The Unseen Servant forums

Leitz wrote:On DriveThru it's Pay what you want, I think, and freely redistributable.

Which is very different than someone sharing material that is not free.

The latter is theft; plain and simple.

The Societal Costs of Digital Piracy wrote:Piracy is theft
There are very clear laws about what people can and cannot do with purchased content. Generally, purchasing content means you are allowed to listen, play, read, or use that content yourself. It does not give you the right to copy it, share it, trade it, let others download it or make money off of it for yourself, like buying a movie and then charging people to come see it.

Copying software or digital content without permission of the content creator is stealing. It is no different than shoplifting the same program from a computer store. It doesn’t matter whether you copied copyrighted material from a friend, illegally downloaded from the internet, or purchased from a person who was selling illegally made copies; it is all theft.

People who copy digital content they do not have permission to use are digital pirates. This includes:

• Copying digital content a friend has bought - like music, pictures, videos, movies, games, books or software.
• Copying digital content from peer-to-peer networks or file sharing servers.
• Buying content from a source that stole the content and made copies to sell – like counterfeit versions of games, movies, music, books, or software – is buying stolen goods.

I can't say that I've never used a pirated copy of something (e.g. music, movie, rulebook) in my past, so I've been guilty of this myself.

That said, no one can argue that it's not wrong.

And while we can't prevent anyone from using pirated materials, we can and will try to prevent people from openly sharing illegal sources or directing people on how/where to do it themselves.

dmw71 wrote:I can't say that I've never used a pirated copy of something (e.g. music, movie, rulebook) in my past, so I've been guilty of this myself.

That said, no one can argue that it's not wrong.

Same here. If I can't afford it, I just don't use it. Anymore.

Leitz wrote:

rredmond wrote:It's a tough rule for sure, but even with stuff that is Out of Print it can cause trouble for Unseen Servant. We are too small to weather the Cease & Desist.
Thanks for understanding all!

Well, if you look at it from the other side, games that are lower cost or freely available are open to a much larger global audience. I love stoking those flames! A lot of what I do is Cepheus Engine, a legal clone of Mongoose Traveller. On DriveThru it's Pay what you want, I think, and freely redistributable.

Are you sure a Pay What You Want is freely redistributable? Be careful, just because you can choose to pay $0.00 for something doesn't mean they producer doesn't want everyone who wants a copy to also come "buy" it for $0.00 so they know how many folks have expressed an interest.

On another hand, folks have pointed out that sharing a digital copy of a book with current players of one's online game is more akin to sharing a physical copy of a book around a game table. It's tricky in that:

1. More than one person can take the book home for the week and read it at home.

2. A player might keep the book past the time they are part of the playgroup.

3. Fewer people will buy their own copy because passing the book around is a pain.

I encourage my players to purchase the books for the games I run. Fortunately they are all available for reasonable cost (though 1977 Classic Traveller is ONLY available via the CD-ROM for $35):

OD&D $10
Starter Traveller Free
Deluxe Traveller $20
The Traveller Book $20
RuneQuest 1st ed $10
Cults of Prax $13

ffilz wrote:Are you sure a Pay What You Want is freely redistributable? Be careful, just because you can choose to pay $0.00 for something doesn't mean they producer doesn't want everyone who wants a copy to also come "buy" it for $0.00 so they know how many folks have expressed an interest.

Yup. You can even get the DOCX version, edit it, and give it away as well. It is open gaming content, except for the name, and the publishing press logo.

ffilz wrote:Are you sure a Pay What You Want is freely redistributable? Be careful, just because you can choose to pay $0.00 for something doesn't mean they producer doesn't want everyone who wants a copy to also come "buy" it for $0.00 so they know how many folks have expressed an interest.

Not to continue to belabor this topic, but if a book is listed as "pay what you want" on any of the various sale sites, it can ultimately be had by all players for free. Even if, ideally, each player should go and download their own copy (compensating the creator if at all possible). I don't know -- legally speaking -- if a person is sidestepping the law if they share a copy of a freely acquired item, but maybe?

That is not the type of scenario Rule #4 is in place to address.

This is THE point:

• If the product has a copyright, it's protected. Don't share it.
  
  Unless the product has been created under a license that allows for it to be shared (e.g. Open Game License), or the product is part of the public domain, it should not be shared.

I know D&D, so I will stick with it as my example. Consider the Player's Handbook. Any edition. I'm sure "free" PDFs of it can be found from any number of sites.

