Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 11:48:47 GMT -6
Discussion prohibited. Just because you have purchased a book does not mean that you own the copyrights to the content (text, graphics) in the book -- you merely license the content from the copyright owner. This is completely untrue. If purchasing, say, a book, were in actuality a license, book publishers would be able to forbid you from reselling the book if they wanted to, as a condition of the license. They do want to, and have often tried. But the courts say that purchasing a book is not a license, but in fact a purchase, and you can resell it if you wish. This has been a consistent interpretation of United States copyright law up to the Supreme Court since at least Bobbs-Merrill in 1908, and continues to be the interpretation today. Copyright is specifically a restriction on the things you could otherwise legally do with what you purchase; it does not turn a purchase into a license. Not only that, but a strict interpretation of copyright law as desired by publishers would require libraries not to exist. Even though borrowing of books at the library leads to more, not less, book sales. The same way BAEN books proved beyond any shadow of doubt that making available free pdfs of some books for an author increases the sale of that book specifically and builds a fan base and helps sell more copies of his other books.Publishers (in general) and copyright laws catch up to the 1990's sometime in the next 100 years. They both, might (only might) make it into the 21st century at some very distant time in the future. Oh and just so there is no misunderstanding, authors do need copyright protection, I am not disputing that. However, the author needs that protection from the publishers and the lawyers, not primarily you or me. It is a shame that copyright and other laws are written by people without one shred of common sense or knowledge of the real world. But until we stop electing lawyers, we deserve the corruption that they by necessity bring to the government. One of the good things is when the author is able to self-publish and has a method to enter the distribution chain, confounding the large corporate publishers and their lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 17, 2017 11:56:47 GMT -6
Rulings, not rules.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 17, 2017 12:01:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Jan 17, 2017 13:56:13 GMT -6
Fearghus -- Has DTRPG responded to your customer service inquiry yet? Have you tried getting CM printed at Lulu.com or Staples? Please post back with any updates! Hello, I did not inquire from DTRPG via email/mail/phone. On their site, the particular items (3LBB and CM) did not state that printing was disabled. In the meantime, I have refrained from printing any of the items. A few notes as needed are logged into my gaming journal, and I left it at that.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 17, 2017 14:32:04 GMT -6
That is simply not true. There is the Kindle Cloud Reader that can be used from any web browser, and the iOS Kindle app can be used on an iPad Pro with a 12.9" screen. You could use Chromecast or some other technology and even read on a big screen TV. There is no way to print a Kindle book with DRM, but there are many other ways to read a Kindle book. Then post a link for an book Amazon sells that is available only on Kindle and show me where on that page there is a link to the Kindle Cloud Reader. I looked up a dozen books and not one had a link to that Reader. Since they don't provide the link where it is needed, how would I know about it. As for DRM, I don't buy DRM and cannot imagine why anyone would. YMMV The Cloud Reader is part of your amazon account and appears as an option when you are in the section labeled Manage your Content and Devices. Every kindle book you purchased via Amazon appears in that list and one of the things you can do is read it on-line using the web browser. Specifically there is a button with ... under the actions column.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 17, 2017 14:50:38 GMT -6
let's please also not potentially scare or scandalize people Sorry if I scare or scandalize anyone! I live in the US. My experiences here may be different from yours. I have actually been refused service in a Kinkos for suspicion of copyright/trademark violation. This is because in order for Kinko to do what you ask them, you have to "distribute" to them a copy of the file, they in turn copy it and "distribute" it back to you. Two copyright violations as two copies are made. While the situation is the same at Lulu, the difference is that the process of printing and distribution are largely automatic. There very little oversight over the actual printing process. And since Lulu isn't an agent of the copyright holder the worse that could happen with a PRIVATE printing is that they terminate your account. Remember for the most part copyright is a civil not criminal matter. If you are that bothered by it then the best thing to do is to save to buy a decent laser printer and learn to print your pdf on your own. Or buy a large screen tablet and use that. Now the Chainmail PDF itself can be easily printed and stapled and made into a booklet at home. Just make sure you print only the interior pages starting at page one. I would start off by practicing only printing 8 pages to the hang of the specific steps you need to print doubled sided on your printed. In the worst case you will have to use the Adobe PDF read to print only the odd or even pages as booklet. Flip the paper, put it back into the tray, and print the opposite (odd or even) side. It may take a few tries to figure out exactly how to flip things. The booklet option is one of the option Adobe gives you for printing. The US has gotten much scarier since then; and it'll get much scarier the end of this week. Again Kinko is protecting themselves. The standard I use personally is simple, I don't hand anything I print or scan from a PDF to anybody else. If for some reason I make multiple physical copies for a game, I collect them all back. If I find myself using multiple printed copies a number of times then I will buy the PDF again. For me that happened once with the original Star Fleet Battles PDF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 15:12:34 GMT -6
