18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 20, 2017 21:16:03 GMT -6
Ignorance of the law is always a valid excuse. break the law and tell the judge you din't know it was a crime and see where it gets you'uns. not knowing its a crime doesnt get you off the hook
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 20, 2017 22:17:53 GMT -6
break the law and tell the judge you din't know it was a crime and see where it gets you'uns. not knowing its a crime doesnt get you off the hook Sure it does. I didn't know it was a crime, so I didn't commit a crime. What do you plead? Not guilty. Of course, the burden of proof does not really rest on the defendant, anyway. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. And, I still have Miranda Rights in this imaginary scenario too, don't I? How about the 5th amendment, does that apply? These epitomize the legal use of ignorance. Ah...I knew what you meant Gene. That's why I didn't quote you. But, to add a little food for thought to this idea of ignorance, consider that there are 20-40,000 new laws created annually. Our laws have collected over a course of 200+ years. How many laws are there? Who knows. One of the repercussion of this is a condition that is popularly referred to as "overcriminalization". So, back to the idea that ignorance is no excuse. It seems there are actually cases where it is a legal defense. One such case is Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Who knew? I have to admit I was ignorant. There is also "mistake of the law", which is a form of ignorance, that can be used as a defense. Many laws include this idea of "knowingly and willfully" committing an offense. This has to do with intent. I guess I'm done being ignorant for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jan 21, 2017 11:44:27 GMT -6
Here is a quote from WOTC's customer service on the issue of printing PDF's for personal use in 2013 (with source link below): Hello, Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, your purchase does legally allow you to print a copy of the product for your own use or that of your immediate family. There are some print facilities that will require a some proof of your right to print your purchases, if that is the case please let us know the titles of the products that you would like to have printed and we can send you a note that explains your legal right to have a copy made. Thank you for your business and please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. Jeff Montgomery Customer Service DNDClassics.com connect.lulu.com/t5/General-Discussions/Bought-this-PDF-I-want-to-make-a-hardcopy/td-p/248287
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 13:35:01 GMT -6
This is turning out to be a very interesting thread.
- What say ye, folks? Should I collect the hard info from this thread and collect, or even sticky it somewhere?
*Like* this post if you think this would be useful/a good idea!
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Jan 21, 2017 14:42:02 GMT -6
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.
Thank you, krusader! All around good-to-know information.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 21, 2017 15:41:23 GMT -6
Just to be clear, this customer service representative is from DNDClassics.com, now called dmsguild.com, which is not WotC---it's actually part of OneBookShelf.com, a "family of premiere online marketplaces including RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, DriveThruCards, DnDClassics, DriveThruComics, DriveThruFiction, and Wargame Vault," and so this info is 100% consistent with the information I've gotten from DTRPG, but still conflicts with the last email I got from WotC.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 21, 2017 15:49:20 GMT -6
After seeking further clarification, DTRPG just sent me this email:
So, in other words, if you try to get your PDF printed at FedEx/Kinkos or Lulu.com, and they ask for written permission, then you can email DTRPG customer service and get a Permission to Print letter from them. Their email address is
custserv@onebookshelf.com
and you should include your order number(s) and product title(s) for the PDFs you want to print.
(Still not sure why WotC's customer service script differs from DriveThru's. No updates on that front yet.)
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 21, 2017 19:53:54 GMT -6
Ah...I knew what you meant Gene. That's why I didn't quote you. i see I guess I'm done being ignorant for the time being. nobody asks you to do anything but if i'm upsetting you im sorry
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 21, 2017 21:23:27 GMT -6
nobody asks you to do anything but if i'm upsetting you im sorry Nah, I'm not upset. Just approaching the topic of our legal system with satire, that's all.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 21, 2017 21:46:08 GMT -6
Nah, I'm not upset. Just approaching the topic of our legal system with satire, that's all. you'uns made me laugh! thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 7:29:27 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 7:35:43 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. Sorry, derv, maybe I'm being slow, but: Where is this from? Can I use it in the *Official Replies* thread?
