PDF LUGtrek Books online

[Kaiddin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eric R.:
If I was the author of the FASA book I would be glad that somebody still felt it good enough to post on a site and it was reaching a new generation as long as my name was still on it.
</font>

I doubt I'm going to be able to change your views and will not attempt to. If the document was posted WITH PERMISSION of the copyright holder or authors okay, if not that is theft. No ifs ands or buts. I would not presume to talk for Don or Steve but I get the impression that they also are not happy with their work being used in this manner.
Not being a lawyer I maybe a little off on my facts but was not there a case involving the girl scouts and certain campfire songs? IIRC old songs were being performed free of charge and they were forced to quit since the songs were still under copyright.

[Kaiddin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by carnnage:
Okay I found an ftp that has supposly a few LUGTREG books in pdf format...I downloaded one and sure enough it was the TNG players guide. How illegal is that? I am guessing majorly.</font>

LUGTrek not FASA. Not that I think it makes a difference.

[First of Two]

"Shut it down! Shut it all down!" -- Dark City

Just make sure you aren't still using Napster.

[Captain Blake]

Here's a pretty good website discussing copyright stuff.

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer

It's a little old, it doesn't cover the "Sonny Bono law" which extends the duration of time before works become Public Domain.

Also

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

For a little more in depth and up to date, but not easy to understand.

[VulcanJoe]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eric R.:
If I was the author of the FASA book I would be glad that somebody still felt it good enough to post on a site and it was reaching a new generation as long as my name was still on it.
</font>

But you are NOT the author of the LUG material, NOT the publisher and most importantly NOT the owner, so it really isn't your decision to make now, is it? (By "you" and "your" I mean anyone who publishes the copyrighted works of others online without the owner's permission.)

There's so many excuses and "but I'd do it if I was in there shoes" justifications, but it still doesn't change the fact that publishing OOP (or in-print) D&D game books or distributing Destiny's Child's latest single as a MP3 is a violation of copyright law and outright piracy without the permission of the owner.

Let's get to the real reason people justify the existence of Napster and other such pirates: "I'm a selfish cheap ass and don't want to pay for something if I can get away with it." Thanks to Napster, people seem to think they have some God given right to do this.But as the courts are finally starting to confirm, these "arguments" just aren't valid legal legs to stand on.

If piracy and widespread copyright violation continue on the Internet, we all stand to lose. Stephen King is no longer publishing e-books because nobody would pay for them. Wizards of the Coast raised the prices on their PDF downloads because people were giving away multiple copies to others free of charge after they downloaded them. And recently, the New York Times reported on new software in development that will block Internet traffic between countries. While this is good because it will allow countries like France to inforce their laws preventing the distribution of pro-Nazi propaganda, and the US to block child pornography sites in Russia and other countries, the downside is a lot of legitimate information will become unavailable as well.

Bottom line, you do NOT have the right to publish online OOP gaming material, even if you are not charging for it, even if it isn't available elsewhere, without the permission of the owner.

[Cessna]

My $0.02? It's just rude.

If I worked my tail off to produce a game (or whatever) only to have it ripped off and distributed without my seeing a dime for it, I'd be ticked off.

If I made it as "freeware," that's a different story. But if I did it as a living, to put food on the table, that would be theft...

[Captain Blake]

It is theft. If the person wants to post the books to their web site, they should get permission from the current copyright holder.

This should go for Napster, and all of it's spinoffs as well.

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VulcanJoe:
But you are NOT the author of the LUG material, NOT the publisher and most importantly NOT the owner, so it really isn't your decision to make now, is it? (By "you" and "your" I mean anyone who publishes the copyrighted works of others online without the owner's permission.)</font>

I wanted to avoid repsonding as it will only eventually lead to my points being muddled but I have to repeat, I did not support the publishing of LUG or any works on line, nor if one was to reread my post they should have come to such conclusions. If people read the link above (the first one) I Think in the case of out of print books, which I mainly concentrated on, which have no possiblity of reprint and in fact in most cases their original owners no long even actively seek copyright protection do fall under the Fair Chance rule.

[Don Mappin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Remember always ask yourself wheres the profit?</font>

So it’s only illegal and morally reprehensible if you hurt sales?

So if you have no intention of purchasing a piece of software it’s okay to download a “warez” version? You’re not hurting anyone, right?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just some food for thought, I just want alternatives to paying over in some cases 40 bucks for an old FASA Federation SRM or construction manual</font>

Then spend a few months of your own time, blood, sweat, and tears and write it your damn self – don’t steal someone else’s hard work just because the company went under.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If I was the author of the FASA book I would be glad that somebody still felt it good enough to post on a site and it was reaching a new generation as long as my name was still on it.</font>

I don’t consider it flattery in the slightest.

I also do not share Eric R’s cavalier attitude towards copyrights and the outright theft of protected works. As an author, it angers me to no end. (Gee, can you tell?)

Justify it however you’d like, but the bottom line is that reproducing copyrighted works, in their entirety, is ethically and legally wrong – regardless of their “print” status.


