, obviously, not averse to downloading the .pdfs since I'm here defending the "rightness" in doing so and yet I'm still paying for them. Explain that... if you can.
If you said "yes," are you, in fact, full of it? Tell the truth! ;-) And whether you are or aren't, do you think everyone else who cites the "wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument would answer the same way, if they had to come clean about it? Pirates go back and buy the products that they deem to be worth the price, after reading / watching / listening to them? Probably not, right?
Sort of invalidates the argument, doesn't it?
Well, hey, if you're just going to use your premise to verify your premise can't I just do the same thing? 'Piracy isn't stealing because piracy isn't stealing. Yay, I win all teh internetz arguments evar!'
I sell third-party products, and I'd be pretty upset to learn that my PDFs were being acquired by a bunch of people who "wouldn't have bought it anyway." I'd be even more upset to learn that those people were uploading my PDFs to torrent sites and and P2P sharing sites where other people who "wouldn't have bought it anyway" are also acquiring my creative works.
Wouldn't you?
I've answered this question already but, at the risk of repeating myself, NO! If they weren't going to buy them anyway then I've lost nothing. In the meantime I get the benefit of product exposure to people who might be interested in buying.
| 2 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.
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.
Provided you know, ahead of time, that ownership of this PDF is only granted to you provided you not give it to anyone else, then I think you are agreeing to that by downloading it. It's a contract between two parties and any legislation forbidding or over-riding this kind of clause is a restriction of freedom in its own way and one for which I cant see any justification. (Again, we're talking free product here).
If I create a PDF and want to provide it to people for no charge on condition they not distribute it but it turns out it's illegal to impose such conditions - arent I being unfairly treated? Arent the potential recipients of my file (who would gladly have agreed to my terms but are prevented from doing so, since I'm not allowed to offer them)?
I don't believe so, on either account.
Look at it this way:
"Ownership of this print book is only granted provided that you never loan it to anyone, display it to anyone, read it to anyone or ever give it away."
I think that these are undue restrictions, and perversions of copyright.
Provided you know, ahead of time, that ownership of this PDF is only granted to you provided you not give it to anyone else, then I think you are agreeing to that by downloading it. It's a contract between two parties and any legislation forbidding or over-riding this kind of clause is a restriction of freedom in its own way and one for which I cant see any justification. (Again, we're talking free product here).
If I create a PDF and want to provide it to people for no charge on condition they not distribute it but it turns out it's illegal to impose such conditions - arent I being unfairly treated? Arent the potential recipients of my file (who would gladly have agreed to my terms but are prevented from doing so, since I'm not allowed to offer them)?
I don't believe so, on either account.
Look at it this way:
"Ownership of this print book is only granted provided that you never loan it to anyone, display it to anyone, read it to anyone or ever give it away."
I think that these are undue restrictions, and perversions of copyright.
I dont think those restrictions are granted due to copyright. However, if someone wanted to sell me a book on condition that I never give it away I see no reason for that to be a forbidden clause. (Whether I'd take advantage of the offer or not is a moot point). It may be unusual, even unheard of for a book to be sold under those conditions, but I dont see why one should prohibit sellers and buyers from entering into such agreements (the existence of copyright is irrelevant here). As I mentioned, there is precedent for selling people other property with conditions placed on how one might utilise that property.
If your position were to be valid ethically, I would be forbidden from entering into providing my PDF to my willing customer under the conditions that I want. Who has benefitted from that restriction? (Again, this is nothing about copyright - I'm only talking about contractual agreements, implicit or otherwise, which is where I think PDF distribution falls).
Provided you know, ahead of time, that ownership of this PDF is only granted to you provided you not give it to anyone else, then I think you are agreeing to that by downloading it. It's a contract between two parties and any legislation forbidding or over-riding this kind of clause is a restriction of freedom in its own way and one for which I cant see any justification. (Again, we're talking free product here).If you want a contract, write out a contract. Don't try and argue something as a contract if you aren't willing to write out your expectations and ask the other person to explicitly assent to being bound by the contract.
