Upper Works review?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 21 of 29123 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 272829
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:13 am 
 

i do personally think that seeing fanzine runs in PDF form would be fantastic...even certain other things that i wouldnt really go out and get anyway....from a legel and NOT illegal aspect of course. if the coast was clear, then i would be happy to buy these, as i know most of them, i would have little chance of obtaining.

and i dont think they devalue these kind of products....most proper collectors like to get hold of the real deal anyways.

Al



  


Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:25 pm 
 

I assume if this is done that the copyright holder would be contacted for permission first.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6070
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: May 10, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:51 pm 
 

jcp wrote:I assume if this is done that the copyright holder would be contacted for permission first.


The trouble with fanzines is that most state that the copyright holders are the article authors, etc so in order to "get permission" you really do need the permission of everyone who contributed which is not feasible.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:56 pm 
 

jcp wrote:I assume if this is done that the copyright holder would be contacted for permission first.

As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we are all permitted to obtain and keep one copy of what we buy for personal use and as a backup should out copy become damaged or destroyed. And as far as I'm aware, no permission is required from the copyright holder to do this. Am I wrong?

Now, if you go to Kinkos and photocopy your purchased copy of CZ:UW as your means of backup, is Kinkos breaking the law by fascilitating the buyer from exercising their rights under the law? Or if he asks his sister, who is not the lawful owner of said copy, to go to Kinkos to make a copy, is she breaking the law?

If not, then surely asking a friend if he can make a digital copy is also not against the law. Ergo, no permission required and perfectly legal.

It only becomes illegal if someone who has no right under the law to a copy is given a copy, but I would be most interested in your take on this, as it is a very intricate matter.


Aside, a digital copy with OCR in the hands of Trigee would fascilitate easier republication. So there is an upside, but I'm not gonna go there, as I have a vested interest in keeping the CZ:UW price as high as possible. I'm still sitting on a cases and a half of these babies.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Sage Collector

Posts: 2332
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2017
Location: Shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:56 pm 
 

. wrote:As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we are all permitted to obtain and keep one copy of what we buy for personal use and as a backup should out copy become damaged or destroyed. And as far as I'm aware, no permission is required from the copyright holder to do this. Am I wrong?

I have only heard that argument applied to non-printed media (LPs, cassettes, CDs, DVDs).  I'm not sure if LPs and cassettes are truly legally covered.

I have never heard that argument applied to books, magazines, and other printed media.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7955
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: May 14, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:52 pm 
 

. wrote:As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we are all permitted to obtain and keep one copy of what we buy for personal use and as a backup should out copy become damaged or destroyed. And as far as I'm aware, no permission is required from the copyright holder to do this. Am I wrong?

Now, if you go to Kinkos and photocopy your purchased copy of CZ:UW as your means of backup, is Kinkos breaking the law by fascilitating the buyer from exercising their rights under the law? Or if he asks his sister, who is not the lawful owner of said copy, to go to Kinkos to make a copy, is she breaking the law?

If not, then surely asking a friend if he can make a digital copy is also not against the law. Ergo, no permission required and perfectly legal.

It only becomes illegal if someone who has no right under the law to a copy is given a copy, but I would be most interested in your take on this, as it is a very intricate matter.


Aside, a digital copy with OCR in the hands of Trigee would fascilitate easier republication. So there is an upside, but I'm not gonna go there, as I have a vested interest in keeping the CZ:UW price as high as possible. I'm still sitting on a cases and a half of these babies.


I used to photocopy Dragon magazine articles back in the 70s/80s to use instead of the mags.  I probably gave some away during the years.  I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass if it was legal or not, since I didn't care then and I don't care now....not a single article I photocopied prevented a single issue of Dragon from selling new off the shelf.

People who have no vested interest in copyright, etc are always the ones getting into snoots about whether it's "legal" or not to make a copy of something. Meanwhile my 30 year crime spree of photocopying stuff for my own personal enjoyment (whether I own it or not) continues unabated. When the copyright police finally catch up to me, I'm doomed..... :roll:

Ok a lot of that is tongue in cheek.  But I've seen such a waste of billions of electrons over the years with people going back and forth worrying about this crap that I have lost the capacity for caring. My stand as of several years ago, and still now, is that if the original copyright owners don't give a damn, I don't either. For example WOTC has shown many times over the years they don't give a damn about Ebay counterfeits/cd rom collections.  If they don't care, why should I?