Then post a link for an book Amazon sells that is available only on Kindle and show me where on that page there is a link to the Kindle Cloud Reader. I looked up a dozen books and not one had a link to that Reader. Since they don't provide the link where it is needed, how would I know about it. As for DRM, I don't buy DRM and cannot imagine why anyone would. YMMV The Cloud Reader is part of your amazon account and appears as an option when you are in the section labeled Manage your Content and Devices. Every kindle book you purchased via Amazon appears in that list and one of the things you can do is read it on-line using the web browser. Specifically there is a button with ... under the actions column. Having not purchased a Kindle book and having no content or devices to manage, I have never been to that page. But thank you for the information. My wife will appreciate it, since her Kindle is a piece of junk. I never touch the thing. I have been trying to get her to upgrade to the really expensive one, since from her experience with the Kindle, I surmise that the cheaper ones intentionally work just enough to hook people into buying the expensive one, so I told her if you really want to use that you should upgrade, but that has not happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 17, 2017 15:28:07 GMT -6
Having not purchased a Kindle book and having no content or devices to manage, I have never been to that page. But thank you for the information. My wife will appreciate it, since her Kindle is a piece of junk. I never touch the thing. I have been trying to get her to upgrade to the really expensive one, since from her experience with the Kindle, I surmise that the cheaper ones intentionally work just enough to hook people into buying the expensive one, so I told her if you really want to use that you should upgrade, but that has not happened yet. What was junk? The e-ink version? or The Kindle Fire? Does she use it for video and browsing as well? I used the Kindle since the first version (yeah it used up all my hobby funds for electronics that year). I settled on using the Kindle Paperwhite for $120. As a computer tablet slow as shirt but then again, I only use it for reading books. It is more than fast enough for that. The best feature by far is the thing being able to go two weeks on a charge. And the price at $120 means as long as it last for a couple of years (going on three now) It not a big hassle to replace.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 17, 2017 17:03:36 GMT -6
Just because you have purchased a book does not mean that you own the copyrights to the content (text, graphics) in the book -- you merely license the content from the copyright owner. This is completely untrue. If purchasing, say, a book, were in actuality a license, book publishers would be able to forbid you from reselling the book if they wanted to, as a condition of the license. They do want to, and have often tried. But the courts say that purchasing a book is not a license, but in fact a purchase, and you can resell it if you wish. This has been a consistent interpretation of United States copyright law up to the Supreme Court since at least Bobbs-Merrill in 1908, and continues to be the interpretation today. Copyright is specifically a restriction on the things you could otherwise legally do with what you purchase; it does not turn a purchase into a license. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus merely decided that copyright owners do not have, among their 6 exclusive rights, "the right of exclusive sale." And this decision only applies to physical books. Fearghus is asking about ebooks. And the law and the courts have said that the First Sale Doctrine does not apply to digital goods like ebooks. Furthermore, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus reasserted the copyright owners "sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing, and vending." And Fearghus is asking specifically about printing or reprinting, not about reselling his CM PDF! So Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus isn't relevant to what I was saying in the above quote, nor is it relevant to the OP. In the United States, in general, it is legal to make copies of things that you own. Copyright covers the right to distribute new copies. When you copy a CD to your computer so that you can listen to it in your jukebox software, you are not breaking the law; the same is true when you copy that copy from your jukebox software to your phone or portable music device. When MP3.com got into trouble, it was because they were making one copy of a CD, and then distributing that one copy to everyone who showed that they owned a different copy that CD. According to the courts, if MP3.com had been copying each user’s CD, and then letting that user listen to that particular copy made from their own CD, they would have been fine. (At the time, this would have been prohibitively expensive due to the massive hard disk space it would have required.) ... This means that it is legal to print from a PDF copy that you own, and for third-party services to print from your PDF copy on your behalf, as long as you aren't bypassing any restriction mechanisms (laws other than copyright make some attempts to circumvent such restrictions illegal). In the US, you are allowed to rip a CD to your computer and then copy it to your iPhone, because there is a law and a court ruling that gives you the specific right to do so... The law is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The court ruling is RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. (1999). That decision said "spaceshifting" is a fair use of music you legally purchased. Arguing from these cases about CDs to Fearghus 's question about ebooks involves a false analogy and a hasty generalization.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 17, 2017 17:31:11 GMT -6
Not only that, but a strict interpretation of copyright law as desired by publishers would require libraries not to exist... Fearghus specifically asked about ebooks. Ebooks are treated differently under the law than physical books. Ebooks are licensed, not sold. "The Big Six" publishers do in fact license their ebooks to libraries. This 2-page PDF describes their licensing terms and pricing for libraries. The American Library Association has more details on how and why they license ebooks here. Libraries predate copyright law by thousands of years. They have coped very well with all the recent technology changes and updated IP laws. I expect they'll survive and may even outlast copyright laws!