Should they be? No. If you absolutely need a copy of something, buy it. Or, guess what, don't use it.


The illegal distribution of copywritten works is what we are policing here. If the content should not be shared, don't share it. It's really not that complicated. This includes the sharing of links or website URLs where illegal copies of copywritten content can be found.

Just don't do it.

And, if you're not sure whether something can/should be shared.

Just don't.

Or ask first.

There's the saying: "It's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission."

Maybe? But, you need to ask yourself much you enjoy this site. Knowingly disregarding the rules -- or even the spirit of the rules -- is not recommended.

While I agree that copyrighted content should not be shared on this forum, this is entirely off topic here. We're hogging the spotlight from the people trying to start a game.

This whole discussion might be worth splitting off into another thread somewhere. I'm tempted to jump in with a lawyer's persepctive, but I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Copied to first post in topic.

Zhym wrote:This whole discussion might be worth splitting off into another thread somewhere.

Done.

• Rule #4: Copywritten Material

I will be moving the posts off-topic posts from here to there shortly.

Zhym wrote:I'm tempted to jump in with a lawyer's persepctive, but I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Have at it, Zhym. It'll be useful for your perspective on this topic.

I will also be moving (or copying?) the posts you made in the OOC topic in my game, about the Purple Worm website.

So many thoughts, so little time today to type them.

But first, a disclaimer: this is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. Do not rely on anything I say here.

Generally speaking, I don't see linking to copyrighted materials as a big legal risk. Courts have generally said that merely pointing out the location of pirated material isn't a copyright violation (though I haven't researched this point lately and could be wrong). And to the extent that it would be a risk, it could be mitigated relatively easily by adding a link somewhere on the forums telling aggreived copyright holders where to send their DMCA takedown requests (it's a little more complicated than that, but basically, if you go through a few hoops that lets copyright holders send takedown requests, you're pretty much immune to copyright claims based on what users post).

That's not to say that the admins can't or shouldn't say that links to pirated material aren't welcome for reasons other than potential liability.

I do think that "sharing copyrighted material" is a spectrum. All these are ways of pointing someone to a set of pirated rules:

1. Uploading the PDF
2. Posting a link directly to the PDF
3. Saying that the rules can be found on <name of site here>
4. Pointing out that <name of site here> has lots of copies of old games that one can download for free, should one be inclined
5. Saying that one could probably find the rules with a quick Google search
6. Observing generally that Google is a useful resource

The result in each case is basically the same—it's just a question of how much winking, nudging, and indirect reference is involved. That's not to say that people should be trying to find loopholes around Rule 4, of course. But I do think there's a fair question as to exactly what's forbidden in the spectrum listed above.

Also, I tend to be less in the "all copyright violations are bad!" camp than most, partly because copyright law is so complex and encompassing that many people violate copyright law without even knowing it. That includes the Unseen Servant forums. How many times have players or DMs on here found pictures on the internet then either copied those pictures here or embedded them in links? Unless those pictures were posted under the Creative Commons license or something like it, odds are very good that each of those infringes someone's copyright.

Another problem with copyright law is that the term of protection vastly outlives the usefulness or commercial availability of the material. If something is available on drivethrurpg, for example, then by all means, it should be purchased there, not downloaded from sketchypdfs.biz. But what if people want to play an abandoned game—one that was published by a now-defunct company and is not sold anymore? Is it morally wrong to grab a copy of that off the Internet, if someone with an old copy scanned it in? I don't think so, personally. Copyright law is meant to add to the body of creative work, not subtract. In this example, no one is left to complain about the copyright being violated. But I think the larger point stands even if the game technically belongs to a company that no longer sells it. If you can't buy it legitimately, I don't feel bad about getting a pirated copy. (See also: "abandonware" games.)

On whether "pay what you want" means "freely distributable": not necessarily, but it might. It's two different things that might happen at the same time. Pay-what-you-want means just that: I'll sell it to you for whatever you'll pay, even if that price is $0.00. But maybe I really want you to get it from me, not someone else. Maybe what's important to me is knowing how many people got a copy of my game. Or maybe I'm willing to sell it to you for free, if you tell me that's what you think it's worth, but I'm not so happy about someone putting it online where anyone can download it for free without even having to take a moment to decide what they think it's worth. Just asking "what is this worth to you?" is psycologically powerful: the fact that anyone ever makes money from something that's "pay want you want" is proof of that. Redistributing "pay what you want" material can cut into profits and is a copyright violation—unless the author also says, "and redistribute it however you like."