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:56 am 
 

You're right. The only people who ever get on their high horse about it are people with no vested interest at all. Of course, that's the easiest postion to take the moral high ground from, because you don't actually have to demonstrate any intent or will to do anything.

Paper degrades over time.
I purchase the right to own the product forever. I do not license it for a specified period of time, and the product comes with no expiry date or warranty. My copy could degrade anytime in the next 100 years. I do not know, and the publisher did not provide me with that information at the timeof purchase. Therefor, as a safeguard, I made a copy of the material in the even that the original degrades and becomes unusable. I chose to make that copy electronically because it is cheaper, takes up less room to store, and is likely to last as long, if not longer that the product I am safeguarding.
All perfectly legal to me.

I would suggest everyone make arrangements to safequard their products, particularily if the product is on great personal value (ie, you really love the pice of work and are likely to use it more than once), or in the event that the product has great intrinsic value. At least if disaster happens you'll be able to use your backup if you can't find or afford to replace the original.

Some people don't own photocopiers, and need to go to a specialist to have a photocopy made. Some people don't have scanners and scanning software and have to go to a specialist to have a copy made. I have yet to see any case law showing that it is illegal to make or keep a personal copy of something you value.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:30 am 
 

There is no provision to digitally copy printed copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. If you do so, you do so of your own choice, but making those digital copies available to other people most certainly crosses the line and is illegal.

You're right. The only people who ever get on their high horse about it are people with no vested interest at all.


So someone can't base their concerns on matters of principle? One can't believe that living in a civil society of rules and laws is both important and valid? One can only be upset by others blatantly breaking the law if they are personally infringed upon? That logic makes no sense to me at all.  

In addition though one may not be "hurt" personally by someone infringing on anothers copyright, the act of doing so ultimately hurts everyone who holds a copyright. If you can use some form of justification to make and distribute digital copies of someone elses work, who is to say you won't eventually do the same to my work as well, or that someone else won't? Therefore I see it as entirely valid to be concerned about any illegal copyright infringement.

I purchase the right to own the product forever.


You aren't purchasing any rights when you purchase a book or game. You own the imprint of the book in the form you purchased it in, but you don't own the rights to the book or game itself. The copyright holder does and they alone generally control how it is copied, sold, and distributed.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:55 am 
 

jcp wrote:There is no provision to digitally copy printed copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. If you do so, you do so of your own choice, but making those digital copies available to other people most certainly crosses the line and is illegal.

I would really like to see if that could stand up in court. In fact the whole hypothesis. I very much doubt your perception has ever been tested and upheld because if someone owns and has paid for an original, there is no harm done to anyone if he has a copy of it. No one loses any revenue. And the whole, 'well if he'll make a copy of that book, then maybe he'll make a copy of mine' is rediculous. If someone buys a book, regardless of who wrote it, it is rediculous to say he can't own a copy of it for personal private use. Particularly if that book's value is very high. It makes perfect sence.

But when legal restraint run contrary to common sense, that helps explain why culture is handicapped and progress in society is slowed. There is a difference between backing up something for someone who has purchased it legitimately, and illegally pirating materials and sharing it on Torrents. When copyright law manages to drag itself out of the 19th century and into the modern age, maybe society as a whole will start to give it consideration. At present it is considered little more than and annoying dinosaur of the past century that keeps harping on about how things used to be in their day. The vast majority of society has moved on and put the dinosaur in its place and treat it with the disrespect that is due. If legal reform is required then that is a whole different discussion, but we live in a modern world now, and the rules of the olden days no longer apply, regardless of whether or not they are still on the statute. Hell, in the UK you can still be executed and we still maintain the gallows to do it, but it never gets enforced because the society has moved on. Copyright law concerning personal property is the same thing.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:09 pm 
 

This has indeed been tested in court. Copyright law is well tested and well founded in fact. It may seem confusing and obscure or arcane but it is in fact well understood by professionals and well defended by copyright lawyers. What seems like a simple act can indeed lead to serious consequences. Case in point is the 2nd trial of the woman in MN who was found guilty yesterday of willfull copyright infringement for downloading 24 songs resulting in a fine of $1.92 million dollars.  

Here are some legal references for you to consider.

