Quote from: GoOrangeHave you ever taken one of your CDs and converted it or any of the songs on it to MP3 so you could listen on your computer or MP3 player?

Not copy right infringement.

Quote from: GoOrangeHave you ever converted any of your old 45s to a tape, CD, or MP3?

Ditto.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver recorded a television show on a VCR or DVR?

Ditto as long as I do not distribute.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver photocopied a page out of an RPG book (other than the character sheet that explicity said you could photocopy it)?

Ditto.

Quote from: GoOrangeOr photocopied an article from a newspaper?

Actually, I don't know that I have but still, as long as a site the source, ditto.

Quote from: GoOrangeOr photocopied a page from a book at the library when doing a research project?

See above.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver right clicked an image on the internet (one not created by you) and saved it on your computer without asking for the author's permission?

You don't understand how the internet works do you? Not being mean, just saying, that your browser does this already. It is not infringement if I use it within the contract of exchange;i.e. if the owner says "You can have this book for free" you are not violating copy right.

Quote from: GoOrangeThe point is that there are practically an infinite number of ways we infringe on other people's IP. Most of the time we don't even think about it because it seems insignificant. Yet when it comes to something closer to home, like games to a games designer, suddenly we start taking the high road and claiming our selective application of morals superior to others'.

And you are talking about the law. I was talking about ethical behavior. The two over lap many times but not always and are not equivalent.

As to taking the high road, defensive much? Yeas, this is close to home and a point of interest to me. I do not, to my knowledge, host a P2P network, upload files for unlicensed distribution, partake in downloading form those networks. I am not saying I never break the law but I do my best. I also will not say I always do the ethical thing, I am human but I do my best and more importantly, I own my transgressions.

Quote from: GoOrangeI find those who claim the issue is entirely black and white (and refuse to acknowledge that there are gray areas) are just being obstinate and simple-minded. Accusing everyone who has ever downloaded something off the internet of being a thief and morally wrong is absolutely ludicrous.

I am not accusing "everyone who has ever downloaded" of being unethical. Just the ones who do so from unlicensed distribution networks.

Here, let me blow your mind for minute. I have no problem if the owner of a property decides he want to put his property on a P2P network. Not an issue. Anyone who downloads it would be ethically in the clear. If someone who is not the owner does likewise, you have received stolen goods. Does that make you wrong? Hard to say but you are enabling the distribution by participating.

Quote from: GoOrangeMy problem is with your inability to recognize possible gray areas. Instead you chose to completely oversimplify and use prejudicial language as you stand on your moral absolutism and tell others why they are bad people.

I hate to break this to you, but it is the dictionary that is getting you here.

But I am listening, what are the "grey" areas?

Quote from: GoOrangeI'm glad that your momma taught you about stealing being wrong. I only wish she would have taken time to teach you some of the many other lessons in life that apparently you missed out on. (See how nasty something like that sounds? Not really anything the least bit constructive in oversimplified, childish statements like that.)

You, know, all I read here is you being deeply offended because someone has pointed out that what you have done is unethical and you are having problems with that. You seem to be saying, as someone directly affected, that I have no right to say "Nope, that's wrong". I could be misinterpreting you but that is the way you seem to be reading to me.

Bill

Quote from: GoOrangeThe distinction is so fine that most wouldn't think twice about it, but I contend that a you could make a legitimate argument that right clicking and saving a copyrighted image could by infringement.

Again, this is so transparently not copyright infringement that I have to ask: has anyone ever successfully made this case in court?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUr, yeah, I overstated that.

The idea I was trying to get at is that things like having an SRD / freebie version are, yes, smart and good ideas.  But these are, firstly, ablative ideas - meant to cope with piracy as a problematic force, and secondly, refocusing ideas, meant to channel some of that sharing towards utility.

In general, I think that the whole tension is still there.  The idea that filesharing is a difficulty, rather than a pure resource.

Another example of a strategy I see as "fully aligned" with the digital marketplace is the (somewhat modified) Ransom model being used for Reign.  And then there's the weird-ass thing I may have sparked up on RPGnet today.

I do not see this the same way you do. Believe me,  I do not target pirates as customers. I believe a low percentage download for the purpose of later purchase but the vast majority assign the value to a free RPG book equal to what they paid for it.