I personally think such things should be written out explicitly (even though probably less than 1% of customers actually read the terms and conditions), however the fact remains that contracts dont have to be written to take effect. I dont want to have to sign a contract when I go to McDonalds and hand over my change - I expect them to fulfill their end of the bargain and I know they have to because we've entered into a contract.
I do agree that including explicit terms (such as "You can download this for free but may not make copies, nor distribute this to other people") would be a good idea in cases such as the freely downloadable PDFs.
"I do agree that including explicit terms (such as "You can download this for free but may not make copies, nor distribute this to other people") would be a good idea in cases such as the freely downloadable PDFs."
Why? it makes no sense to me to restrict the copy/re-distribution of a free pdf.
|
In order to get them started, I want to provide them with the Rise of the Runlelords modules, since I've now finished with them. They can get the rulebooks or PDF's themselves, everyone needs that, but the modules are for the DM, who happens to be cash strepped in terms of a hobby like this.
With hard copy books, no problem at all. With PDF versions (which is all I can afford to buy here in Aus) then I now face possibly losing my access to Paizo for getting another group started. It is an interesting conundrum for me.
I could "lend" them my PDF's, but this is easily able to be hacked or dropped into the net (some of those torrent loaders are horrible for taking files and uploading them without the users being aware of it)
The license on the PDFs is what it is. Personally, I prefer it this way rather than having to run draconian DRM software that only allows me to view the files I download on one, hardware locked machine - it could be much worse than it is.
Yes, at present, there is no way to transfer your PDFs to someone else, legally. Don't 'lend' them, the consequences could be exceptionally bad.
My suggestion is to point this gentleman at Pathfinder Society. Get him running the exceptionally cheap PFS scenarios for this new group. Suggest that he asks for a donation per session that he will put towards buying APs or modules for his group.
Another suggestion is to print out your personal copy of RotRL and give him that. Then delete your PDFs.
Brock, that is a great idea. Something I hadn't even considered.
Cheers
the fact remains that contracts dont have to be written to take effect.Really? Can you cite that?
Nope. I've done half a dozen Contract Law/Commercial Law/Corporate Law courses over the years, but I'm an accountant, not a lawyer.
Is it a controversial claim though? Havent you entered into a contract when you give the McDonalds guy your money?
Not that contracts can't be oral, but a contract is all about people explicitly agreeing on something. What you want out of a contract is irrelevant if it's not in writing. I'm sure Paizo doesn't want it the other way; if I think they have understanding that I'm going to make copies of the PDF I download and hand them out to everyone in the store, should I go ahead and do that? I think Paizo wants me to act only on explicit permission from them.
There still has to be agreement - I'm not suggesting people can just run around declaring the existence of any kind of contract they like.
Copyright law restricts copying, contract or not. It's stronger in some ways then contract law, because if the downloader gives a copy to someone, that someone isn't bound by any contract, but is still bound by copyright law. And copyright law explicitly forbids copying, so contracts aren't needed to legally compel that.
I dont know anything about copyright law. However, my discussion with Brian E Harris is purely about the contractual side. I'm not competent to argue the legal points - I can argue the ethical though. If you have agreed with the seller that you wont distribute the PDF once you've bought it, then you are ethically bound not to violate that agreement once the transaction is complete. That's my sole point. (Whether it applies in the case of Paizo's site or not isnt really part of my claim - I think it does, personally, since they make it pretty clear that they dont want you to do it. It's not relevant to the argument I'm making though).
"I do agree that including explicit terms (such as "You can download this for free but may not make copies, nor distribute this to other people") would be a good idea in cases such as the freely downloadable PDFs."
Why? it makes no sense to me to restrict the copy/re-distribution of a free pdf.
I'm not arguing for or against the restriction. Whether it makes sense or not wasnt relevant to my point.
I'm saying that if you wish to restrict the distribution of PDFs you make available for free, I think it would be a good idea to make that restriction explicit - so that agreeing to it is a prerequisite to downloading it (since there's a real risk of people not realising that you think they are agreeing not to).