In 1980 a new section was amendend to the 1976 Copyright Act, section 117. This new section provided the basis for owners of computer programs to back up them up for their protection and use in certain specific circumstances. But this provision did not extended to any other media and books and printed matter were not then nor are they now covered by this provision. The US Copyright office specifically states in regards to this "this privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works." Interestingly it has gotten more difficult to legally back up privately purchased software as the 1998 amendments under the Digital Millennum Copyright Act made it illegal to defeat technological copy prevention built into software.

In 1992 an amendement was added to the Copyright Act allowing consumers to make personal back up copies of legally purchased music and media stored on CD, but it was explicitly stated that these backup copies were for personal use only and never under any circumstances to be given to others or distributed, even if given away for free. These provisions have since been updated and challenged so they have evolved, but at no time did this extend to other media that a consumer may purchase or own so books and printed mater would not fall under this either.

Lastly there are provisions in the Copyright Act for libraries and cultural institutions to make very limited back up copies of certain items in their collections under very specific circumstances, but without going into the details of when and how this is possible suffice to say that it is rigorously controlled and wouldn't apply to private consumers.

As such there are no provisions in the Copyright Act to allow you to make personal back up copies of CZ: Upper Works and/or to distribute copies to others.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:46 pm 
 

There is a world of difference between downloading pirate music off of Kazaa and making a personal copy of a document for your own use. Trying to compare the two is both erroneous and assinine.

If copyright law does not reflect either societies needs or actions or general moral compass, then it continues to lag behind and prevent society from evolving.

And in any event, the only person who has any legal claim, and it is only a civil one, is the copyright holder. No other party, and no other organization may bring a claim for copyright enfringement. What the law says, and what the courts say, and what the individuals involved actually do are more often than not, completely different. When the law defends an individual's legitimate interest, then it is doing it's job. When it runs contrary to the general feeling of society, the law is an ass, and only by ignoring it can you demonstrate how foolish it is.

We are not talking here about piracy or ripping off someone. We are talking about security for the 500 odd people who have the only copies of this piece of work known to exist, and their want or need to preserve that work for as long as they can. If the fans do nothing, nothing will ever get done. You certainly can't Trust Trigee to get off their arse and preserve EGG's works.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
JG Valuation Board
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 5029
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 16, 2017
Location: Texas

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:55 pm 
 

jcp wrote:......Case in point is the 2nd trial of the woman in MN who was found guilty yesterday of willfull copyright infringement for downloading 24 songs resulting in a fine of $1.92 million dollars.  ....


Umnnn how about some links to that story, otherwise (IMO) its nothing but a hard to believe story told by a stranger (Well, I don know who you are at any rate)......

......24 songs dowloaded and she got strangeled for 2 million in fines?
It was the SECOND TRAIL?
Why?
What was the frst trial?
Is she a Re-Seller?
Or just a constant abuser and pissed ev1 off by laughing at the first trial?
There has to be more to it than you eluded to.

Plus what Dot said. :lol:


"Guys, I am starting to think Tegel Manor might be haunted..."
Stated by me as a PC during a run of Tegel Manor DMed by killjoy at NTRPGCon 2010

Charter Member of the ATM

  


Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:03 pm 
 

There is a world of difference between downloading pirate music off of Kazaa and making a personal copy of a document for your own use. Trying to compare the two is both erroneous and assinine.


The world of difference is not so great. The fundamental connection is that both are illegal in the context you provided. You may not like that fact or agree with it, but that is the case under current copyright law.

Umnnn how about some links to that story


Sure thing, not a problem at all.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 455D68.DTL

And in any event, the only person who has any legal claim, and it is only a civil one, is the copyright holder. No other party, and no other organization may bring a claim for copyright enfringement.


And your point is what? I don't recall anyone here ever suggesting they were going to bring a case against you, only that what you have suggested doing so far infringes upon the copyrights of the legal owner of the rights to CZ: UW. That said it is entirely within the rights and obligations of law abidding citizens to take action when others make claims to wanting to infringe on others as you have suggested. I respect the legal rights and personal wishes of the copyright holder of CZ: UW. If you did as well you would very easily and very directly contact them and ask for permission to do what you are wanting to do. If they grant you permission you have no problem. So what is the hold up with you just asking for permission?

When it runs contrary to the general feeling of society, the law is an ass, and only by ignoring it can you demonstrate how foolish it is.