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 22, 2017 10:04:01 GMT -6
That letter is from page 20 of the 3rd issue of The Dragon, published way back in October 1976.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 17:08:05 GMT -6
Ah, many thanks, Geoffrey! - As you might know, I'm one of the resident "White Dwarf Mag" people, and I don't have many Dragon or Dungeon mags, neither in PDF, nor in print. I believed to remember that there had been such a letter, but I wasn't sure if it was Dragon, or even earlier, via the SR.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 22, 2017 17:28:49 GMT -6
And as it so happens, my copy of The Dragon #3 was printed by lulu.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 22, 2017 20:59:13 GMT -6
Sorry, derv , maybe I'm being slow, but: Where is this from? Can I use it in the *Official Replies* thread? I would personally consider your use of the piece completely in keeping with section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 21:29:07 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. The customers most likely prefer to not ask the question for fear of getting the answer of "no'. So likely the majority just print it for their own use and assume that what no one knows will not hurt them. The publisher and the retailer prefer to leave it vague because they know it is unethical to sell someone an electronic file meant to be read and prohibit the printing of the document. If no one asks, they don't have to be the bad guy saying no, but reserve the right to say no on anything where it matters to them, while they ignore the things that don't matter to them. I am guessing that the authors of the files, who at least in some cases still hold the copyright, would like people to print the files and use them versus not printing it and in many cases never using it and never generating any word of mouth to sell other copies. But if the author wrote it for an employer, then they are out of luck anyway. The law in regard to the 21st century and modern technology lags about 30 years behind, simply because of two things, one is there are few (if any) in Congress that grew up with the modern technology and two the majority of members of Congress are lawyers. Lawyers are the group of people in this country that have no regard for the average person and they do not care how laws effect those most effected by the laws (i.e. you and me) they write. Lawyers, whose numbers ever increase, are motivated by two things: to be relevant because of the completely unnecessary complexity of the law they themselves write and to make ever increasing amounts of money as they strive to justify it by writing ever more complex laws that are purposely designed to be an obstruction to everything except themselves. Nothing will improve until we stop electing lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 22, 2017 22:16:47 GMT -6
This request is not the equivalent of printing the PDF for yourself. The writer wants to distribute the copy he made to others.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 22, 2017 22:38:30 GMT -6
The law in regard to the 21st century and modern technology lags about 30 years behind, simply because of two things, one is there are few (if any) in Congress that grew up with the modern technology and two the majority of members of Congress are lawyers. Lawyers are the group of people in this country that have no regard for the average person and they do not care how laws effect those most effected by the laws (i.e. you and me) they write. Lawyers, whose numbers ever increase, are motivated by two things: to be relevant because of the completely unnecessary complexity of the law they themselves write and to make ever increasing amounts of money as they strive to justify it by writing ever more complex laws that are purposely designed to be an obstruction to everything except themselves. Nothing will improve until we stop electing lawyers. My view is that the law isn't behind in terms of technology. The six rights that copyright gives work just fine for digital works as they do with physical works. Where the system suffers is the inability to handle the equivalent of small claims in copyright. The only legal mechanism available is the DMCA, which focuses on removing access to objectionable work. Federal Courts won't hear a CIVIL copyright suit unless the controversy is above a certain value. And criminal prosecution can only occur if the damages are over $1,000. Now understand for posting links to digital works it is very easy to get over the limit. If you post a $5 PDF and over 200 downloads occur that $1,000 right there. But we are talking about is printing a PDF into a physical form. Suppose a buyer doesn't get permission and does it anyway to a $7 PDF that has no physical bring. That only $14. This is why DRM in some areas is so attractive. And why so many are blase about it including the copyright holders. They will care if you post a link to the work hosted on a server. But printing copies for yourself? That is the least of their problems. And the main reason it comes up is because Kinkos, and Staples had to make policies when people bring them other people's work to copy. While each individual customer fails to meet the threshold, if they didn't have those polices the book industry would have a field day due the total worth of combined sales. But the real problem is that because of the Internet, and Digital Copies it is very easy for folks to create, market, and sell copyrighted works profitably in very low numbers. There is no equivalent of small claims court for publishers of this size to go to. Even if the issues meet the threshold, you have to go in whole hog with lawyers and federal courts. Unlike most small courts where it just involves one day where the two parties, and the judge/magistrate deal with the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 7:35:06 GMT -6
But the real problem is that because of the Internet, and Digital Copies it is very easy for folks to create, market, and sell copyrighted works profitably in very low numbers. There is no equivalent of small claims court for publishers of this size to go to. Even if the issues meet the threshold, you have to go in whole hog with lawyers and federal courts. Unlike most small courts where it just involves one day where the two parties, and the judge/magistrate deal with the issue. Until the law starts protecting the little guy by meeting the need you address above, it has not caught up with the times. The big guys can spend millions on lawyers, the little guy can't even afford a lawyer. Anyone who pirates a little guys stuff is a special kind of scum. Also until the law catches up with current times, the consumer should do two things to protect their rights. One is to refuse to buy any pdf from anyone who refuses to give you the right to print it for your own use and two refuse to buy anything with DRM enabled. Perhaps we should be sending these companies emails, saying here is why you didn't make $50.00 in sales to me today. Do a little research and you'll find that many people are not buying for the same reason I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 23, 2017 16:42:13 GMT -6
This request is not the equivalent of printing the PDF for yourself. The writer wants to distribute the copy he made to others. Well, I would say, for the time, Xerox was the equivalent of a pdf. Yes, ultimately he wanted to distribute them to a "few friends". But, the request is not necessarily what is solely of interest about this letter. It is Tim Kask's reply, as a representative of TSR, that is relevant- "At this time our policy is NO EXCEPTIONS, draconian as that may seem." The capitalized words are as they appear in the original response, I imagine for emphasis. Do you suppose his answer would have been different if the writer was only asking to copy the material for himself? The answer to the letter seems fairly definitive to me. This letter is also of interest because the author makes mention to the changes that were about to take place with copyright law because of the "Xerox revolution". We are still using the Copyright Act of 1976 that he is making reference to. Clearly much has changed since then with technology. Would you consider the creation of the pdf the new "rip-off revolution"? I really don't share Kask's sentiment. Keep in mind that a photocopy would cost something like .10-.15 cents a copy at the time of this letter (about equal to $1.00 today). So, it wasn't really cheap. And it didn't produce print like quality. We would continue to see the use of mimeograph and similar machines in schools and offices into the 1980's because of the cost.