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net

[wolfe]

I believe that the suggestion of posting the site address here (even if its for retribution purposes)
that it NOT be done, the last thing these guys need is free publicity and a link to their site.WE may not down load it but there are lots of lurkers who frequent these boards who might.(no offense to all the lurkers out there)

I suggest it be sent only to Don,and Steve They are better suited to handle this..

well thats my .002 cents worth

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:

I also do not share Eric R’s cavalier attitude towards copyrights and the outright theft of protected works. As an author, it angers me to no end. (Gee, can you tell?)
</font>

Remember here, Don, I think somebody needs to play Deveils advocate on an issue like this, because this issue is too easy to label black and white. So from this point on don't outright attribute everything thing I post here as personal opinion nor indeed belief. I am just tired that in this day in age of people sitting back comfortable in the knowledge that there can be no opinions on the other side of any issue.

[Eric R.]

With that said, heres a case to consider.

1. There is a rare book, pulished 75 years ago as far as any one can tell there is only a single copy left, in the possession of the authors estate, to hich it charges a fee to see. Now this book was fairly revolutionary in its field of Widgets. In fact many consider it the Bible of Widgetdom. Now the Estate (family) has for over 40 years refused to reprint the book, in fact so much so that it has sued several authors who have used quotes from the book in other works. Then on a sunnyday in Southern Indianna at a used book store a trunk arrives from the family of a well known Widget producer. They open it up and search the contents and low and behold here is a copy of this book. The Stores owner knows what he has so of course he goes over to his computer and places it on Ebay for auction. The book is sold at a high price and sent to a man in Maine, this man knowing its importnce to Widget production feels that all should have a right to see it but knowing that the estate has been absolute against the books reprint he decides to put it on the net as a .PDF so that it can at last be seen again.

Consider both questions morally and legally

So is;

A.) The Estate Morally wrong in keeping such an Important work away from the public domian?

B.) The Used Book Seller in violation of copyright since he profited totally from the sell of the book and not the estate.

C.) The Buyer wrong in having spent a great sum to aquire the book and then decideing on his own that it should be given to a public which deserves to share the creativity of this great book on Widgets.

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:
Then spend a few months of your own time, blood, sweat, and tears and write it your damn self .
</font>

As to "Damn Self", there is no reason, especially as Host Moderator, to enter hostile attitudes and swears and condemnations into a conversation that as of yet has no call for it.

[Captain Blake]

A) Morally: While being overzealous about defense of their copyright, the owners are doing nothing wrong. If I own the Mona Lisa, Proof of Aliens' Visiting the Planet, the Last Copy of the Dune RPG, or anything, nobody has a right to see it. I could, if I owned the Mona Lisa, keep it in my bedroom. However, since the work is in the public domain, there isn't much I could do about copies, provided they aren't passed off as originals, which would be forgery.

Legally: Lifetime + 70 years. When that expires, they lose the rights to it, and anyone could make a copy.

B) Since the bookseller did nothing more than any retail establishment does, reselling at a higher profit something he bought at a lower price, there is nothing morally or legally wrong with it. Selling a copy of a published work is no problem. Most stores buy their inventory from a distributor and re-sell it. If Tower can sell an album, this guy can sell a Book.

C) Morally: by posting the whole manuscript, he just stole something from a dead guy. Most of us have been raised on D&D, where breaking into a dead guy's place and stealing his stuff is OK, but in reality it's still stealing.

Legally: he's pretty screwed. He's violated the copyright by making a non-personal copy. He's also violated the "performance clause" since he posted it on the internet. The owners of the copyright can sue him. The fact that the guy isn't charging means nothing, the value of the copyright has been damaged.

Now, since Ideas can't be copyrighted, only their expression, if the guy had created a "summary" of the book, changing the specific wording like a student writing a paper, then that would be legal.

If people want to see the original, then they can still go to the author's family. There has been no damage to the copyright. If they want the ideas enclosed, then they can use the pdf summary.

This is of cource, just my opinion.

And as a BTW/FYI: The single most violated copyright is the song "Happy Birthday". Technically, since it's not a PD work, everytime someone sings it, they have to pay the writers.

That, and the fact I can't sing, is why I don't sing Happy Birthday.

[Eric R.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Captain Blake:


B) Since the bookseller did nothing more than any retail establishment does, reselling at a higher profit something he bought at a lower price, there is nothing morally or legally wrong with it. Selling a copy of a published work is no problem. Most stores buy their inventory from a distributor and re-sell it.</font>

But Yet, most Used Book stores depend on customers coming in off the street selling their books. In which case, What would be the difference here between the person selling to the store a copy or the book itself? (This is why most professional Art forger's go to small time art stores to sell their products all responsiblity is on the deler to assertain authenticity.) In any case neither the Author nor the publisher will recive money from the sell, now will they recieve any money when the book is resold in the store. By strict interpretation of the Copyright in both cases has been infringed has it not? What is the difference for the used book dealer in selling either the Original for 15 dollars and the .PDF copy on desk for 1.50? of course in the case of the copy at no time had money gone to the Author or publisher.