Then there are questions of whether you're allowed to change what you got, or build your own things based on it, or sell it (even if you got it for free). Like I said—copyright is complicated. It involves a whole bunch of different rights: not just copying, but distribution, performance, etc. A copyright owner can grant people permission to do one thing (e.g., make a copy) but not another (redistribute that copy).

Which brings me around to the Purple Worm thing. I think that's a clear violation of WOTC's copyright, despite their handwaving in the direction of the first-sale doctrine. But WOTC hasn't complained about it, and Purple Worm has at least made a claim that their use is permitted—specious though I may find it. So does posting a link to the Purple Worm 2e site violate Rule 4? Does mentioning that the site exists violate Rule 4?

Zhym wrote:Generally speaking, I don't see linking to copyrighted materials as a big legal risk. Courts have generally said that merely pointing out the location of pirated material isn't a copyright violation (though I haven't researched this point lately and could be wrong).

I think that pointing someone to illegal material makes it reasonable to assume that either the 'pointer' or the 'pointee' posess said illegal material.

Zhym wrote:I do think that "sharing copyrighted material" is a spectrum. All these are ways of pointing someone to a set of pirated rules:

1. Uploading the PDF
2. Posting a link directly to the PDF
3. Saying that the rules can be found on <name of site here>
4. Pointing out that <name of site here> has lots of copies of old games that one can download for free, should one be inclined

This is where I'd draw the line. Telling someone that 'illegal sources exist' is not specific enough.

I purchase stuff that I have "previewed" and actually played.

Zhym wrote:But first, a disclaimer: this is not legal advice.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Zhym wrote:Generally speaking, I don't see linking to copyrighted materials as a big legal risk... That's not to say that the admins can't or shouldn't say that links to pirated material aren't welcome for reasons other than potential liability.

Despite it not being a "big legal risk," it was decided that pirated material is not to be shared, or linked to. That a rule was put in place to explicitly forbid it should be enough.

Zhym wrote:I do think that "sharing copyrighted material" is a spectrum. All these are ways of pointing someone to a set of pirated rules:

1. Posting a link directly to the PDF
2. Saying that the rules can be found on <name of site here>
3. Pointing out that <name of site here> has lots of copies of old games that one can download for free, should one be inclined
4. Saying that one could probably find the rules with a quick Google search
5. Observing generally that Google is a useful resource

The result in each case is basically the same—it's just a question of how much winking, nudging, and indirect reference is involved. That's not to say that people should be trying to find loopholes around Rule 4, of course. But I do think there's a fair question as to exactly what's forbidden in the spectrum listed above.

Perhaps the subject can be revisited (again), but the admins discussed this just yesterday and Greg decided simply revising the order of the existing rule (to move the point about pirated material to the front) was enough.

While lacking specifics, it is pretty clear:

"No posting links to copyrighted documents (e.g. scanned rule books), not-free software, etc. "

But...

Zhym wrote:Which brings me around to the Purple Worm thing. I think that's a clear violation of WOTC's copyright, despite their handwaving in the direction of the first-sale doctrine. But WOTC hasn't complained about it, and Purple Worm has at least made a claim that their use is permitted—specious though I may find it. So does posting a link to the Purple Worm 2e site violate Rule 4? Does mentioning that the site exists violate Rule 4?

This is just me speaking, but I think the Purple Worm website is a unique exception, and not in violation of Rule #4. (And I'm not just saying that because I use it -- for convenience; I legally own the PDFs of almost everything on that site anyway.) Whether the above claim is valid, or a violation, they're at least presenting a legal justification for presenting the information they are. And the site has been around for YEARS and hasn't been challenged... yet. The whole "No posting links to copyrighted documents" is more geared towards repository or torrent sites (like the one mentioned) where it's just a mass collection of illegally uploaded content.

Zhym wrote:How many times have players or DMs on here found pictures on the internet then either copied those pictures here or embedded them in links? Unless those pictures were posted under the Creative Commons license or something like it, odds are very good that each of those infringes someone's copyright.

Guilty.

Zhym wrote:If something is available on druvethrurpg, for example, then by all means, it should be purchased there, not downloaded from sketchypdfs.biz.

Exactly.