|
|
|
Post by capvideo on Jan 24, 2017 9:31:58 GMT -6
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. We’ve probably hit an impasse in this discussion, where we just end up repeating what we’ve said before; I’ve acknowledged your court cases, but read them and thought the court clearly outlined that, for example, ReDigi was wrong because they’d copied and then redistributed the copies. As far as Betamax vs. Diamond, it cuts to the heart of our disagreement. If you believe that copyright turns purchased media into a license, you’re always going to see the same thing in different eras as something new, because you see copyright as granting the purchaser a limited number of rights and an unlimited number of restrictions. You’ll see copying CDs as completely different from copying broadcasts, because you see limited rights vs. infinite restrictions. You’ll also see the copyright holder—in this case, Wizards of the Coast—as the arbiter of those limited rights. Limited rights and unlimited restrictions is paralyzing. If, as I believe to be the case from the court cases I’ve read (including the ones you’ve cited), purchases are in fact purchases, then purchasers have an unlimited number of rights, and a limited number of restrictions on what they can do with those purchases, as defined by law. It isn’t up to Wizards of the Coast to tell the OP what their rights are, because Wizards of the Coast isn’t licensing them a few rights; they’re selling a product that has some restrictions on it not set by Wizards of the Coast. As a point of evidence, my theory explains why companies prefer to “keep things hazy and ambiguous” as you wondered about: it’s because, when they have a limited number of restrictions on our infinite rights, it is to their advantage to keep things hazy and ambiguous; it is to their advantage to always treat the same old situation in new clothes as a completely new situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 11:23:48 GMT -6
As a point of evidence, my theory explains why companies prefer to “keep things hazy and ambiguous” as you wondered about: it’s because, when they have a limited number of restrictions on our infinite rights, it is to their advantage to keep things hazy and ambiguous; it is to their advantage to always treat the same old situation in new clothes as a completely new situation. You have accurately pointed out that many, not all but most, corporations are with malice aforethought setup to operate in the most corrupt and unethical manner possible. This is why corporations should not be given the benefit of the doubt in most, not all but most, situations.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 24, 2017 18:53:26 GMT -6
This letter is an excellent find. Scott Rosenberg is asking permission to infringe on 3 of TSR's exclusive rights: - To reproduce copyrightable elements (specifically tables) from TSR publications
- To make a derivative work by arranging these tables in a new work
- To distribute this work to his friends
WRT #1, many people in this discussion seem to think its OK to photocopy/scan/print parts of a book for personal use, but this infringes on the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce the work, in whole or in part. In many old TSR publications one could find explicit written permission to print an element of the work, such as this Character Sheet from Mentzer Basic D&D: Given that TSR provided permission only on certain elements, like this one, leads me to conclude that they did not approve of copying for personal use in general, and would not have allowed Scott Rosenberg to copy the tables even if he agreed not to distribute them. WRT #3, Scott Rosenberg is not making a profit from distributing his derivative work---he's selling copies at cost. Nevertheless, this use has a high likelihood of causing TSR to lose revenue, because Scott's friends won't have to buy the book if they have cheaper copies of the tables. Regardless of whether the use is commercial or not, distribution of a copyrighted work still violates the law. And noncommercialiaty is only one of many factors that must be weighed together to determine whether there's a fair use limitation on the owner's exclusive rights.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 24, 2017 19:00:05 GMT -6
not all but most, corporations are with malice aforethought setup to operate in the most corrupt and unethical manner possible. This is why corporations should not be given the benefit of the doubt in most, not all but most, situations. Your posts contain a lot of cynicism towards government and corporations. I agree with you 100%!
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 24, 2017 19:09:10 GMT -6
OK, here is the authoritative answer that I got via email from Wizards of the Coast customer service: SNIP After seeking clarification from WotC, I just received this: So, in sum: If you bought a WotC PDF from DTRPG and it is not print disabled, then you have WotC permission to print a copy for your own personal use. You may take it to FedEx/Kinkos or send it to Lulu.com to print and bind for you, and if they demand to see a Permission to Print letter, then you may get one from either DTRPG or WotC by contacting their customer support, as described in my previous posts.This is a clear, concrete answer, and it should end any further debate on the matter!!!
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 24, 2017 19:37:49 GMT -6
not all but most, corporations are with malice aforethought setup to operate in the most corrupt and unethical manner possible. This is why corporations should not be given the benefit of the doubt in most, not all but most, situations. Your posts contain a lot of cynicism towards government and corporations. I agree with you 100%! And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17 KJV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 21:11:17 GMT -6
Your posts contain a lot of cynicism towards government and corporations. I agree with you 100%! And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17 KJV What belongs to Caesar, if not contempt and distrust?
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 25, 2017 6:36:03 GMT -6
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17 KJV What belongs to Caesar, if not contempt and distrust? okay
|
|