Yeah, the PDFs have always been locked, as far as I know. I read a Paizo employee say elsewhere on the forums that the passwords are created randomly by a program and then deleted after they're applied to the file. Not even Paizo has access to the passwords, anymore.
There's the occasional person upset that they don't have total control over their purchase, but the alternative for Paizo is that a dishonest customer would publicly share the PDF's assets. It would only take one, and it's inevitable that it would happen, in my opinion, so I understand their decision.
Yeah, the PDFs have always been locked, as far as I know. I read a Paizo employee say elsewhere on the forums that the passwords are created randomly by a program and then deleted after they're applied to the file. Not even Paizo has access to the passwords, anymore.
That can't be right, surely? It doesnt really achieve anything other than placing restrictions on their own actions.
|
Yeah, the PDFs have always been locked, as far as I know. I read a Paizo employee say elsewhere on the forums that the passwords are created randomly by a program and then deleted after they're applied to the file. Not even Paizo has access to the passwords, anymore.That can't be right, surely? It doesnt really achieve anything other than placing restrictions on their own actions.
They have the master files to create as many unlocked PDFs as they need. I presume what they were saying is that the random password gets applied after the 'master' pdf gets watermarked for a particular person. It removes the possibility of a disgruntled employee releasing the password - every file has a different one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a day early; it usually shows up on Tuesdays.
-Skeld
Blame Columbus Day. Or Cosmo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's the occasional person upset that they don't have total control over their purchase, but the alternative for Paizo is that a dishonest customer would publicly share the PDF's assets. It would only take one, and it's inevitable that it would happen, in my opinion, so I understand their decision.I understand why they do it, I'm not upset by it. I just wish that they'd think ahead a little more and make ALL of the information the player needs available in the player's guide. Putting the ship-to-ship combat rules in there, but leaving out the fleet combat rules was a big oversight.
Maybe this will help your players?
And I'm not sure how much that really protects their products. I'm sure someone who was really determined to share the PDFs publicly could find a way around the password.
Maybe you shouldn't lock your car because a determined thief will still get in to steal something. Or your house? Or why bother trying to protect anything from thieves because they'll always find a way. These arguments never lead anywhere. It's been debated before a great many times on this forum. The simple fact is Paizo wants to take some steps to curb IP theft/piracy and so they take what measures they think are prudent and available to them. Yes it puts some limitations on what you can do with a PDF, but the work-arounds are really not that complicated and is just part of the price we all have to pay for a few bad actors.
-Skeld
|
|
Maybe you shouldn't lock your car because a determined thief will still get in to steal something. Or your house? Or why bother trying to protect anything from thieves because they'll always find a way.That really isn't a valid comparison, since I have the keys to unlock my house and car. It would be more like selling someone a car, but locking the trunk and only giving them the valet key so that they can never get the trunk open. Sure, they could hire a locksmith, but they shouldn't have to.
Your analogy also isn't valid because, in the case of a PDF, you aren't buying a physical product. Thus the problem with analogies; they all fail at a certain level, because the exact circumstances are different (the devil is always in the details). The locks/thieves analogy seems to be one that people really try to hang their hat on. Read that thread I linked and you'll see the same arguments over and over with no resolution (Except from Vic, who states emphatically that the watermarks aren't going away).
-Skeld
We have an FAQ covering this question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, no analogy is completely valid, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.I brought it up because this comment:
I'm sure someone who was really determined to share the PDFs publicly could find a way around the password.
reminded me of the houses/locks analogy that gets trotted out every time this subject gets brought up.
I don't intend this thread to turn into a debate on DRM. I had a question, I got it answered, and there was no need for your snarky comments.
Glad I could help, grumpypants! :D
-Skeld
You're right, no analogy is completely valid, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.I brought it up because this comment:I'm sure someone who was really determined to share the PDFs publicly could find a way around the password.reminded me of the houses/locks analogy that gets trotted out every time this subject gets brought up.
The use of this analogy reminds me of the finger pointing at the moon. Somebody points at the moon and the person looks at the finger and asks, "What is so interesting about your finger?"
The point isn't the lock ... it's the key.
Locks on bikes, lockers, cars, houses, etc. can be always be picked. The point isn't that a lock is fool-proof. Rather, the point is simply:
Whose interests are being served by the lock?
When I lock my car and have the key in my pocket, the lock is serving my interest. If somebody else (say, the Chicago police) put a wheel clamp on my car, that lock is NOT serving my interest. (Note: Who holds the key in each of these cases?)
In this sense, the analogy between locks and DRM is quite apt. Products containing Digital Restrictions Management serve the interest of the product's creator, not the product's owner.
I'd like to see DRM Money. That is, money that allows me to remotely enforce restrictions upon it, even after spending it.
So, I would be able to tell the company selling me a DRM product the ways in which they can/can't spend the DRM money that I traded them for the product.
Fair is fair, after all.
Isnt it the case that when you 'buy a PDF' you dont actually own the product?