Zhym wrote:But what if people want to play an abandoned game—one that was published by a now-defunct company and is not sold anymore? Is it morally wrong to grab a copy of that off the Internet, if someone with an old copy scanned it in?

That is a bit of a gray area, but it is without question less offensive than your previous example, where the illegal title being shared is currently available for sale on an official site.



Thanks for your insight, man. Vey helpful, and much appreciated.

Zhym wrote:But what if people want to play an abandoned game—one that was published by a now-defunct company and is not sold anymore? Is it morally wrong to grab a copy of that off the Internet, if someone with an old copy scanned it in?

I'm gonna come at this from a different angle. I am an avid bootleg concert collector. I've got probably a couple thousand concerts. The website I downloaded the vast majority of these from has a clear policy regarding this. In order to protect themselves, they only allow Recordings of Independent Origins (RoIOs, their term for bootleg, as that has a negative connotation) of shows that have never been sold by the artist/ record company in any form (There are companies that will take someone else's recording, burn it to disc, and then sell them. None of that money goes to the band or the record label they are under contract with. Those are allowed on the site as they are not official releases). So if I record Artist A performing live I can upload to the torrent sharing site, but if next week the band announces they recorded the show I taped and are going to be releasing it as a live album, that show is immediately banned. If they eventually release an album and only one song from that show is released on the album, a recording that does not include that song will be allowed, but that particular song is not. Now, that is pretty easy when it is a major release, but the same goes for limited releases. If a band puts up a show that is available only to paid members of their fan club, it would not be allowed because you had to pay the band to become a member in order to get that show. If a band released a special, limited edition of just five copies for sale in 1979, and that was the only way to ever purchase that show, it would be banned because it had been for sale at some point in time. There are a few exceptions to that, as there have been a few bands in history (Grateful Dead among others) that allowed open taping and sharing of those tapes, even if they released a live version of that concert, but that needs to be spelled out explicitly by the band. I realize that the book industry is not nearly as aggressive as the music industry when it comes to stopping the spread of pirated works, but the concept is pretty similar. Having said that, I agree that no harm is being done to copyright holders if I find a copy online of a book that is not available for sale anymore, other than potentially at a used book store.

Anyway, it's late and I'm tired, so this may not make as much sense to you as it did to me when I started typing.

Followup question: many videogames and tv series have fan made wikis to organize the available info. They are full of copyrighted material like graphics and quotes. Those are illegal too, correct?

Lance wrote:...fan made wikis...

I'm won't admit to knowing how wikis work.

I did find these that might help:

• Linking to copyrighted works
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations
  
  Let's all remember, Rule #4 is primarily in place to prevent people from uploading attachments of illegally downloaded PDFs (e.g. rulebooks) or posting links to websites where it's obvious their purpose is to host these PDFs.

Lance wrote:Followup question: many videogames and tv series have fan made wikis to organize the available info. They are full of copyrighted material like graphics and quotes. Those are illegal too, correct?

Maybe; maybe not. They use copyrighted material and probably count as "derivative works." But they may be fair use. Fair use is kind of complicated, but basically, if you only use a small part of the copyrighted material and your use doesn't hurt the market for the original material, your odds are better of it being fair use. The nature of the material copied (e.g., facts versus fiction) also matters. So does the purpose of the copying—i.e., is the copier creating something new with the material, like a parody?

In practice, a lot of copyright holders either abide or actively encourage fan sites because it's not a good look to squash fan enthusiasm. Fanfic is a similar category—lots of authors at least tolerate fanfic; a few don't. The ones who forbid fanfic don't like having other people messing with their characters and worlds.

I have a related question. For this Casket Lands forum I am trying to set up I am linking to a rule set that has been made available for a free download on a creator's site. Can images of their work be clipped and posted into the forum with a clear credit and source link?

I recreated the cover art with alterations for the looking for interest post but am murky on the details of sharing their images.

Samwell Turleton wrote:I have a related question. For this Casket Lands forum I am trying to set up I am linking to a rule set that has been made available for a free download on a creator's site. Can images of their work be clipped and posted into the forum with a clear credit and source link?

I recreated the cover art with alterations for the looking for interest post but am murky on the details of sharing their images.

It sounds like this is on the level. If the creator makes the content available for free, there isn't really a concern there. The art should be fine, too. It isn't policed nearly as much as it probably should, but users pull character portraits from all sorts of sites without attribution.