I received an answer from TSR the next day when asking the same sorts of questions... Depends on who you ask, I guess?
Badmike wrote:Once again, a specious argument. Obviously any jackass would know I wasn't literally comparing food to D&D modules unless they were intent on a purely theoretical hyperbole filled bullshit argument. It hurts to even form the arguments to make them understandable to cretins so I'm not even going to respond, except to say if a free pdf popped up of Tabletop Warriors (of which I have a stake in) I couldn't care less. As for where I "draw the line", that's for me to decide and I could personally give a shit what you think about it. Seriously, I can't even measure how little your opinion matters to me.Why make a "purely theoretical hyperbole filled bullshit" comparison in the first place, then? Seriously, I was under the impression that we were discussing matters in a mature, constructive manner, but thank you for the correction.
Badmike wrote:The aim has always been to get these items out to the collector that cannot afford the originals, at an affordable price, while making NTRPG con a place that collectors want to attend so they won't miss out on various con goodies available nowhere else.It's a marketing ploy for the con, nothing more; not that that's a "bad thing" in its own right. The aim may originally have been "to get these items out to the collector that cannot afford the originals", but such good intentions went right out of the window last time.
faro wrote:If "Frank, Rob, Tim, Jim, et al." wish to feel bitter and use that as justification, that's entirely their own, personal business.
ashmire13 wrote:Just a little thought of my own, but I was very happy to buy a PDF of PotV from the NTRPG via Doug on his site.Whether it was legal or not, I don't see that as bad, because it's not something I would sell on as an original and it allowed me to own something I never would otherwise. Maybe I misunderstand it, but I see items like that as ok, because no-ones making a profit, no-one loses out becausethe original authors have already made their money and it's not a new product inthe same way as music or video game piracy. I don't see that even the original copies lose value against a PDF either. It's just my view and basic understanding of these PDFs
Badmike wrote:For my money, Doug is too honest and forthcoming in a lot of situations, but that's just his personality.
Badmike wrote:...that turn the discussion away from the topic at hand
faro wrote:illegal copies of
sauromatian wrote:Make up your minds. If you believe in respect for the law, then respect both sides of the issue - namely that some kinds of copying are forbidden, while others are allowed. If you have a moral position in excess of the law, that copying without express permission is always wrong, be honest about it.
PDF Pirate King wrote:The issue is about reproducing someone else's item for the purpose of resale - probably with a print run of 50 - 300 copies. In some cases, of small press items mentioned already such as Minotaur's Lair, the number of reproductions would probably outnumber the sales from the original publisher. That's a pretty bold thing to do: take an author's work without their permission and actually make more money off of it than they did.
PDF Pirate King wrote:I am doubting that PDFing for "historical preservation" covers the resale of 100 copies of an item without the permission of the copyright holder.
PDF Pirate King wrote:By not saying anything, you are encouraging Ian to go ahead and you know it wouldn't stop with TS! Some see this as a problem, others don't.
Badmike wrote: If it's a marketing ploy for the con, I can think of plenty of marketing "ploys" costing just as much or less (how about scantily clad female strippers serving beers to any con-goer over 21?) that would bring in more people for the sole purpose boosting attendance. Mike B.
Badmike wrote:But if the permission is given it's ok, right? Then suddenly the number of reproductions outnumbering the original isn't an issue, except for the few who have monetarily speculated on such low-printed items for future financial benefit.
BadMike wrote: I'd buy one under any circumstances should they ever become available.
BadMike wrote:I'd buy one under any circumstances should they ever become available.
mbassoc2003 wrote:The law in the UK permits you to make a backup copy of a book or magazine that you have purchased, and it permits someone to sub-contract out manufacturing that copying service to others provided the intended use of those copies comply with UK Copyright Law (ie personal use and backup).
mbassoc2003 wrote:You see, to me that reads, "I'd have no qualms about buying a copy should it become available, as someone else has already decided to address the copyright question, and as a buyer, if I am buying a product legitimately, I do not see it as my responsibility to question the publishers rights to offer their products for sale." I read this as, "If it becomes available it's just the same as the Dragon Magazine Archive. If it later becomes withdrawn or the publisher is sued, it is not the buyer's moral responsibility for having bought a copy."I didn't see Mike's statement as tasit support, more a statement of intent.
sauromatian wrote:This principle became much more restrictive in the US about 15 years ago. It was part of an era which saw many questionable new laws, the best known being the Mickey Mouse legislation which BadMike mentioned earlier.