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.
|
Keep in mind that not all Tolkien-based lawsuits come from the Tolkien estates. Saul Zaentz's Middle Earth Enterprises (formerly Tolkien Enterprises) bought the licenses for merchandizing and other media versions of Tolkien's works. And since Saul Zaentz is the guy who sued John Fogerty for writing songs like John Fogerty circa Creedence Clearwater Revival, we can see he's not lawsuit averse. Middle Earth Enterprises activities, particularly recently, show that pretty well.One of the problems is that those regulation are thought from the point of view of protecting the "rights" of modern publishers but clash with the rights of reprinting old products.
As an example Tolkien estates have menaced to sue people and publishers for the use of names used in Tolkien works, but most of those names are taken from old north Europe myths, legends and literary material. So using using names from the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda you run the risk of being sued by Tolkien estates.
Sadly most of the time those lawsuits will be won by the people with the deepest pockets, not by those that are "right".
And that in any way invalidate what I wrote?
* US law somewhat allow the copyrighting of material even if it has existed for hundred or thousand of years* International treaties recognize (to a point) US copyrights even when they are about things that isn't possible to copyright in other countries
* Generally the guy with the deepest pockets win the lawsuit because it can push the other party to economical exhaustion, independently from the validity of his claims
A very bad trio.
A lot of names in the Tolkien books are one example, copyrighting the Immelman maneuver for use in games is another, patenting corn strains that have been in use for centuries another one, and those are those are the one I remember from the top of my head.
There have been attempts, I don't know how successful, to patent existing human genes on the basis of "I have identified them, so I am their creators".
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.
maybe, but nothing is free if it comes with "but"-s, so a PDF in such case wouldn't be really free anymore
maybe, but nothing is free if it comes with "but"-s, so a PDF in such case wouldn't be really free anymore
Sure. But a Paizo PDF labelled free isnt "free" now, on that interpretation (since there are limits to what you can do with it).
The trouble is the word has two meanings - "for zero price" (which it is) and "with no restrictions" (which it isnt).
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's not legally a contract, and to the extent it is contract-like, it is a written one; the rules have been long encoded into law. It's also universal; you walk into any store, and you know what the deal is going to be.Is it a controversial claim though? Havent you entered into a contract when you give the McDonalds guy your money?the fact remains that contracts dont have to be written to take effect.Really? Can you cite that?
Well, like I say - I'm no lawyer. I think you're quite wrong, but I'm not qualified to argue it (that's what we pay Gorbacz and his buddies for). I didnt think it was controversial, but there you go.
There still has to be agreement - I'm not suggesting people can just run around declaring the existence of any kind of contract they like.Why should I have to read Paizo's mind, and Paizo doesn't have to read mine? Companies hate to be held to anything they didn't put in writing. Why should they get to bind consumers in contracts that they won't put in clear recorded forms?
You shouldnt have to read their minds. I'm not saying a company can invent whatever terms they like. I'm saying that there are a whole bunch of implied terms (also determined by the courts, not necessarily by statute) which you are deemed to be agreeing to.
No telepathy involved, just participation in a modern society with hundreds of years of legal precedent.
|
Yes, they are, but the point is that if you read that beforehand, and then agree to buy the book, and actually go ahead and purchase it, you have agreed on those very restrictions, however ridiculous they may be. And can be legally prosecuted if you violate any of those.I don't believe that. Contract law varies all over the place and corporations have gotten away with all sorts of things, but if you want to take something to court, you need to have explicit evidence of agreement. Just having something they can read is not explicit evidence of agreement.
It does but the point is, when you purchase a product you pretty much sign the contract. You don't have to buy the product if you don't like the terms. The book was an example. It could be anything. And if you're found in violation of the terms, and that can be proven in court, be damn sure that somebody is going to sue you over it.
|
|
No telepathy involved, just participation in a modern society with hundreds of years of legal precedent.
