Badmike wrote: but when possible we should make sure future generations of gamers who are interested in the origins of our hobby have access to these artifacts.  If it all remains locked up in collections, we are no better than greybeards who buy a rare manuscript or piece of art and lock it up in a vault for only their eyes.  

beautiful, beautiful words.
That's exactly what i have always thought.
Sadly, it seems to me there are a few "greybeards" on this site as well...

I do own very rare material which took me effort and a long time to obtain, but i will surely share all of my collection (scanning it or whatever) before dying. Giving the future generations the chance of reading -for instance- a very rare fantasy rpg from the past which otherwise would be almost impossible to obtain-(and which is going to become increasingly impossible to peruse and study in the future) is of paramount importance to me and has always been.

Think, for example, about "Vikings & Valkyrs", or the 1st edition of Melanda rpg, or even the very rare second volume of Bifrost i'm currently after. How many out there are enjoying these products whilst knowing there are others who crave for them?
I find it despicable that they (the possessors) just don't pay attention to them and aren't helping them in any way.

I was helped greatly by members in this forum during my searches, but as i said i witnessed others whose behaviour was very different- though in the position of being able to help fellow collectors (with a scanning which would never have ruined their prized copy), they just refused to do it, without even replying. That's why i call them "greybeards". I'm sure they even don't play games, they just want to see them getting older and older on a shelf (but of course feeling very proud of owning them .....)

vault keeper wrote:Think, for example, about "Vikings & Valkyrs", or the 1st edition of Melanda rpg, or even the very rare second volume of Bifrost i'm currently after. How many out there are enjoying these products whilst knowing there are others who crave for them?
I find it despicable that they (the possessors) just don't pay attention to them and aren't helping them in any way.

I have all of these and as mentioned, list what you want and I will PDF them for $1 each.

I would start with Bifrost volume 2:combat, and then Melanda rpg 1st ed.
They will count as an amazing gift for my Christmas  

Just let me know how to proceed  

There is of course an allowance under the law in the UK for scanning a product you own in and retaining it, reading it, archiving it etc. Copyright infringement only occurs when you distribute. Also, the law in the UK permits you to ask someome else to digitally copy something for you and then provide you with the copy, contracting out the labour as it were, for profit. And of course we have Apple who now provide digital copies of any CD you can find a cover for, which is mp3 music distribution without actually having to physically prove you paid for the original.

Digital copy of music and books is permitted under the law. The rules are defined. The exceptions to those rules are defined. The quantum of proof for the exceptions are laid down in case law. So long as you follow the law and keep a record of what you are doing, you cannot go wrong.

In this instance, the law says, Basil Barratt says yes or no and that is an absolute. Morally I have no issue progressing with following the steps needed to progress if Basil says yes, and I will not progress if he says no.

PDF Pirate King wrote:I've started a new thread so as not to clutter up this one any longer with the limitations of Tortured Souls.  Post your requests here:
viewtopic.php?t=12124

The forum as a collective gets to choose it's own ethical and moral stance on things (Example - On DF you cannot mention, ask for, or discuss PDF production). In light of the publishing effors of the forum, the Acaeul Collaborative Arts Project, NTRPGCon's successes, the forum is begining to realise the power it has to get things into production if it chooses. Discussions like this, regardless of who sits on what side of the argument, define the lines and boundaries the forum as a whole will not cross. For that reason, I see them as important.

Yes, there is a desire for a product, and some may wish to have a product 'at any cost'. I would dearly like many thngs, but I would not ask anyone else to break their own moral values to satisfy my wants.

Badmike wrote:So many quality gaming items (For example, Midkemia and The Companions), are sliding into obscurity despite their well regarded status in the gaming community.

I would welcome a lead to the copyright holder of The Companions product line. I have the donkeywork for the product complete and would like to present a proposal. I understand one of the primary IP holders is deceased? As regards Midkemia, I got a flat no from someone back in 2008, and have progressed that product no further, but again, if I can get enough support from the relevant IP holders it's a product I'd be willing resurrect.

vault keeper wrote:Sadly, it seems to me there are a few "greybeards" on this site as well...

I don't think that's quite fair. There is a big difference between archiving and acting as a custodian for materials, and distributing freely to the world. Some of those with big collections take their ownership of rarities very seriosly. Some research their collections and contribute to the online knowledge base, others preserve and display and ensure they have a home (likely more secure and better cared for than anything I could offer). Their approach to their own collections I think becomes entirely their own the minute they part with their own hard earned cash. It may be a bitter pill, but if you argue for people's freedom to reproduce, you must also respect people's rights not to reproduce what they have paid for.

Hypothetically....