I thought the legality was you had a license to store an electronic copy of the information (or something similar). You havent bought a product, you've bought access to it (So, for example, sellers arent actually obligated to allow you to continuously download it - if you lose your copy they are well within their rights to charge you again for another since it still isnt 'yours'). That's how I thought it was anyhow.
Isnt it the case that when you 'buy a PDF' you dont actually own the product?
I thought the legality was you had a license to store an electronic copy of the information (or something similar). You havent bought a product, you've bought access to it (So, for example, sellers arent actually obligated to allow you to continuously download it - if you lose your copy they are well within their rights to charge you again for another since it still isnt 'yours'). That's how I thought it was anyhow.
I know it's like that with software. Not actually sure where a PDF of a book fits, though.
One thing I would equate wanting to modify a PDF to though is wanting the source files the book was created from, as opposed to simply wanting the book. As it is, a locked PDF already puts you in a better position than the printed book as you can copy and paste the text and images from it (just not the entire page as-is). With the printed book you can cut and paste too, but the book isn't left intact afterwards.
I know it's like that with software. Not actually sure where a PDF of a book fits, though.Isnt it the case that when you 'buy a PDF' you dont actually own the product?
I thought the legality was you had a license to store an electronic copy of the information (or something similar). You havent bought a product, you've bought access to it (So, for example, sellers arent actually obligated to allow you to continuously download it - if you lose your copy they are well within their rights to charge you again for another since it still isnt 'yours'). That's how I thought it was anyhow.
I dont see how WotC could have pulled the PDFs a few years ago (as opposed to just not selling any more) if people really had bought them.
I dont see how WotC could have pulled the PDFs a few years ago (as opposed to just not selling any more) if people really had bought them.I know it's like that with software. Not actually sure where a PDF of a book fits, though.Isnt it the case that when you 'buy a PDF' you dont actually own the product?
I thought the legality was you had a license to store an electronic copy of the information (or something similar). You havent bought a product, you've bought access to it (So, for example, sellers arent actually obligated to allow you to continuously download it - if you lose your copy they are well within their rights to charge you again for another since it still isnt 'yours'). That's how I thought it was anyhow.
If you're selling a download, you're under no obligation to keep the download active even if it's a product and not a license. People got their download, and (hopefully) kept backup copies, it's not the responsibility of the seller to keep it active for re-downloading later (any more than it's the publisher's or bookstore's responsibility if you happen to misplace the book you bought)
EDIT: I think what it comes down to is... did any of us see a license agreement from Paizo when we bought our PDFs? :) If we didn't, it's pretty much safe to assume we bought a product (although, IANAL)
If you're selling a download, you're under no obligation to keep the download active even if it's a product and not a license. People got their download, and (hopefully) kept backup copies, it's not the responsibility of the seller to keep it active for re-downloading later (any more than it's the publisher's or bookstore's responsibility if you happen to misplace the book you bought)I dont see how WotC could have pulled the PDFs a few years ago (as opposed to just not selling any more) if people really had bought them.I know it's like that with software. Not actually sure where a PDF of a book fits, though.Isnt it the case that when you 'buy a PDF' you dont actually own the product?
I thought the legality was you had a license to store an electronic copy of the information (or something similar). You havent bought a product, you've bought access to it (So, for example, sellers arent actually obligated to allow you to continuously download it - if you lose your copy they are well within their rights to charge you again for another since it still isnt 'yours'). That's how I thought it was anyhow.
Sure, but the digital sellers werent allowed to let people re-download them. It wasnt that they chose not to.
I'm no lawyer either, but it doesnt sound to me like the purchase of a product.
If you're selling a download, you're under no obligation to keep the download active even if it's a product and not a license. People got their download, and (hopefully) kept backup copies, it's not the responsibility of the seller to keep it active for re-downloading later (any more than it's the publisher's or bookstore's responsibility if you happen to misplace the book you bought)Sure, but the digital sellers werent allowed to let people re-download them. It wasnt that they chose not to.
I'm no lawyer either, but it doesnt sound to me like the purchase of a product.
Ahh, I see what you mean. It could be. Personally I just likened that to the product being discontinued. The digital sellers effectively didn't own any additional copies to distribute once it was pulled, and I could certainly imagine a copyright case being threatened if they continued to distribute additional copies, and I can imagine the stores agreeing to it even if they didn't think it was a legal request simply because of the threat of losing a court case to a Hasbro-funded legal team (yay for legal systems that pretty much guarantee the guy who can afford the most lawyers wins... <sigh>)
So, I can see a way for it to happen either way. If pushed I'd argue that unless I clicked to agree on a license agreement I haven't bought a license, but there may well be other acceptable license-embedding methods I'm unaware of.
I believe the thing Amazon did with the Kindle a little while back was a bit more clear-cut. They'd apparently put a license agreement in as part of the purchase process when you bought a book to download, which allowed them to even pull purchased books off your device as you'd only bought a license. Ugh.