"Legal precedents" as the basis of law is a construct of the English and America courts. In most EU countries you have the written laws as source of the law and precedents are used to help in the interpretation of the law.
I'll take your word for it.
The various precendents that have been set as to what constitutes a contract will still be relevant (even if they ultimately stem back to some statute). One still isnt required to be a psychic in order to enter a contract and one can still be held to have entered into an agreement without having signed a contract or even having read one.
|
|
ah yes, I wish science would advance as far to make everyone able to have photographic memory, that would have a revolutionary effect on copyright laws I assumeOne could argue that technology already does give everyone a limited form of photographic memory.
Say I have two friends, one with a photographic memory, the other with a computer and scanner. Say the only things you know about my friends are their physical and email addresses. If you mail a physical copy of a book to both of my friends, have them mail it back, and then ask them via email to type out the full text of the book you sent them, both would be able to do so. You would not be able to tell which of my friends was using a photographic memory to recall the text and which was using a scanned copy of the book stored in his computer's memory.
From a functionalist stand-point, a computer capable of making digital copies really is a device that gives its user a limited form of photographic memory. When using the computer to duplicate the benefits of a biological photographic memory, the computer is morally identical to a biological photographic memory. Memory is memory is memory. Whether or not it happens to be stored internally is ethically irrelevant.
If someone come to my library and ask to photocopy a book I can say "No, you can't as this book is protected by copyrights" (luckily most of our material isn't covered by copyrights, only against plagiarism) but I can't patrol the library constantly to prevent him from using a digital camera or a portable phone to take a picture of the page of the book nor, I think, I can force him to delete it after he has taken one, so we have easy access to a form of photographic memory.
I am not sure at all how taking a picture of a book fall under the copyright laws. If I take a picture of my bedroom and the books on the shelves are visible I am violating copyright law as the cover are protected by the copyright laws?
Again, something where the limits of the law, modern resources and the possibility to push a law to its most absurd limits clash.
|
|
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.
That's indeed why people play Pathfinder. The reason why Gary can go home to an epic pulled-pork sandwich after a hard day making Pathfinder is because he gets paid. If copyright didn't prevent (deter) people from giving the game away for free then he wouldn't get paid.
So yes, Pathfinder as a business is indeed built on copyright.
|
|
Ironically, it's also a business built on (legally) largely copying another company's work. Without WotC's D&D 3.5, plus the OGL and the SRD making it legal to copy D&D 3.5; Pathfinder wouldn't exist. So it owes just as much to the legal skirting of copyright as it does to copyright itself.
Not sure I agree with the word 'skirting'.
WotC created a specific license that allowed some forms of copying that would have otherwise been reserved. They did this as a business decision to build a bigger market. It's analogous to Paizo's decision to make the PRD free but to reserve copyright on the PDF's which contain almost identical information.
As the creator of the content, copyright gives you the ability to (try to) balance the distribution of your material in such a way as to get what you consider a suitable reward for your work.
Without copyright protection, you'd see a race to the bottom as people tried to undercut each other to create a saleable product, based on someone else's material, with the lowest possible cost of manufacture.
|
|
Not sure I agree with the word 'skirting'.
I'm not fully happy with it either, but nothing else really seemed to fit either. And let's face it, the original intention of the OGL/SRD was NOT to allow a competitor to publish a varient 3.X as it's own game. The OGL/SRD had a lot of unintended consequences. I'd wager nobody at WotC saw the emergence of legally published retro-clones as a side-effect, either. So, in a way, the publishing of Pathfinder DOES skirt the original intention of the OGL/SRD.
You shouldnt have to read their minds. I'm not saying a company can invent whatever terms they like. I'm saying that there are a whole bunch of implied terms (also determined by the courts, not necessarily by statute) which you are deemed to be agreeing to.That's not a contract. That's copyright, and it's completely statutory. I've bought brand-new books and scanned them into the computer and distributed them to the world, completely legally. No implied contract by the publisher mattered; what mattered was that the statutory copyright had expired.