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 17, 2017 18:11:13 GMT -6
Fearghus -- Has DTRPG responded to your customer service inquiry yet? Have you tried getting CM printed at Lulu.com or Staples? Please post back with any updates! Hello, I did not inquire from DTRPG via email/mail/phone. On their site, the particular items (3LBB and CM) did not state that printing was disabled. In the meantime, I have refrained from printing any of the items. A few notes as needed are logged into my gaming journal, and I left it at that. I apologize if I discouraged you from contacting customer support. There is a lot of interest in this question, so I went ahead and contacted DTRPG and WotC. I will post back if I get a reply. Here is a copy of the email I sent to DTRPG: ALPINE 2.20 COMPOSE MESSAGE <Mail> sent-mail 3 Msgs
To : custserv@onebookshelf.com Cc : Attchmnt: Subject : Printing ebooks ----- Message Text ----- On your website, you used to have an FAQ that said it was OK to print ebooks and copy selections to the clipboard. That FAQ has gone missing.
My questions are:
1. Am I permitted to print a PDF I purchased from your store on my home printer for personal use only?
2. Am I permitted to print and bind a PDF I purchased from your store at FedEx/Kinkos or Lulu.com, if it's for personal use only?
3. Why did you remove this FAQ from your website?
Thanks for your help! ^G Get Help ^X Send ^R Read File ^Y Prev Pg ^K Cut Text ^O Postpone ^C Cancel ^J Justify ^W Where is ^V Next Pg ^U UnCut Text^T To Spell
(And yes, I still use Pine as my primary email program---no ads, no malware, no worries. I'm still livin' like it's 1990.) And here is the inquiry I made to WotC:
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 17, 2017 19:13:21 GMT -6
There is a lot of interest in this question, so I went ahead and contacted DTRPG and WotC. I will post back if I get a reply. DTRPG responded almost immediately. They basically said the same exact thing I said in my first post on page 1---It is OK to print for personal use unless printing is disabled, which it is not in either CM or the 3LBBs. Here is their exact reply, so you can show your friendly local print shop employee when you go to get it printed and bound: Thanks to DTRPG for such a fast reply!!! No reply yet from WotC. But I will post back again as soon as I hear something. Hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Jan 17, 2017 21:08:36 GMT -6
No way to print from Kindle and no way to use it on a screen large enough to read, only the tiny Kindle screen. That is why I will never be a Kindle customer, because of the way the anti-consumer company Amazon runs things. All of those books that are offered only on Kindle and no other way, for all practical purposes do not exist. Perhaps someday this corrupt company will change and become user friendly, but I would not hold my breath. I read Kindle books on a 10.5 inch screen, Android tablet. If that's not large enough (and there are larger screens) Android devices have methods to print Kindle books. Mind you, I don't recommend printing Gone With the Wind or anything Tolkien..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 21:50:21 GMT -6
Having not purchased a Kindle book and having no content or devices to manage, I have never been to that page. But thank you for the information. My wife will appreciate it, since her Kindle is a piece of junk. I never touch the thing. I have been trying to get her to upgrade to the really expensive one, since from her experience with the Kindle, I surmise that the cheaper ones intentionally work just enough to hook people into buying the expensive one, so I told her if you really want to use that you should upgrade, but that has not happened yet. What was junk? The e-ink version? or The Kindle Fire? Does she use it for video and browsing as well? I used the Kindle since the first version (yeah it used up all my hobby funds for electronics that year). I settled on using the Kindle Paperwhite for $120. As a computer tablet slow as nuts but then again, I only use it for reading books. It is more than fast enough for that. The best feature by far is the thing being able to go two weeks on a charge. And the price at $120 means as long as it last for a couple of years (going on three now) It not a big hassle to replace. She has just a basic Kindle, must be 5 years old now. She has a lot of trouble moving from one page of a book to another, trouble finding her place the next day and on and on. I will be fine with her getting the Kindle Fire, but I have zero belief that it will be even remotely match up with the hype.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 21:58:37 GMT -6
No way to print from Kindle and no way to use it on a screen large enough to read, only the tiny Kindle screen. That is why I will never be a Kindle customer, because of the way the anti-consumer company Amazon runs things. All of those books that are offered only on Kindle and no other way, for all practical purposes do not exist. Perhaps someday this corrupt company will change and become user friendly, but I would not hold my breath. I read Kindle books on a 10.5 inch screen, Android tablet. If that's not large enough (and there are larger screens) Android devices have methods to print Kindle books. Mind you, I don't recommend printing Gone With the Wind or anything Tolkien.. I thought in order to read kindle books on anything other than a kindle you had to convert the file to a different format first. Maybe I will have my wife upgrade from the basic Kindle to an Android.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 18, 2017 0:42:33 GMT -6
