bbarsh wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:You lump in the "and similar projects?" to your one sentence post. Exactly what other projects? It would seem you are suggesting NTX did other unauthorized projects, but maybe not. Hard to tell when it is included in the same sentence. All of which is pretty much irrelevant, anyway. The ST1 "reprint" is illegal. I don't care how many other examples of that are out there. The NTX reprint was years ago now. I am not sure why it would be brought up, anyway.
FoulFoot wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:Gnat the Beggar's recent saga. Thread is around here somewhere.He returned the item to the seller, so it's being sold again. Lots of argument back and forth on whether it's a legitimate cover or not -- only way to truly tell is to look under a microscope. That wasn't done, so it's still up in the air re: authenticity.Foul
Badmike wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:bbarsh wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:You lump in the "and similar projects?" to your one sentence post. Exactly what other projects? It would seem you are suggesting NTX did other unauthorized projects, but maybe not. Hard to tell when it is included in the same sentence. All of which is pretty much irrelevant, anyway. The ST1 "reprint" is illegal. I don't care how many other examples of that are out there. The NTX reprint was years ago now. I am not sure why it would be brought up, anyway.The original poster may fall into a group of tight-ass collector types that bitched when the word got out we were reprinting Wee Warriors items, as they were apparently investing in these and couldn't stand that someone might buy a copy on the cheap. These types would rather key collectibles not be reprinted for the unwashed masses if it means their original copies take a very slight ding on prices (which personally I haven't noticed even with both the NTRPG con and Pacesetter versions of, say, POTVQ out there). Yeh news flash there are some game collectors that are selfish ninnies, same as in any hobby.Mike B.
bbarsh wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:Badmike wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:The original poster may fall into a group of tight-ass collector types that bitched when the word got out we were reprinting Wee Warriors items, as they were apparently investing in these and couldn't stand that someone might buy a copy on the cheap. These types would rather key collectibles not be reprinted for the unwashed masses if it means their original copies take a very slight ding on prices (which personally I haven't noticed even with both the NTRPG con and Pacesetter versions of, say, POTVQ out there). Yeh news flash there are some game collectors that are selfish ninnies, same as in any hobby.Mike B.Seems Mr. MetaSigma aka asshole, was just trolling around. But I think Mike hit the nail on the head. :D
Badmike wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:The original poster may fall into a group of tight-ass collector types that bitched when the word got out we were reprinting Wee Warriors items, as they were apparently investing in these and couldn't stand that someone might buy a copy on the cheap. These types would rather key collectibles not be reprinted for the unwashed masses if it means their original copies take a very slight ding on prices (which personally I haven't noticed even with both the NTRPG con and Pacesetter versions of, say, POTVQ out there). Yeh news flash there are some game collectors that are selfish ninnies, same as in any hobby.Mike B.
vosarnath wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:It's great to have folk around in the hobby with this point of view. Some of these old modules are simply out of reach for me, but not being a collector does not mean that I don't want to try out them out with my players. I am yet to be convinced that a cheap reprint of PotVQ will have any more effect on the value of an original than the postcards sold at the Louvre will have on its exhibits.
Zenfinite wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:P.S. PotVQ really wasn't very good, you're not missing much.
mbassoc2003 wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:IMO, and it could just be age that brings on pragmatism, but I think copyright and its infringement, of historic works, needs to be viewed from a moral basis... Is the publisher doing it for his own personal profit and gain, or is the publisher trying to achieve some other goal (wider distribution, archival of endangered works via public distribution, etc.)?We can always say, "Well the publisher doesn't/shouldn't get to make that choice." He does not own the IP. But then (arguably) copyright laws in most of our countries are so archaic and/or corrupted that 'ownership' of what is/should be morally acceptable in society, legal and just should maybe be taken back from lawmakers and handed over to the people. Maybe it is wrong to photocopy ST1 and try to sell it on eBay to line your own pocket, but maybe it isn't so wrong to make it available for free to those who wish to read it.Or maybe it is for the buyer and the seller to judge these things based on thier own moral code and greed, and maybe it is not our place to Police eBay and the internet. It may be 'defending or hobby', but all the evidence over the past 10 years I've been doing this has shown me that this sort of crime is not damaging the value or the collectability of these products, and given that in all likelihood it only occurs when no permission to reprint would is availabe as an option, nor does it remove any revenue from either the original publisher or the IP owner.All that is lost, should the IP owner ever find out and/or care, is the right the IP owner had to say 'no' and be listened to, and even then, he still has the right to sue.
cabala wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:Since there was a discussion on this a while back I figured this is as good a place as any to ask my question. I know the listing below is from badmike and I am not trying to raise the discussion on reprints or anything. I am just curious is there anyway to differentiate the original from this authorized reprint besides it being stated so? ** expired/removed eBay auction **
cabala wrote in Report sellers who infringe copyrights!:Since there was a discussion on this a while back I figured this is as good a place as any to ask my question. I know the listing below is from badmike and I am not trying to raise the discussion on reprints or anything. I am just curious is there anyway to differentiate the original from this authorized reprint besides it being stated so?