Err, no. You are perhaps not following Brian E Harris and my conversation. I'm solely referring to a contractual arrangement. I profess no knowledge about copyright law. My claim, which is ethical and not legal, is that people are (broadly speaking) free to assign whatever rights or restrictions they like when making contracts and if you enter into the contract you are ethically bound to comply with it.
Someone can give you a public domain PDF on the condtion you not copy it or give it to anyone else. If you accept their condition, it's unethical to then copy it or give it to anyone else.
Keep in mind that not all Tolkien-based lawsuits come from the Tolkien estates. Saul Zaentz's Middle Earth Enterprises (formerly Tolkien Enterprises) bought the licenses for merchandizing and other media versions of Tolkien's works. And since Saul Zaentz is the guy who sued John Fogerty for writing songs like John Fogerty circa Creedence Clearwater Revival, we can see he's not lawsuit averse. Middle Earth Enterprises activities, particularly recently, show that pretty well.And that in any way invalidate what I wrote?
No, it's just that people frequently have a poor opinion of the Tolkien estates over these issues when the culprit is often Saul Zaentz's company. The underlying issue is the same, but the specific blame is often misplaced.
Yes, they are, but the point is that if you read that beforehand, and then agree to buy the book, and actually go ahead and purchase it, you have agreed on those very restrictions, however ridiculous they may be. And can be legally prosecuted if you violate any of those.
I do not believe that any bookseller has the legal right, under our current law, to place such restrictions on a physical book.
Right of first sale trumps this.
Further, I think it unethical and immoral to attempt to place such restrictions on merchandise in this manner.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I agree with the written INTENT of copyright:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That said, I think we need to avoid making statements like "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."
Replacing it with "otherwise, Paizo may not have found it feasible to produce in the first place." would be a better description.
See below for why.
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 not just semantics. It's fact. Theft has a very specific definition. This goes back to an earlier point: It presupposes that the infringing copy, had it been rendered impossible to create, would have resulted in a sale.
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.
So, let's turn this back to the physical media: A number of authors, musicians, video game creators, etc. have written lengthy diatribes about how the secondhand market is evil, because it deprives these content creators of income - they make no money off of those secondhand sales. Some of these folks, or agencies that purport to represent them, have attempted to eliminate the secondhand market because they don't profit from it.
They've all stated, effectively, "We don't want you to resell our content. We don't want you to buy our content used. We want you to buy it new."
Is it "not nice" to ignore them, "practically punching the creators in the face and telling them "I don´t give a damn to your wishes" ?? Should the creator be able to ban these people from future sales of new copies of the works?
...I think we need to avoid making statements like "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."
Replacing it with "otherwise, Paizo may not have found it feasible to produce in the first place." would be a better description.
Agreed.
It's not just semantics. It's fact. Theft has a very specific definition. This goes back to an earlier point: It presupposes that the infringing copy, had it been rendered impossible to create, would have resulted in a sale.
Ok, I agree that theft is the wrong word for it. Still, as the laws are presently, copying protected material and making this copy accessible in public is illegal, however the act itself is called.
I don´t think that if indeed copying would not have been possible at all in the first place would have resulted in a sale. However this viewed, it does not change the fact that it is illegal as it stands.
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.So, let's turn this back to the physical media: A number of authors, musicians, video game creators, etc. have written lengthy diatribes about how the secondhand market is evil, because it deprives these content creators of income - they make no money off of those secondhand sales. Some of these folks, or agencies that purport to represent them, have attempted to eliminate the secondhand market because they don't profit from it.
They've all stated, effectively, "We don't want you to resell our content. We don't want you to buy our content used. We want you to buy it new."
Is it "not nice" to ignore them, "practically punching the creators in the face and telling them "I don´t give a damn to your wishes" ?? Should the creator be able to ban these people from future sales of new copies of the works?
If someone was to give away copies of a book or a CD cost-free and at the same time states "only one per person" for whatever reason they might have, ignoring them and taking 20 copies would be rude and ignoring their wishes. They probably cannot do much about it, besides banning you from getting free stuff ever again or stopping to hand out free stuff - which would be a reasonable response IMO.