What was junk? The e-ink version? or The Kindle Fire? Does she use it for video and browsing as well? I used the Kindle since the first version (yeah it used up all my hobby funds for electronics that year). I settled on using the Kindle Paperwhite for $120. As a computer tablet slow as nuts but then again, I only use it for reading books. It is more than fast enough for that. The best feature by far is the thing being able to go two weeks on a charge. And the price at $120 means as long as it last for a couple of years (going on three now) It not a big hassle to replace. She has just a basic Kindle, must be 5 years old now. She has a lot of trouble moving from one page of a book to another, trouble finding her place the next day and on and on. I will be fine with her getting the Kindle Fire, but I have zero belief that it will be even remotely match up with the hype. Next question did this used to be better five years ago? If so then I wouldn't go overboard likely the tablet delveloped hardware issues. I recommend replace it with either the $80 model or better yet the paperwhite for $120. For several reasons 1) reading on a tablet with a normal screen is NOT the same as reading it on a eink display, Eink reads the same way as printed paper. 2) The paperwhite has built in lighting 3) The paperwhite has twice the resolution of the one you have now. 4) For reading only books only it far cheaper. 5) Battery life is in days and sometimes weeks. Now hours like a tablet. Now ignore what I said if you want to watch video, get email, do web browsing that involves mostly reading. Then get a tablet like a Fire. and use the Kindle App. Just remember to treat as a media consumption device than a laptop. Oh and if go for an iPad or a large screen Andriod you can play board games pretty good with various apps. If you have a staples near by you can try playing with the latest eink kindles as well as a lcd tablets. And see which one works for you.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 18, 2017 0:45:09 GMT -6
I read Kindle books on a 10.5 inch screen, Android tablet. If that's not large enough (and there are larger screens) Android devices have methods to print Kindle books. Mind you, I don't recommend printing Gone With the Wind or anything Tolkien.. I thought in order to read kindle books on anything other than a kindle you had to convert the file to a different format first. Maybe I will have my wife upgrade from the basic Kindle to an Android. There an official Andrioid and iOS kindle app. Both connect to Amazon and you can download as much as your library as you want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 5:22:30 GMT -6
Well done, krusader74! This is exactly the way to go; yeah, one can always go on comparing what at the end of the day are anecdotal notes - or, one can do the actual walk, and find out what's the case. I come in too late to comment on your earlier post to full extent, but, in short, I agree and share the same observations on what you're writing: Mainly, that the enforcement of similar laws in practice seems to be different in the US, and in Europe. What I personally have experienced over here is that the general legal approach seems to be much more customer- or people-friendly than what I gather from North American countries, in general. - It might also have to do with the fact that many Germans, at least, have a "legal protection insurance" which allows them to get free basic legal counsel even in any private capacity. So, it's not as much an issue of who has the bigger financial muscles as it seems to be in other countries. (In contrast, for example, Spain is really a bad place to get sued by somebody more powerful.) As to what robertsconley said about the Kindle, I can only echo his recommendations: It's developing into an interesting toy. I personally prefer general tablets, but the ePub technology us out of its baby shoes. - Now, IMO it's not a substitute for paper books, yet - but we might be getting there, in time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 7:07:00 GMT -6
Next question did this used to be better five years ago? If so then I wouldn't go overboard likely the tablet delveloped hardware issues. I recommend replace it with either the $80 model or better yet the paperwhite for $120. For several reasons 1) reading on a tablet with a normal screen is NOT the same as reading it on a eink display, Eink reads the same way as printed paper. 2) The paperwhite has built in lighting 3) The paperwhite has twice the resolution of the one you have now. 4) For reading only books only it far cheaper. 5) Battery life is in days and sometimes weeks. Now hours like a tablet. Now ignore what I said if you want to watch video, get email, do web browsing that involves mostly reading. Then get a tablet like a Fire. and use the Kindle App. Just remember to treat as a media consumption device than a laptop. Oh and if go for an iPad or a large screen Andriod you can play board games pretty good with various apps. If you have a staples near by you can try playing with the latest eink kindles as well as a lcd tablets. And see which one works for you. It has never worked any better than it does now. The only thing she does with it now is play a few very simple games on it, she gave up on trying to read books on it. I will pass on the info about the paperwhite to her. Thank you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 7:10:35 GMT -6