Let's say you buy a DMG on eBay, and tucked inside is a short adventure someone wrote when they were a kid, or a little sketch of Kobold hiding behind a tree. You read it, think it's pretty cool, and mention it in a fun fids thread. Theoretically, would you say you were breaching an unknown entity's copyright if you scanned it and posted it on the forum?

If there is no attributer author/copyright holder, under UK Law it is defined as abandoned work and is not copyrighted as the copyright holder is unknown and does not choose to exert their rights under the law. This is the position that has been demonstrated time and again under UK Law, and there is even a pot of money put aside by taxpayers to compensate copyright holders that surface and lay claim to workd that have been 'abandoned' where courts decide against the calimant and side with the person who infringed an 'abandoned' copyright holder's IP.

So the question is, when you print a picture of someone's homebrew work, are you breaking the law? Or are you just conflicting with a moral positions in a grey mist?

Thre reason this is important is this....

The works published by Beast Entz prior to Chrismas 1986 are no longer subject to copyright under UK Law in regard to periodicals. The copyright of individual articled and illustartions have already reverted to their original contributor's copyright. The layout, typeface and other intangables are now copyright free.

Now the majority of works can be assumed to be penned by Basil Barratt and/or Simon Forrest. The majority of the illustrations by Jon Baker, and the majority of the floorplans etc. by Alan Hinkling. Any unattributed works, works not attributed to any individuals, drawings and maps not attributed to any specific artist, are now considered abandoned under UK Law. Without a specific reference linking a named individual to a specific contribution, the list of contributors is not enough to enforce an individuals claim to copyright over an uncreditted article in a magazine that in now considered Public Domain property.

No.

What I'm saying is Basil Barratt is the person known by me to own copyright and has absolute say so. Jon Baker and Alan Hinkling now own absolute copyright over their artworks and have absolute say so. Simon Forrest's role in the publication is unknwon. All works are assumed under UK Law to be the IP of Basil Barratt as no specific author is attributed to them in the original publication. All other illustrations are considered abandoned unless they carry a specific signiature or initials that can be linked to a name in the credits. There is no requirement to chase down everyone creditted and ask permision as they have already chosen not to enforce their copyright at the time they went to press. Abandoned works that have no attributed author are public domaon property if published in a periodical after 25 years have elapsed.

You have asked a moral question. Morally I have been in contact with the IP holder of the majority of the works and on thos babsis I will not breach his copyright. Anyone else who does, on the strength of there now being an active thread and a tenuous means of contacting him, quite clearly would not be able to protect themselves legally against prosecution.

I was just trying to show the specific lines of ownership in this specific instance, and explain that the works not attributed to those individuals we know are now abandoned and not covered in the UK by a copyright restriction.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Hypothetically....

Let's say you buy a DMG on eBay, and tucked inside is a short adventure someone wrote when they were a kid, or a little sketch of Kobold hiding behind a tree. You read it, think it's pretty cool, and mention it in a fun fids thread. Theoretically, would you say you were breaching an unknown entity's copyright if you scanned it and posted it on the forum?

In that case, if it's the only copy, it would seem that you'd bought the rights to it, even if it wasn't the primary item sold.  That seems logical... so that probably ISN'T how the law works.  

faro wrote:Dead wrong, bud.
And throwing divisive insults around isn't exactly a constructive approach, either: demand that everything (that people may have "invested" thousands of hours and dollars into researching and hunting down) be made available to you freely, regardless of copyright legislation, etc., or else you're a "greybeard", nyah, nyah?

aside: Why did you encourage Bill Underwood to reprint BM&G?

So because someone "invested" thousands of hours into hunting down an item, everyone should back off and make sure it's never available again?  I really tire of collectors of any type of item that insist it's our job to make sure stuff is unavailable so their belongings can increase in value.  If it was up to me, I'd get the NTRPG con to reprint ST1's, Fazzlewoods and Daystar Rahasias at ten bucks apiece just for kicks to destroy the value of their hoard. BTW, next year it looks like we'll be doing Misty Isles, so don't forget to sell your copies now collectors before the crash!

Mike B.

faro wrote:Dead wrong, bud.
And throwing divisive insults around isn't exactly a constructive approach, either: demand that everything (that people may have "invested" thousands of hours and dollars into researching and hunting down) be made available to you freely, regardless of copyright legislation, etc., or else you're a "greybeard", nyah, nyah?

irrelevant. Mine was not an insult, don't know why it sounded like that to your ears, sorry about that.
I myself invested years and dollars to get the most prized items in my collection, nevertheless- i want to honestly tell you that that is precisely what convinced me to release them in the near future to anyone.

To whom will your prized collection go when you leave this world?
We just can't bring our items with us in the tomb, though some are so greedy up to the point they might desire that.