Anyway, I see a big difference between physical media and digital media. Physical media, be it books, DVDs or whatever form they have, can be sold once per copy, at least in their original form. Digital media can be duplicated countless times without any difference in form or quality. So, basically, a reseller might be able to sell a high number of duplicates from one original file. This is a problem not adressed currently, and is one reason why some companies use DRM on their products. Much the same goes for (cost-)free digital media. They still have to be viewed under the copyright (and any other) laws.
If someone was to give away copies of a book or a CD cost-free and at the same time states "only one per person" for whatever reason they might have, ignoring them and taking 20 copies would be rude and ignoring their wishes. They probably cannot do much about it, besides banning you from getting free stuff ever again or stopping to hand out free stuff - which would be a reasonable response IMO.
There was a case like this recently near where I live. As best I can remember, here's how it went:
At one of the hospitals, there are a variety of free local papers published by various interest groups. They're available for anyone to take, for free, from a number of different wire-frame stands. An employee at the hospital took exception to one of these papers because it was pro-gay-rights, and tossed ALL the copies of that paper into the trash from every single location throughout the hospital. The next time it was published, she did it again.
The publisher found out they'd been tossed in the trash, but the police couldn't do anything because it was available for free, so no crime had been committed. So the publisher changed the cover - instead of saying "FREE" it was changed to say "First copy free, each additional copy 50 cents."
The hospital employee did it again, but this time there was a crime, so police were able to investigate. They identified the employee from the hospital's surveillance cameras and are prosecuting her.
Although this involved physical copies, the scenario is still quite similar. Paizo PDFs have a price tag attached to them (the PDF-only price). Getting a PDF from Paizo allows you the right to a single copy. If you take (copy and distribute) more than one...
Ok, I agree that theft is the wrong word for it. Still, as the laws are presently, copying protected material and making this copy accessible in public is illegal, however the act itself is called.
I don´t think that if indeed copying would not have been possible at all in the first place would have resulted in a sale. However this viewed, it does not change the fact that it is illegal as it stands.
I do not disagree.
If someone was to give away copies of a book or a CD cost-free and at the same time states "only one per person" for whatever reason they might have, ignoring them and taking 20 copies would be rude and ignoring their wishes. They probably cannot do much about it, besides banning you from getting free stuff ever again or stopping to hand out free stuff - which would be a reasonable response IMO.
Really, this might be considered actual theft. It doesn't matter if the item is free, but, as a physical medium, until the ownership has actually changed hands, the would-be recipient has zero rights to it.
If they're only offering one copy per person, taking more than one without permission, yeah, that's theft.
Anyway, I see a big difference between physical media and digital media.
As do I, in some respects (see above).
Physical media, be it books, DVDs or whatever form they have, can be sold once per copy, at least in their original form. Digital media can be duplicated countless times without any difference in form or quality. So, basically, a reseller might be able to sell a high number of duplicates from one original file. This is a problem not adressed currently, and is one reason why some companies use DRM on their products. Much the same goes for (cost-)free digital media. They still have to be viewed under the copyright (and any other) laws.
Sure, and I'm not saying copyright, overall, shouldn't apply to free media.
I don't think the act of releasing it for free means "hey, it's now public domain!", I just don't think that the restriction on duplication/distribution should really apply any longer, once it's been released for free.
But, that said, I'd be willing to concede on the copyright holder's right to control distribution of free electronic product if the copyright holders would concede on the purchaser's right of first sale of the electronic product.
Although this involved physical copies, the scenario is still quite similar. Paizo PDFs have a price tag attached to them (the PDF-only price). Getting a PDF from Paizo allows you the right to a single copy. If you take (copy and distribute) more than one...
We're talking about FREE PDFs, though. Not the subscriber-benefit copy you get with a subscription, but the actual FREE ones, such as here:
But, that said, I'd be willing to concede on the copyright holder's right to control distribution of free electronic product if the copyright holders would concede on the purchaser's right of first sale of the electronic product.
