Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: PDF LUGtrek Books online

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    MetroWest, MA USA
    Posts
    2,590

    Post

    But in the case of a used book store, the number of copies of the work does not change. For someone to gain the work, someone else will lose it. You are in effect giving up your right to that work.

    There can be non-profit motives as well. Let us suppose I have a twin sister who dies after a long battle with cancer. I write a book about that battle. Ten thousand copies are made and wow, they are incredibly popular. But I had hoped that book would alleviate my pain. It makes it worse though. Now, suppose I, not the publisher, hold the copyright. They want more copies of my inspiring book. But I don't want any more published. I refuse. The sale of a book at a used bookstore does not injure me in any way in such a case. Ten years later the pain has subsided and I feel comfortable publishing it again. I make a million copies and become rich, set up a foundation and that finds a cure cancer. But suppose some yahoo makes a pdf of my book two years after it goes out of print. Now I can't make a dime off of my hard work.

    Same with LUG's books. Same with FASA's books. Or West End Games. Somone still holds the copyrights. What if Decipher wants to republish the Way of D'Era. I'm not sure who holds the copyright for that. Suppose it's Wizards. Suppose Wizards sells copyright to Decipher. Or if Paramount holds it they say, "Ok we changed our policy, you can use it".

    Decipher reprints the book, changing the LUG stats to Decipher Stats. But, if some yahoo goes ahead and publishes a PDF then Decipher doesn't really have a chance to make money off it, do they? Maybe in ten years Decipher will wind up reprinting it. Maybe in twenty. The copyright is just that, a right. You don't have to print it. It is your choice. As it should be, it is your creation. Your right includes the right to make it difficult for people to get your work, whatever the reason.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Nashville, TN, USA
    Posts
    763

    Post

    Property Rights vs Copyright.

    If I pay for an item, it becomes mine, and I can do with it whatever I want provided it's not illegal to do so.

    I can buy a gun. I can take my gun, and trade it to my friend. I can give it away, I can sell it. I can shoot it in areas where that's legal. I can't fire it inside my building here at work (endangering innocents). I can't shoot anyone with it (attempted murder at the least). And I can't use my machining skills [if I had any] to make a duplicate of it for resale in some third world country or on the streets (violation of patent, not to mension trafficing).

    I can buy a CD. I can sell, trade, play, or give it away. I can make a copy of it, and put the original away never to be seen again. I could walk up to the artist, and break it right in front of them calling it the biggest load of trash I've ever seen, and there's nothing they could do about it because it's my property. But I can't sell my copy or my original and keep the other because according to law, since I don't have the legal right to do so (distribution and reproduction rights in the copyright code). I can't digitize the music and download it to a file exchange system (distribution and reproduction again). I can't take a significant portion of a song and re-make it or sample it (modification).

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Waynesburg, PA
    Posts
    1,361

    Arrow

    While driving on my run today I thought about something which comes across.

    Is there a defference between infringement and Violation, legally? For example all fires started by a person no matter why is called "incidenary origin" it only becomes "Arson" when intent to committ a crime is proven. However the victim(s) would always retain a right to sue the person for damages even if the fire is not proven arson.

    So in terms of Copyright can we say that infringement means that technically the terms of copyright has been broken. But that it is not a crime or Violation until actual money is exchanged? Of course the holder of the copyright retains the right to seek damages in cases of infringement. But that generally, such as in the case of "Happy Birthday" and etc.. most tend to wave that right for the public good. So another words those who post whole books quite litterally put a single bullet in the chamber, spin, and play Russian Roulette waiting to see if that Author will enfore his cpyright.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    1,142

    Post

    [Begin minor rant mode]

    This discussion is getting nowhere...

    What is so hard to understand?

    You cannot copy, modify or re-print--except for "Fair Use" purpsoes (i.e. reviews, quotations)--in any format, be it electronic, digital, super laser pulse ion diffusion ray, or otherwise, the work of another who holds the copyright without their expressed permission, nor try to pass it off as your own.

    I'm not even a lawyer, and I can understand what's right and what's wrong.

    Napster broke the law, the above mentioned ftp site broke the law... heck, I even break the law every time I save pictures of Melissa Joan Hart off of some damn internet celebrity site!