My main strategy with piracy has to do with utilizing it as a means of advertisement. Direct users reading to other products, specifically at my store. This works well.

As to the ransom model, well, I think that is far more "ablative" or punitive from a piracy point of view than the free versions online. Oniline version of books allow for the piracy and if I understand it correctly, Ransom says, "either you pay, or you do not see the copy".

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltRansom says, "either you pay, or you do not see the copy".

But it also says "Piracy has no effect here; it's not the enemy, because it can't be.  Once it's out, this PDF is free, for everyone, forever.  Share it all you want; it's all advertising for the next one."

Quote from: HinterWeltYou, know, all I read here is you being deeply offended because someone has pointed out that what you have done is unethical and you are having problems with that. You seem to be saying, as someone directly affected, that I have no right to say "Nope, that's wrong". I could be misinterpreting you but that is the way you seem to be reading to me.

Bill

Did he say he was a downloader Bill, or merely that he disagreed with your take on the topic?

Honest question, I've lost track, but folk may disagree and yet not be pirates.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut it also says "Piracy has no effect here; it's not the enemy, because it can't be.  Once it's out, this PDF is free, for everyone, forever.  Share it all you want; it's all advertising for the next one."

And that differs from what I do how?

See, Levi, I am getting thrown off here by not knowing how familiar you are with how HinterWelt works. You seem to be saying you know, but then you lump HinterWelt with other efforts. I do not mean to be coy, I just do not know how much people what to here my strategies. I do not mean to over play my hand though, my BP is not based on piracy. It deals with it but I would not say the cornerstone of my strategy is one of capitalizing on piracy. It is flexible though, and can respond. Currently, I would characterize it as centered on print with a growing digital initiative.

Bill

Quote from: BalbinusDid he say he was a downloader Bill, or merely that he disagreed with your take on the topic?

Honest question, I've lost track, but folk may disagree and yet not be pirates.

Oh, I thought he had. I apologize if it is otherwise. As with you, I may have lost track but I thought he had said he had downloaded the files.

Bill

Quote from: GoOrangeI think it is not legally the same. I think you are just assuming that it is lgeally the same based on what "seems right" to you.

You would be wrong then.

I'm not basing it on what seems right.  It's something I need to know and have done my research on.

QuoteYour computer automatically reproduces web files when you surf the Internet in various ways, even if you do not deliberately save or download files. These pages are found in the browser's cache. Is this in itself a violation of copyright?

It is helpful to understand how the copyright statute works to understand that the law applies to the Internet. The copyright statute is triggered by the unauthorized act of copying, publishing, performing (by digital means or otherwise), displaying in public, or revising (make derivatives) any copyright protected materials. Your computer automatically makes copies when you surf the Internet in various ways. One way copies are made is by simply viewing a page on the Internet. This causes a copy of that page to be made and stored in the Random Access Memory (RAM) of your computer. Browsers also make copies so you can return to a site faster. This is technically sufficient to trigger the copyright statute. Does this mean that everyone who merely surfs the Internet is liable for copyright infringement and risks being sued?

No, because of Implied Consent. Legal scholars argue that anyone who posts content on the Internet expects people to visit their site. They know that visitors' computers will make copies in the process, and the Web site host grants visitors an implied license or permission to make those copies.

Source: University of Connecticut Libraries - Internet & Copyright

I spent about 30 seconds looking it up for you... I have consulted legal counsel on this.  It's part of my job is keeping up with Internet law and working with our legal team on a variety of issues relating to the web and web publishing.  It's not just my personal opinion.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, Levi, I am getting thrown off here by not knowing how familiar you are with how HinterWelt works.

Some.  Which is to say, I've gone through the site in nitpicky detail about six months or so back - but I also went through many, many other company sites during the same period.

I would have characterised the company as one that is capably dealing with business in general online (and VERY capably in print), but still treats PDF publishing as being fundamentally similar to print publishing, with a few good strategies to allow that.

Which is to say, at the head of the class.  But still in the class.