Now, IMO it's not a substitute for paper books, yet - but we might be getting there, in time. I dislike using anything smaller than my 24 inch monitor (the first monitor I have ever been happy with) and if I am able to retire when I get to 68, I intend to upgrade to a screen size of a min of 50 inches at the highest resolution I can get.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 18, 2017 7:42:45 GMT -6
I dislike using anything smaller than my 24 inch monitor (the first monitor I have ever been happy with) and if I am able to retire when I get to 68, I intend to upgrade to a screen size of a min of 50 inches at the highest resolution I can get. [/quote] The way tablets are used is a little different. They are held like books about the same distance from your face. View something on a 10" full iPad while reclining in a chair or bed is similar to viewing 24 inch monitor sitting at a desk. And you are willing to shell out some bucks is possible to go larger. The average monitor is about 72 dots per inch. The good tablets (the new ipad, android, and windows) have extermely high pixel density. For example the iPad Air 2 has 264 ppi. This makes text and image display pretty much like they do if they are traditionally printed on paper. On the eInk side this is one of the features of every current Kindle other than the basic $80 model. The basic model is at 167, and the other models including the paperwhite is at 300. And speaking of eyesight, the kindle and the kindle app (if you go with a tablet), have adjustable font size. Makes a huge difference in reading comfort. Here what I settled on for my computing environment if it helps and why. A basic tracphone for my cellphone. I may decide at some point bump up to a true smartphone to have access to google maps over the celluar network. But for now the ability to download the areas I am going suffices to my iPad coupled with an inexpensive bluetooth GPS receiver suffices. A Kindle paperwhite for reading books. A iPad 2 with 64 mb for reading gamebooks with the Goodreader app, watching movies, and playing board games. The playing boardgames is a totally unexpected benefit. There are number of apps that faithfully replicate boardgames supporting both passing the iPad for all human play and good AIs for solo play. Right now I am having fun with the Twilight Struggle wargame. My wife and I will play Scrabble as well. A desktop computer with three monitors for my gaming (mostly first person shooters, wargames, and survival games), mapping, and writing. While having three monitors is not usual, I highly recommend going to at least two monitors over buying one giant monitor. Most graphics cards have two display port that make doing this easy. And for my particular situation I bought a $50 monitor stand that allows me to rotate the monitor to portrait mode. This allows me to see an entire page of text in Microsoft Word. Also there are high resolution monitors with high pixel counts to make them look like the newer tablets. More pricey but with Windows 10 they make look the text and picture look like they do on the printed page. Hopefully this helps to give you and others some ideas. For me it the second year that I haven't seriously looked at any serious upgrades or replacements. It works that well. The only thing I even looked at was Microsoft Surface Pro but it way to pricing compared to what I have. It is however a outstanding piece of hardware and if you don't have anything and can afford it is definitely something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by capvideo on Jan 18, 2017 12:22:38 GMT -6
So Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus isn't relevant to what I was saying in the above quote, nor is it relevant to the OP. It is relevant to whether copyright means that things purchased are mere licenses, however. The reason that the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to ebooks is not that ebook copyrights are licenses, but that the only way to resell an ebook (or any other digital-only work) is to make a copy and then distribute that copy, sans original. As far as I know, the controlling case is still Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. This is relevant to the OP because it goes to the heart of whether they have purchased something (in which case they have all rights that have not been restricted) or they have licensed something (that is, they have only the rights that were licensed). A purchase of an ebook is still a purchase, and the purchaser has the right to use it as they would any other purchase, sans the specific copyright restrictions. It remains perfectly legal, for example, without any permission, to backup your ebooks and other digital-only purchases, and to transfer them to whichever display device you prefer regardless of which you purchased them on. In the US, you are allowed to rip a CD to your computer and then copy it to your iPhone, because there is a law and a court ruling that gives you the specific right to do so... The law is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The court ruling is RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. (1999). That decision said "spaceshifting" is a fair use of music you legally purchased. You’re switching the time frame here. That space shifting is a legal right came earlier than the AHRA. The Supreme Court addressed it in the Betamax case in the eighties. The AHRA was passed later to require copy restriction mechanisms (mostly on digital recording mechanisms), desired by video and audio recording companies. It was mainly in response to the growing ability to make perfect digital copies.