The "general feeling of society" as you suggest is reflected in our Constitution which provides the context for our elected officials to be elected and to represent the population. They in turn help enact the laws that in this case cover copyright issues, while the courts interpret those laws and either uphold them or strike them down. The only tangible measure of "the general feeling of society" are what laws we currently have in place. Sorry to say in this case the copyright law goes counter to what you suggest. If you disagree that is your right as a member of this society but breaking the law anyway doesn't make it any less illegal to do so, no matter how much you try to put a different framework around the issue.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
JG Valuation Board
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 5029
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 16, 2017
Location: Texas

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:27 pm 
 

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.



As I suspected.
It was not just 24 songs..... but 1700.
However, that jury award is insane.
$80,000 per song.
Too bad they didnt go ahead and inlude all 1700 songs mentioned in the story....
That woulda ben 136 million instead of a measily 1.92......

Apparently They went light on her though, they COULD have fined her $150,000 PER SONG...
Then she could have been hit for 425 Million in fines and awards. :roll:

She is a single mom (Divorced) wih kids and she has no way in hell to pay even one hundredth of that 1.92 million in fines.

Insane.
And I still agree with Dot.
What does that story have to do with making a copy of UW for his personal use?


"Guys, I am starting to think Tegel Manor might be haunted..."
Stated by me as a PC during a run of Tegel Manor DMed by killjoy at NTRPGCon 2010

Charter Member of the ATM

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:48 pm 
 

jcp wrote:The world of difference is not so great. The fundamental connection is that both are illegal in the context you provided. You may not like that fact or agree with it, but that is the case under current copyright law.

The difference is, she downloaded copyrighted materials she had neither paid to listen to, nor had any intention of paying to listen to, and then fabricated a series of lies when questioned about it, and put the claimant through two court actions.

Where as I, and presumably the recipient if I gave it to someone who I knew owned a copy, have both paid for the right to read and use the materials, and would be willing to pay for backup digital copies if they were made available, and neither party would lie of fabricate evidence in order to deny what we had done.

Clearly the woman in question intended to break the law, and clearly I do not. I merely wish to protect my investment, and the work of a much esteemed writer when I know there are likely less than 500 copies worldwide. In twenty years time there will likely be much fewer copies than that, and I will still hold the PDF file.

Clearly the law is an ass if it prevents an individual from protecting his own property, and the best way to deal with that is to ignore it and then defend it if the needs arise.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 40
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Last Visit: Nov 14, 2020

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:27 pm 
 

That is my dilema.


All the below is IMHO and I an not a lawyer. I am a publisher, however.

If you make a copy for yourself, you're kosher. The instant you provide a copy of your books to someone else, you become a pirate and are distributing pirated copies (except if you're providing a copy to a disabled person - such as a braille copy or a large-print edition of a work in which such doesn't already exist - I think). Even if everyone receiving a digital copy of your purchased property already has their own physical purchased copy of the work themselves.

You didn't make them a copy of their book, you made them a copy of your book. If they want copies of their book, they have to make copies of their own. Or they will have to send you their copies and you make a copy of their book for them and then return the original and the copy (acting as their agent). If they want to exercise their own right to make a backup copy of what they have purchased, they have to exercise them (or their agent must) with their own purchased property, not the property purchased by another.

Again, IMHO

Joseph Browning


Expeditious Retreat Press

  


Active Collector

Posts: 63
Joined: Dec 19, 2008
Last Visit: Dec 16, 2019

Post Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:58 pm 
 

jgbrowning has it pretty much spot on.

The bottom line is, odd or not, the law does not provide you with the right to make copies of the books and games you own. That said no one is going to come to your house and raid your game room looking for illegal copies you made for yourself of stuff you already bought. The minute you distribute those items to anyone else though you are most certainly crossing the line and it doesn't matter if the other person claims to own the item in question or not.

The law is very clear on this. I've provided numerous references and examples for you to look into. If you choose to make copies for yourself no one is going to stop you nor could they if they really wanted to, but the minute you offer to distribute those copies be forewarned that the copyright holder will be informed.

You still haven't answered the question though, why don't you just ask them for permission up front?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7955
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: May 14, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:39 am 
 

. wrote:The difference is, she downloaded copyrighted materials she had neither paid to listen to, nor had any intention of paying to listen to, and then fabricated a series of lies when questioned about it, and put the claimant through two court actions.