Well, if you can come up with a way to guarantee that the electronic product can reliably be sold only once... With physical products, that´s inherent. But digital media? It would have to be unchangeable watermarked as to be identified as "that one file", and there would have to be some procedure that guarantees that it can be sold only once, and the original buyer has no longer access to it. If this can be solved at all, it can probably only be solved with some kind of database employed by the original producer or distributor. That does not sound very usable to me, to say nothing of data privacy concerns.
Well, if you can come up with a way to guarantee that the electronic product can reliably be sold only once... With physical products, that´s inherent.
But, it's not inherent. Bootlegs have been around forever. 4-track, cassette, CD, DVD, VHS, and whatever other formats.
To paraphrase an earlier quote, the practical difficulties in enforcing the restrictions should not be an obstacle to maintaining the rights of the consumer.
It's already accepted that it's legal for me to sell my books, CDs or DVDs, and we're not trying to apply some technologically difficult mechanism to verify that I haven't made copies of those (at least, compared to digital media).
I know that the argument has been made that digital media is "easier" and "cheaper" to copy than physical media, and used as justification, but that's really a fallacy.
In most cases, it's not appreciably any more difficult or expensive to copy physical media - in the case of CDs or DVDs, there's the added requirement of installing a piece of readily-available software and loading the physical media.
Heck, books are even easy, just more time consuming.
That some people would violate rights of the content creators does not mean that content creators should be active or complicit in violating the rights of the consumer.
It is legal to sell the CDs, DVDs, books, whatever stuff you ever purchased. Selling bootlegs, in whatever physical form, is most probably illegal. Home-made copies of CDs and the like are for the most part easy to distinguish from the real thing. (If not, we are getting into the professional area of copying for sale - which would be fraud anyways). You can legally sell only the original you purchased once. Illegal copies have been around as long as copyright laws have been in place, but thats not the point. We´ve been talking about legal reselling of digital and other media here, I think.
The thing is probably not that digital media is easier to copy, but that it is not (at least to my knowledge) possible to tell which one is the original and which one the copy, DRM notwithstanding.
So, what it comes down to is the creators and distributors understandable demand to see their rights reasonably protected against the buyers reasonable demand to sell their property privately. At present, the rights of the creators are set higher than the buyers rights.
It is legal to sell the CDs, DVDs, books, whatever stuff you ever purchased. Selling bootlegs, in whatever physical form, is most probably illegal. Home-made copies of CDs and the like are for the most part easy to distinguish from the real thing. (If not, we are getting into the professional area of copying for sale - which would be fraud anyways). You can legally sell only the original you purchased once. Illegal copies have been around as long as copyright laws have been in place, but thats not the point. We´ve been talking about legal reselling of digital and other media here, I think.
Yes, we have. And I'm not disputing that selling bootlegs is illegal - it is.
The reason that I brought up illegal physical copies is that courts have ruled numerous times that devices that can be used to make or use illicit copies are legal (BetaMax, Diamond Rio, etc.), that it's the act of making the copy that is illegal, and that technologies should not be restricted because some people use them to infringe copyright.
I think that pertains to the subject at hand - namely, that the courts have established that the consumer has rights, and that those rights should not be trumped by attempting to protect copyright from those that seek to infringe it.
The thing is probably not that digital media is easier to copy, but that it is not (at least to my knowledge) possible to tell which one is the original and which one the copy, DRM notwithstanding.
And I don't think that this should matter - 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.
So, what it comes down to is the creators and distributors understandable demand to see their rights reasonably protected against the buyers reasonable demand to sell their property privately. At present, the rights of the creators are set higher than the buyers rights.
Except, they're not demanding reasonable protection - that their demands infringe upon my right of first sale makes their demands unreasonable.
*I* am not the infringing party. They seek to infringe my rights because a 3rd party could *POTENTIALLY* infringe theirs.
This is not reasonable.