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Jan 18, 2017 15:36:24 GMT -6
Now, IMO it's not a substitute for paper books, yet - but we might be getting there, in time. I dislike using anything smaller than my 24 inch monitor (the first monitor I have ever been happy with) and if I am able to retire when I get to 68, I intend to upgrade to a screen size of a min of 50 inches at the highest resolution I can get. There is also a Kindle application for desktop - OSX and Windows. This, too, allows you to access and read Kindle books, and does so on your desktop monitor.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 20, 2017 16:24:38 GMT -6
So Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus isn't relevant to what I was saying in the above quote, nor is it relevant to the OP. It is relevant to whether copyright means that things purchased are mere licenses, however. The reason that the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to ebooks is not that ebook copyrights are licenses, but that the only way to resell an ebook (or any other digital-only work) is to make a copy and then distribute that copy, sans original. As far as I know, the controlling case is still Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. This is relevant to the OP because it goes to the heart of whether they have purchased something (in which case they have all rights that have not been restricted) or they have licensed something (that is, they have only the rights that were licensed). A purchase of an ebook is still a purchase, and the purchaser has the right to use it as they would any other purchase, sans the specific copyright restrictions. It remains perfectly legal, for example, without any permission, to backup your ebooks and other digital-only purchases, and to transfer them to whichever display device you prefer regardless of which you purchased them on. 17 U.S. Code § 106 gives a copyright holder 6 exclusive rights to a copyrighted work: - To reproduce it
- To distribute it
- To make derivative works from it
- To perform it
- To display it
- To perform it via digital transmission
"To license" something just means to obtain someone's permission to do something that he has an exclusive right to do. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908) merely says that the right of exclusive sale is not one of these 6 rights for a physical book. But if I want to do any of the 6 things above with the book, e.g. publicly read it or write a sequel to it, then I must obtain the copyright holder's permission, i.e., I must license it from him! In Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. (2013), the SDNY Court decided that the First Sale Doctrine established by Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908) does not apply to digital music sold on Apple iTunes. The court ruled that - ReDigi violated Capitol Records exclusive right to reproduce its music
- ReDigi violated Capitol Records exclusive right to distribute its music
- ReDigi did NOT violate Capitol Records exclusive right to publicly perform or display its music
WRT violating the exclusive right to distribute, ReDigi attempted 2 defenses: - First Sale Doctrine, i.e., Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908). The court ruled this didn't apply, because: "technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous,..."
- Fair Use: Weighing the fair use factors, which I've talked about before, the court ruled that fair use did not apply in this case, because:
- ReDigi's use of the work was not transformative.
- The work was entitled to strong protection.
- The whole work was used.
- It was used for commercial purposes that were likely to damage sales.