Where as I, and presumably the recipient if I gave it to someone who I knew owned a copy, have both paid for the right to read and use the materials, and would be willing to pay for backup digital copies if they were made available, and neither party would lie of fabricate evidence in order to deny what we had done.

Clearly the woman in question intended to break the law, and clearly I do not. I merely wish to protect my investment, and the work of a much esteemed writer when I know there are likely less than 500 copies worldwide. In twenty years time there will likely be much fewer copies than that, and I will still hold the PDF file.

Clearly the law is an ass if it prevents an individual from protecting his own property, and the best way to deal with that is to ignore it and then defend it if the needs arise.


I wouldn't worry about it too much. Chances are Troll Lords or whoever owns the rights aren't going to go after you no matter what you do.  BTW, the recording industry has already stopped bringing these sort of cases to trial due to several reasons, one being it's done nothing to stop piracy and another is that it's made the recording industry looks like horse's ass's as they tried to prosecute grandmothers, preteens and dead people (Or fined single mom's 1.9 million dollars...and amount that is 100% likely to get thrown out on appeal, leading to a 3rd trial...sigh...)

I'd rate the chance you'd be prosecuted for ACTIVELY distributing cd roms without permission at the chance you'll get hit by lightning next year.  The chance you'd be prosecuted for PASSIVELY distributing these behind the scenes are roughly the same as getting hit by lightning AND shark bit in the same year.... :wink:

These are all accurate assumptions based on hundreds of hours of number crunching, btw, so I stand by them.....

As Americans (and human beings) for that matter, we spend far too much time worrying about stuff that will never happen to the point where you are paralyzed by statistical anomalies too small to matter.  The recent "Swine Flu Epidemic" is a case in point (It's roughly killed 1 percent of what the REGULAR flu kills every year, yet everyone has run around like ninnies worried the pandemic is going to wipe them out)

The bottom line is, odd or not, the law does not provide you with the right to make copies of the books and games you own. That said no one is going to come to your house and raid your game room looking for illegal copies you made for yourself of stuff you already bought. The minute you distribute those items to anyone else though you are most certainly crossing the line and it doesn't matter if the other person claims to own the item in question or not.


That pretty much says it all. Just like getting a ticket for driving one mile over the speed limit, the chances anyone will care about copies made are nil.  BTW, I'm still a little worried that Elektra recording is going to hunt me down for all those 8-track copies I made of Queen albums in the late 70s that I gave away for free....considering the recent recording case, and multiplying my fines for the last 30 years of interest, it's conceivable I may end up owing roughly the national deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars for that unfortunate decision made in the bloom of youth..... :cry:


Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Sage Collector

Posts: 2737
Joined: May 31, 2007
Last Visit: Mar 22, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:13 am 
 

It is my understand that companies don't tend to care about these things... when they don't know about them. However, if it becomes part of their attention, and they still do nothing, then perhaps they simply did not care at all, or lack the means to prevent it. That does not mean it is "OK" to do it, however.

Oh, and Troll Lord Games has no rights, as I take it, to any of the Castle Zagyg products. You'd have to go to Gygax Games, or Trigee, or whoever for the people who do... and, as I hear it, they are currently talking to lawyers, so it may not be the best time to start trying to mess with their IP, seeing as that is exactly what they are looking to protect.


Those who can, don't. Those who should not, do.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6261
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: May 17, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:19 am 
 

jcp wrote:You still haven't answered the question though, why don't you just ask them for permission up front?

Too many people to seek permission from, and all for the sake of backing up something that is very rare (The odds are that CZ:UW is rarer that the beloved white boxes), and the odds are extremely high that none of the parties involved are able to make a decision because of the long protracted legal ramifications of doing so. It would probably take the better part of five years to get someone to get their finger out of their arse. Trigee do not own copyright outright. TLG own copyright of the product but not of some of the content. The odds are high that neither Trigee nor TLG own copyright over the maps, images or cover art within the product, and theoretically I cannot produce a digital copy (which in theory is a new publication) without first revising it to comply with the new OGL (which then requires a whol new set of permissions which are definately unlikely as it would be considered a new works).

No. The law is quite deffinately an ass. We should be allowed to keep copies of our own rares regardless of what the law says. The only way to deal with such a situation is to ignore it and take all reasonable precautions to ensure the PDF only goes to those who have hardcopies, and to tie those copies to the recipients to deter redistribution.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 21 of 29123 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 272829