I'm talking about treating PDF publishing as fundamentally not at all the same as print publishing - as a completely different creature, almost an entirely different kind of business.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm talking about treating PDF publishing as fundamentally not at all the same as print publishing - as a completely different creature, almost an entirely different kind of business.

I think that would be at the root of it then. I fully admit to being a print publisher first and a digital publisher second. I would probably have a different strategy if I was primarily a digital publisher.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltOh, I thought he had. I apologize if it is otherwise. As with you, I may have lost track but I thought he had said he had downloaded the files.

Bill

You may be right, I just wanted to avoid you accidentally offending someone.

Intentionally offending people, should you wish to, is your constitutional right

Quote from: HinterWeltI think that would be at the root of it then. I fully admit to being a print publisher first and a digital publisher second. I would probably have a different strategy if I was primarily a digital publisher.

Very probably.

(Also, notably, even so you're progressive in online terms.  Most of the e-publishers, gaming and otherwise, haven't even caught on to "free shareables as advertising" yet, never mind gotten to the point of going "Okay, our stuff -all our stuff - WILL be shared.  How do we make that into an asset, no matter how you slice it?" )

Quote from: StuartYou would be wrong then.

I'm not basing it on what seems right.  It's something I need to know and have done my research on.

Source: University of Connecticut Libraries - Internet & Copyright

I spent about 30 seconds looking it up for you... I have consulted legal counsel on this.  It's part of my job is keeping up with Internet law and working with our legal team on a variety of issues relating to the web and web publishing.  It's not just my personal opinion.

I think we argee to that because its the implied consent but I bet a right click and "save image as" is in violation and certainly making a printed copy is infringement.
and posting it as a screensaver ! etc etc

But we are all going soooo off topic.

I think it that there is a bizaare inverted element to piracy. If you look at independent bands they can make a decnet living selling music from their own sites or to subscribers etc there are a lot of inventive ways this is happening. The customers of these bands are pretty much trying to help them out shilling their music to others etc. It just seems that people who are into this type of music are less likely to want to rip the artists off.
Then there are the people who like the pop stuff, you know the ones that listen to Pussycat dolls or 50 cent well they are going to be less likely to care about ripping off the artist and incidentally (or prehaps because off this) these are the people for whom the pirated stuff is trivial in terms of revenue.
In the same way gamers who have heard of Hinterweld enterprises are less likely to rip them off than gamers who are after D&D 4e and likewise Hasbro can cope more.

I for one would not consider ripping of a small publisher but I have watched all of the last series of Lost on You Tube because I don't want to pay for Sky TV and I have built numerous home use card and boardgames using downloaded images I have no right to use. I have downloaded music illegally, and watched non copyrighted videos on You Tube and I have reformated music and then burnt it onto CDs for personal use in my car, I have even accepted copies of roleplaying games on CD from friends who have either bought them or scanned them in. I have even downloaded copies of stuff I haven't been able to find anywhere else, out of print short stories or game suplements even though I would far prefer hard copy. Am I a criminal ? Yes sure. Am I a thief maybe but not because of this. Am I a better person thant a mugger, or house burglar, you bet your arse.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI think we argee to that because its the implied consent but I bet a right click and "save image as" is in violation and certainly making a printed copy is infringement.
and posting it as a screensaver ! etc etc

Not really. Because, and I'm not a lawyer so feel free to flaunt law degrees and tell me otherwise, the implied consent means that the content is essentially free to be downloaded in any way a consumer sees fit.

This, IIRC, has to do with the idea that if you don't protect something, it's free. So, if you follow the chain, the creator, in putting on a web site, has, through implied consent, given it away with permission. Once that happens, you can do as you see fit (although there may still be some conditions on redistribution - I don't know about that).

Scholars, feel free to tear me apart on this...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm talking about treating PDF publishing as fundamentally not at all the same as print publishing - as a completely different creature, almost an entirely different kind of business.

Nonsense.

We live under capitalism, yes?

Time is money, says the capitalist. The Marxist agrees.

What generates value under capitalism? Commodities. What makes commodities valuable? The labor that went into making them. What is labor? Work invested over time.

Time, a limited resource, that was spent purposely toiling away on making a living.

To steal a book, to pirate a PDF, is to steal labor value. Irrespective of the the physicality of the commodity in question.