Before they opened for business, ReDigi should have sought permission from the big music publishers and licensed their work to avoid this outcome! In the US, you are allowed to rip a CD to your computer and then copy it to your iPhone, because there is a law and a court ruling that gives you the specific right to do so... The law is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The court ruling is RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. (1999). That decision said "spaceshifting" is a fair use of music you legally purchased. You’re switching the time frame here. That space shifting is a legal right came earlier than the AHRA. The Supreme Court addressed it in the Betamax case in the eighties. The AHRA was passed later to require copy restriction mechanisms (mostly on digital recording mechanisms), desired by video and audio recording companies. It was mainly in response to the growing ability to make perfect digital copies. The time frame I gave is correct. The AHRA (1992) came first, the RIAA v Diamond (1999) ruling came second: The RIAA v Diamond ruling adds "space shifting" as a fair use exception to the Serial Copy Management System that the AHRA requires manufacturers to put in their equipment. Perhaps you're saying, "space shifting" was already a right in 1992 as soon as George Bush signed the AHRA into law, because the Sony Betamax (1984) precedent somehow cryptically recognized that right, even though the technology to express those rights wouldn't even exist for 14 years after the Betamax case was decided, when Diamond made the first Rio in 1998. That's a very Platonic way to think about the law---Think of all the eternal rights that I have now that I don't know about yet because they simply haven't been "recognized" yet by the courts, and all the rights that I think I have that I don't really have because they will be overturned by some future decision... Unfortunately, the police and juries are going to hold me accountable to the laws and court cases that are on the books right now.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 20, 2017 16:25:18 GMT -6
I am looking to get Chainmail soon, and already purchased the three LBB's and supplements (all in PDF). May those be legally printed through a commercial org (lulu, Staples or Office Depot)? May they be legally printed from my home printer? My initial thought was yes since it is a printable document format and I bought a copy, but I didn't want to start uploading files to lulu or Staples if I am in the wrong. OK, here is the authoritative answer that I got via email from Wizards of the Coast customer service: So, in sum, they're saying: Some of the PDFs they sell online already contain permission to print a personal copy. But if the PDF doesn't contain explicit permission, then you must request permission, using a form. Clicking on the link in the email got me to a page titled Wizards: Use of Wizards' Intellectual Property. The relevant part is at the bottom of the screen, quoted below. It describes the form to use when making a request for permission, how to submit the form, and how long to expect to wait for a reply: OK, here is my main peeve with this reply: It conflicts with DTRPG's policy that says it's OK to print a PDF for personal use, unless the print function is disabled. These guys really need to get on the same page. WotC should ask DTRPG to disable the print function in any PDF they don't want printed! So here are the steps I plan to take next: - Re-open my customer service issues with both DTRPG and WotC, and explain that their policies appear to conflict with each other.
- Check CM and the 3LBBs for permission to print personal copies.
- And assuming there is no explicit permission in these PDFs: Request permission to print CM and 3LBBs using Wizard's IP request form (above), wait, and see if I receive a response within 6 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 20, 2017 16:53:30 GMT -6
Another way to go would be not to stir the pot unnecessarily, which might become a bummer for lots of folks and instead go with the more lenient of the two until they work it out themselves if ever they discover that they need to do so.
Why look for trouble. If you need it, it will find you.
|
|
|
Post by capvideo on Jan 20, 2017 17:35:55 GMT -6
Perhaps you're saying, "space shifting" was already a right in 1992 as soon as George Bush signed the AHRA into law, because the Sony Betamax (1984) precedent somehow cryptically recognized that right, even though the technology to express those rights wouldn't even exist for 14 years after the Betamax case was decided… Yes, space shifting was already a right. The Betamax case was about taking media from one format one media (television broadcast from film) and shifting it to a different format (video tape). There’s nothing cryptic about it. It is space shifting with a time shift added (which is why it’s usually called time shifting—but it involves all of the requirements to make it space shifting). Again, this runs to the point you actually acknowledged, which is that copyright involves very specific restrictions on what people can do with what they purchase; anything outside those specific restrictions are still open to purchasers. One of them is watching that movie a few days after it aired by copying the broadcast to video tape; another is listening to music you purchased as an MP3 via your desktop workstation or as a CD in a music store, by copying it to your portable music device. And another is reading that PDF as a book by copying it onto paper.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 20, 2017 17:40:30 GMT -6