    Ooops! Did I say that out loud?

    [/End minor rant mode]

    For anyone seriously interested in this topic--at least how it relates to gaming--go check out the Open Gaming Foundation and join one of the mailing lists. Fascinating discussions.

    http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html

    Steve

    [This message has been edited by Steven A Cook (edited 04-05-2001).]

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Astoria, NY USA
    Posts
    31

    Post

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eric R.:
    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.

    </font>
    Yes, I did understand your Devil's Advocate intent - I was responding to your hypothetical "I" with a hypothetical "You", not you in particular Eric, and then stated my own opinions on the issue. Sorry for the confusion

    As for your point on Fair Chance, the operative phrase is "their original owners no long even actively seek copyright protection". Wizards of the Coast, the owners of the material in question, *does* actively seek copyright protection on a fairly regular basis. And being unaware of a violation of your copyright does not necessarily constitute a state of not actively seeking to protect your copyright. For example, Wizards of the Coast servers are frequently blocked by the webmasters of pirate sites from accessing their illegally posted materials.

    You all may be interested to know that this topic is quite active right now on the WotC Official Worlds Webmasters mailing list (I am one of the individuals running the Official Ravenloft website: http://www.kargatane.com) In fact, TrekRPGNet was once one of these "Official Worlds" for a brief period before the WotC/LUG Decipher Trek RPG transfer of power. The WotC representatives on that mailing list have been taking a very active role as of late in shutting down websites that pirate their out of print (and in-print) material. In most cases, WotC contacts the company hosting the site and the site is removed. Usually the pirate gets the hint after the first or second time. In one case, however, the pirate in question keeps moving around to new hosts sometimes the next day. Let's just say that if the individual in question (who uses a lot of those free hosting sites with pop-up ads) can't afford to pay for hosting, he certainly won't be able to afford the attorney's fees...




    [This message has been edited by VulcanJoe (edited 04-05-2001).]

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Waynesburg, PA
    Posts
    1,361

    Arrow

    Actually the disscussion is valid as evidence by the fact that it is occuring everywhere else now. Modern tech, Internet, Scanners, and the like are forcing the Creative community to wretle with an enigma that its not had too. In the old days it was pretty simple if someone was making a copy of a work it was becasue they were going to pass it off as an orignal work and sell it usually while the product was still on the shelf. Movies were easy to control because the studios retained the film and lent them out through other agency to the public. Music, while they never did come up with an easy portable LP recorder. Then came Tape both Cassette and Video for the first time it was easy to make a copy for privite use usualy to save wear on the original and everybody just about started to break copyright Laws at the same time. But tech was still low quaility made it easy to determine which was which which kept a level in the ball game and made Pirates obvious. BUt were at a new level now and no matter what you can't but the genie back in the bottle. At the same time the value which you pay for a product is way out of proportion to the actuall worth of the same product for example a 49.95 computer game costing only about 2.50 to produce and even giving a margin for a healthy profit thats still obsene. So traditional diffinations of copyright is under avdisement and just because Napstar is on the downside dosn't mean its over the image of Mickey mouse with the broom in Fantasia is a perfect illustration of the modern techs resilence chop one up two appear in its place. Napstars legacy is that the media companies have been forced at last to face up to the fact the consumer now has weapons of their on to level the playing field. The concept of paying a liscenceing fee is becomeing popular and will in all likelyhood become real in the next 18 months, books and movies will be sure to follow thereafter. But the media and creative community is going to have to face facts that there is a real difference between "Copy" and "Pirate Copy" (that copy intended for sell). As a writer myself but yet coming from a nonfiction background I feel and will always feel so that it is giving credit to the Author which is the true intent of copyright, and should be. because do you write for profit or becuase you wish to share it with the public? However that is not to say one should not expect some 'realistic' protection to gurantee a profit for the work initally. People will always want a product when it is released that will never change the majority of the public wil pay 49.95 for a brand new computer game title which is better than a pirate copy for 29.95 because they just want the product in its best presentation.

    I will end my part on this thread with this question; How many of you have Video taped a movie off of TV? How many of you have later bought the same movie becuase you wanted something with better quality? In the end we all have the same desire for Qualitty.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,548

    Post

    Videotaping a movie off of TV for personal use is not a violation of copyright, according to current US laws.
    Inviting over your friends to watch it isn't either.