Another way to go would be not to stir the pot unnecessarily, which might become a bummer for lots of folks and instead go with the more lenient of the two until they work it out themselves if ever they discover that they need to do so. Why look for trouble. If you need it, it will find you. It is quite possible that when Wizards of the Coast says the PDF "must contain permission to print a personal copy" that this permission is equivalent to DTRPG not print disabling the PDF. In other words, the permission is not somewhere to be found in the text itself, but rather in the lack of DRM in the PDF. Then there is no conflict to resolve, and no one here has anything to worry about! But I'm not sure what's the harm in asking for clarification? I suppose the worst that can happen: (a) Wizards yanks all their PDFs from sale again, like they did in 2008, or (b) they DRM all their PDFs. That would be a major bummer, just like you say. But the circumstances that led to yanking the PDFs before was (supposedly) blatant piracy on Scribd (but probably also a dispute with Paizo over the contract to publish Dungeon and Dragon and competition for 3E arising from Pathfinder...). And adding DRM is bound to lower demand, prices and profits---after all, Wizards must compete against a lot of other publishers with similar products who do not and will never DRM their products. I don't think Wizards desires either of these worst case scenarios. It's fascinating to me that nearly all parties involved (the publisher, the retailer, and many customers except maybe Fearghus and me) prefer to leave this question hazy and ambiguous, arguing over it in the abstract, rather than getting a clear, concrete answer.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 20, 2017 17:54:55 GMT -6
Perhaps you're saying, "space shifting" was already a right in 1992 as soon as George Bush signed the AHRA into law, because the Sony Betamax (1984) precedent somehow cryptically recognized that right, even though the technology to express those rights wouldn't even exist for 14 years after the Betamax case was decided… Yes, space shifting was already a right. The Betamax case was about taking media from one format one media (television broadcast from film) and shifting it to a different format (video tape). There’s nothing cryptic about it. It is space shifting with a time shift added (which is why it’s usually called time shifting—but it involves all of the requirements to make it space shifting). Again, this runs to the point you actually acknowledged, which is that copyright involves very specific restrictions on what people can do with what they purchase; anything outside those specific restrictions are still open to purchasers. One of them is watching that movie a few days after it aired by copying the broadcast to video tape; another is listening to music you purchased as an MP3 via your desktop workstation or as a CD in a music store, by copying it to your portable music device. The Sony Betamax (1984) decision was specifically about "time shifting," not "space shifting" or printing a PDF onto paper. SCOTUS decisions are very narrowly focused, and you're reading too much into them. In fact, the RIAA v Diamond (1999) "space shifting" case was decided by a district court, one of 11 (or 12 if you include DC), and any or all of these other district courts could still decide "space shifting" is not a "fair use," in which case SCOTUS would need to resolve the conflict and decide what's the law of the land. And another is reading that PDF as a book by copying it onto paper. Don't tell me, tell Wizards of the Coast---they seem to have a completely different view than you, according to the email I got from them, quoted above. Their view agrees with what I've been saying. Get them to see the light and change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 20, 2017 20:06:15 GMT -6
It's fascinating to me that nearly all parties involved (the publisher, the retailer, and many customers except maybe Fearghus and me) prefer to leave this question hazy and ambiguous, arguing over it in the abstract, rather than getting a clear, concrete answer. It was said on the previous page in quotes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". But, of course this is not true. Ignorance of the law is always a valid excuse. The precedent is for the latter, rather than the former. It is why our laws are superfluous and must be regularly amended. It's why we have a multi level judicial system and professional licensed representation. It's why we have the right to an appeal and why we have a right to a trial by jury. It's just not a valid legal defense to build a case on. But, it is always a valid excuse. Yet, the problem does not really rest in people's ignorance. The problem is that we are an overly litigious society. As a result, those who have the most to gain tend to be rather restrictive in their interpretations. Those who have the most to lose tend to be more conservative in their practices. We essentially end up with a hedge being built around certain laws to reduce risk and maximize monetary gain. The hedge is not law. I would actually point to your experience at Kinko's as a case in point. How is a sales rep qualified to determine if you are in copyright violation? Are they lawyers working Kinko's on the week ends? Obviously not. Kinko's has created a more restrictive environment than is required, through company policy, in order to protect themselves from litigation. Personally, I would have very little use for a pdf of Chainmail if I could not make copies of the Combat Tables. Also, I think some may forget that even retyping content verbatim, such as those Combat Tables, could also be considered a copyright infringement. (wish I could find the issue of The Dragon where there was a letter from a player requesting permission to type up some info from tables in the rule books and photocopy them to distribute to his group. The answer from the editor was a flat "no".) edit: found the relevant issue. Vol 1 No. 3. I've copied it here because it seems to be in keeping with the topic.
|
|