    Selling it to your friends is.
    Showing it somewhere and charging admission is.
    Showing it more than once or twice to a classroom full of people is, too, but not a very enforceable bit.

    Copying something and then distributing it to a large number of people, or making it available to a large number of people, whether or not you charge for it, is.

    [This message has been edited by First of Two (edited 04-06-2001).]

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,394

    Post

    Do we really need to shift this dicussion over to another thread? I mean, you all are pretty much preaching to the choir, we all have similar beliefs on the subject, some more stronger then others. I don't think anyone on this board would, knowingly, violate any copywrite laws. So, isn't this conversation a little mote, we all agree on how repugnat this type of piracy is...but are we accomplishing anything? Not as long as travisties of the Law like Napster exist. There will always be people out there who believe, for some reason, they have a moral right to cheat others out of their hard earned money by making illegal copies of whatever medium they are most interested in (music, literature etc.).

    Actually, I am wrong on the not accomplishing anything...the above site seems, from what I have heard, to have been removed...1 point for the good guys. But, it is a miniscule victory in a VERY BIG war.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Waynesburg, PA
    Posts
    1,361

    Talking

    Is it me or does Phantoms last post read like a perfect Epiloge?

    End Credits please

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    1,142

    Thumbs up

    Sorry, Eric, I didn't mean to imply that this discussion wasn't serious or is invalid. I just thought it was going in circles.

    You make a good point about not being able to put the genie "back in the bottle", and I really think that this statement is at the crux of the issue.

    However, I don't think that any existing laws need alteration on a fundamental level. Though, I repeat, I'm not a copyright law expert by any stretch of the imagination. But what I do know, leads me to believe that the existing laws are pretty cut and dry, and very clear. It's the interpretations of these laws that get shady.

    I think the muddy waters arise from the sheer scale of copyright infringement that exists in today's "digital" society.

    To use the Napster example again: Even if Napster's doors are slammed shut, nothing will stop another site from providing the same services and access to the same illegally copied materials. Look at how many *other* sites offer free music downloads--and without any user registration at all! All you do is hop onto someone's computer, download the file, and thank you very much it's done. The threat of legal action soon becomes almost moot, in a sense.

    I'm not saying it's right to pirate copyrighted material, obviously. But who is going to stop it? I believe that this is the unfortunate down side of what you refer to, Eric, when you mention that "the consumer now has weapons of their o[w]n to level the playing field".

    Ultimately, it really does become a moral problem, not so much a legal one when considered in this light. Consumer? Pirate? What's the difference anymore? Is there a difference? Is licensing the answer? I have no clue.

    Anyhoot, enough from me for now. Suffice it to say, I find this a fascinating topic. And I welcome everyone's opinions, especially if they differ from my own!

    Steve

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    1,142

    Exclamation

    Y'know it just occurred to me...

    This thread has gone WAY off-topic for the Star Trek Chat forum. I'll admit to helping it get there. Perhaps the kind moderator could usher it over to the General Chat area.

    Hmm... on second thought maybe we should start another thread over there.

    Seems like the chicken and the egg thing at this point.

    Steve

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post

    I have a question:

    If I wanted a copy of a certain book that I borrow from a friend, and I ask him if I could xerox it, would I be infringing on the copyright? Considering that it would be used by me, myself, and I!

    ------------------
    "Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war..."
    -Chang (ST VI)

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Astoria, NY USA
    Posts
    31

    Post

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Treefrog:
    I have a question:

    If I wanted a copy of a certain book that I borrow from a friend, and I ask him if I could xerox it, would I be infringing on the copyright? Considering that it would be used by me, myself, and I!

    </font>
    Short answer: Yes, this is a violation of copyright and would be illegal.

    Long answer: Only if a page in the book specifically says "permission to photocopy this page granted", you friend may do so for you. This usually applies only to player handouts and character sheets in RPG books.

    (edit: had to fix a word typed twice)



    [This message has been edited by VulcanJoe (edited 04-16-2001).]

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Astoria, NY USA
    Posts
    31

    Post

    And yes, this thread really doesn't belong in this forum so we should let it die - it's probably pointless to move it over to the General forum at this point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •