RPG Gallery - 2600 images!
jma...@my-deja.com
are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
sorted into categories. Come take a look!
Enjoy!
James
-=+ RPG Host Network +=-
http://www.RPGGateway.com 3,300 RPG Links
http://www.RPGGallery.com 2,300 RPG Images
http://www.RPGHost.com 1,000 Maps & Adventures
http://www.RPGSheets.com 700 Character Sheets
http://www.WebRPG.com 500 RPG Forums
http://www.SavedGame.com 400 Game Saves & Trainers
http://www.RPGSurvey.com 350 Funny Surveys
http://www.RPGShop.com 100 RPG Reviews
http://www.RPGTopSites.com 50 Top Site Contests
http://www.RPGStory.com 25 Interactive Stories
http://www.PCGameWatch.com Sneak Previews
http://www.FantasyGladiators.com Overworked Developers
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
lizard
>
> The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
> are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
> sorted into categories. Come take a look!
>
Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
holders to display those images?
Terry Austin
"lizard" <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
Do you see any reason to assume otherwise? Or are you merely
exercising your knee?
Terry Austin
Harbinger
Who truly cares? No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
envious as to make one vomit blood.
He Who Doesn't Sleep enjoys fodder such as yourself however.
lizard
Knee exercise is always a good thing. Hell, these days, it's the only
exercise I get. But the lack of artist credits on several of the images
I checked is at least a yellow alert. Very few artists will forego
credit. (I did not, of course, check all 2600 images!) I also can't find
prints of the images for sale in their online catalog. This proves
nothing, but it's a hint.
Now, it is certainly possible that dozens of highly-respected artists
who earn their living selling usage rights to their art (you'll
recognize many of the images from SF paperbacks and game covers) will
grant rights to display high-quality scans of their art without any
credits, links to their web pages, or opportunities to buy prints of
these images. The *probability* of this is left as an exercise for the
reader.
The careless use of images on the net is one of my major irk-points.
It's disrespectful to the artist. And it makes a web site look cheap and
tacky. "Look at my k3wl D&D site with the 57 Elmore paintings I scanned
from module covers!"
Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one. We need to
start looking at people who disrespect artists, writers, and musicians
the way we look at people who fart in elevators or drool on themselves
or play their boom-boxes loudly on busses -- as social pariahs, not as
'cool guys'.
There's a lot of talented artists looking for work, even if the only
payment is a prominent credit. And there's a lot of web sites that would
benefit from original art. I don't see why it's so hard to get them
together.
Scott Zrubek
benedi...@yahoo.com says...
> lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
> news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
> > jma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
> > > are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
> > > sorted into categories. Come take a look!
> > >
> >
> > Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
> > holders to display those images?
>
> Who truly cares? No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
> envious as to make one vomit blood.
>
Your ability to read envy from a post of 16 words and guttural syllable
is impressive. I quiver in fear as to what you'll read into this post of
31 words.
> He Who Doesn't Sleep enjoys fodder such as yourself however.
>
>
>
--
Scott Zrubek
Spring 2000 in Australia http://www.itmm.com/australia
Zelazny & Amber: http://www.roger-zelazny.com
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin wrote:
> >
> > "lizard" <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
> > > jma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the
fine
> > > > are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600
images
> > > > sorted into categories. Come take a look!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
> > > holders to display those images?
> >
> > Do you see any reason to assume otherwise? Or are you merely
> > exercising your knee?
>
> Knee exercise is always a good thing.
I dunno about that. Jerking that hard, you might pull a muscle or
something.
> Hell, these days, it's the only
> exercise I get. But the lack of artist credits on several of the images
> I checked is at least a yellow alert. Very few artists will forego
> credit. (I did not, of course, check all 2600 images!) I also can't find
> prints of the images for sale in their online catalog. This proves
> nothing, but it's a hint.
Possibly.
>
> Now, it is certainly possible that dozens of highly-respected artists
> who earn their living selling usage rights to their art (you'll
> recognize many of the images from SF paperbacks and game covers) will
> grant rights to display high-quality scans of their art without any
> credits, links to their web pages, or opportunities to buy prints of
> these images. The *probability* of this is left as an exercise for the
> reader.
Or, perhaps, an excercise in email, of you geniunely care.
>
> The careless use of images on the net is one of my major irk-points.
You must have very buff knees.
> It's disrespectful to the artist.
As well as illegal.
>And it makes a web site look cheap and
> tacky.
Appropriate, since the web *is* cheap and tacky.
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.html
(Note that, while the article is a cheap and tacky - and
very, very masterful - piece of satire, the trademark
they refer to is quite real -
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75502288 )
>"Look at my k3wl D&D site with the 57 Elmore paintings I scanned
> from module covers!"
2600 is a lot of scanning. I wonder if it's mere coincidence
that 2600 is the same number as 2600.com, who are currently
embroiled in multiple lawsuits over DeCSS, to play DVD
movies on "unapproved" players (like Linux).
>
> Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
> needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one.
I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
>We need to
> start looking at people who disrespect artists, writers, and musicians
> the way we look at people who fart in elevators or drool on themselves
> or play their boom-boxes loudly on busses -- as social pariahs, not as
> 'cool guys'.
Or as the mentally incompetent who can't help themselves. Good
point, though.
>
> There's a lot of talented artists looking for work, even if the only
> payment is a prominent credit. And there's a lot of web sites that would
> benefit from original art. I don't see why it's so hard to get them
> together.
Perhaps someone has. Perhaps not. Regardless of how buff
your knees are, you have demonstrated at least good reason
for suspicion, anyway.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Harbinger" <benedi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xDkc6.1054$gQ5.2...@news.uswest.net...
> lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
> news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
> > jma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the
fine
> > > are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600
images
> > > sorted into categories. Come take a look!
> > >
> >
> > Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
> > holders to display those images?
>
> Who truly cares?
People who respect the rights and property of others. Thieves, of course
will feel differently.
> No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
> envious as to make one vomit blood.
Expecially thieves.
>
> He Who Doesn't Sleep enjoys fodder such as yourself however.
>
Heh. You're gonna be *fun*. Now bend over...
Terry Austin
lizard
This post hasn't yet appeared on my server, though the replies have.
Replying by proxy, then...
> In article <xDkc6.1054$gQ5.2...@news.uswest.net>,
> benedi...@yahoo.com says...
> > Who truly cares?
Anyone who is an creator, or who respects/admires creators. This is most
of the gaming population. There are, of course, always those who will
take without giving back, even if the only coin respected is simple
respect.
> >No one enjoys a netcop wannabe,
Indeed. And I have no interest in being a netcop. I am interested,
however, in making people aware that there is an ethical and social
dimension to their actions. As I said in another post, this is a
cultural war, not a legal one. The first step to winning it is to stand
up and say:"What you are doing is WRONG. Please stop."
Generally speaking, social disapproval, especially in small subcultures
like gaming, is many times more effective than cops&guns.
> > let alone one so obviously
> > envious as to make one vomit blood.
I'm rather curious what I'm supposed to be envious OF? A web site?
> > He Who Doesn't Sleep enjoys fodder such as yourself however.
Assuming He Who Doesn't Sleep is any of my cats, you're quite correct.
All of them seem to think 3:00 AM is "Bite daddy's nose" time.
Karen J. Cravens
<94spj...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>
>"Harbinger" <benedi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:xDkc6.1054$gQ5.2...@news.uswest.net...
>> lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
>> > jma...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the
>fine
>> > > are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600
>images
>> > > sorted into categories. Come take a look!
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
>> > holders to display those images?
>>
>> Who truly cares?
>
>People who respect the rights and property of others. Thieves, of course
>will feel differently.
Considering that the very first page I looked at had an uncredited Michael
Whelan pic on it, and Whelan is notably aggressive about web piracy, I feel
comfortable in saying Whelan cares, and Mr. Mathe will care very, very
soon.
--
Karen Cravens (sil...@phoenyx.net)
Phoenyx Internet Roleplaying - http://www.phoenyx.net/
Karen J. Cravens
>The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
>are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
>sorted into categories. Come take a look!
But before he finished typing his message, 300 images had disappeared... :}
>http://www.RPGGallery.com 2,300 RPG Images
Otis Viles
wrote:
>2600 is a lot of scanning. I wonder if it's mere coincidence
>that 2600 is the same number as 2600.com, who are currently
>embroiled in multiple lawsuits over DeCSS, to play DVD
>movies on "unapproved" players (like Linux).
It could also be a plot from Atari...
--
Otis Viles: Mudder, RPGer, KMFDM fan, Internet Oracle Priest
dr...@speakeasy.org, http://www.daestroke.com/cierhart/
dr...@daestroke.com, http://stormclouds.daestroke.com/
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
Samy Merchi
> There's a lot of talented artists looking for work
Yes.
> even if the only payment is a prominent credit.
I doubt it.
Putting money where my mouth is, I'll put up prominent credit to any
artist who donates a piece of art to my webpage.
I'm holding my breath. Really.
--
Samy Merchi | <sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi> | http://mash.yok.utu.fi/
"One false move, wizard, and your familiar gets it!"
-- DMG1
Rob Kelk
I've found that, more often than not, it's safe to assume permission has
*not* been given for images to be displayed on the Internet. It's part
of the territory, unfortuantely.
The more important question is, "Do the copyright holders care?"
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't...
--
Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Lizard
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of talented artists looking for work
>
>Yes.
>
>> even if the only payment is a prominent credit.
>
>I doubt it.
>
>Putting money where my mouth is, I'll put up prominent credit to any
>artist who donates a piece of art to my webpage.
>
Well, I'm not an artist, but I *am* a writer. And I've done editorial
work for a political group for free, because I wanted to have some
clippings, professionally published, to use when I started knocking on
doors for money. I've also written some stuff for gaming magazines for
merchandise compensation, again because I need to be able to say
"Published Author" when I start submitting proposals for paying gigs.
Maybe things are different for artist types.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Armin D. Sykes
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of talented artists looking for work
>
>Yes.
>
>> even if the only payment is a prominent credit.
>
>I doubt it.
>
>Putting money where my mouth is, I'll put up prominent credit to any
>artist who donates a piece of art to my webpage.
>
>I'm holding my breath. Really.
I'm not an artist, but I *do* have a gallery section on my web site,
which I include for pictures targeted at users of my GCA program. I
have not paid for any of that work, but I do have permission from
*all* of the artists to post their work there (and I post prominent
credit, and a copyright notice). In fact, it was all contributed by
them directly, except for the SJGames section, for use on the gallery.
That includes some artists who do professional work, who have pictures
there (I'm guessing) as an additional point of contact for catching
the attention of more people.
It does happen. It just isn't likely to happen with the likes of Royo,
Boris, or Easley, each of which currently has copies of their work
appearing in the gallery that is the original subject of this thread.
I suspect that permission was not gained for those works.
Armin
------------------------------------------------------------
Armin D. Sykes, Miser Software
GURPS Character Assistant: http://www.misersoft.com/gca/
Master Mastery: http://www.misersoft.com/games/mastery/
Doug Berry
jma...@my-deja.com, wrote thusly:
>The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
>are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
>sorted into categories. Come take a look!
>
> http://www.rpggallery.com
I found a copuple of pieces done by a friend of mine, who did not
grant them permission.
In addition, I noticed several well-known book covers in the SF
section. Me thinks that piracy is to mild a word here.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
Author of GURPS Traveller: Ground Forces
Otis Viles
wrote:
>I found a copuple of pieces done by a friend of mine, who did not
>grant them permission.
>
>In addition, I noticed several well-known book covers in the SF
>section. Me thinks that piracy is to mild a word here.
Well, I've already sent the URL for the site and for a few samples
to le...@wizards.com; many of those pics are either owned by WotC /or/
they know how to contact the artists who do own the pics.
Flames, especially "how dare you play netcop!", will be ignored.
Rob Kelk
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:03:47 -0800, Doug Berry <grid...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>>I found a copuple of pieces done by a friend of mine, who did not
>>grant them permission.
>>
>>In addition, I noticed several well-known book covers in the SF
>>section. Me thinks that piracy is to mild a word here.
>
>Well, I've already sent the URL for the site and for a few samples
>to le...@wizards.com; many of those pics are either owned by WotC /or/
>they know how to contact the artists who do own the pics.
>
>Flames, especially "how dare you play netcop!", will be ignored.
'Sallright - IMHO, it's usually better to play net-cop than to involve
the real ones.
Karen J. Cravens
<3a73579f...@news.speakeasy.org>:
>Well, I've already sent the URL for the site and for a few samples
>to le...@wizards.com; many of those pics are either owned by WotC /or/
>they know how to contact the artists who do own the pics.
>
>Flames, especially "how dare you play netcop!", will be ignored.
Amateur. :} A real netcop would have emailed all the advertisers from the
banner ads. "Say, did you know your ad is showing up on a pirate site?"
(Wizards will probably have to take a number, and if there's anything left
after the owner of the stolen graphic at the top of the page gets done with
him, *then* they can have him...)
Bryan J. Maloney
<dq667tkub41herk1e...@4ax.com>:
>And lo, it came to pass on Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:56:28 GMT that
>jma...@my-deja.com, wrote thusly:
>
>>The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
>>are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
>>sorted into categories. Come take a look!
>>
>> http://www.rpggallery.com
>
>I found a copuple of pieces done by a friend of mine, who did not
>grant them permission.
>
>In addition, I noticed several well-known book covers in the SF
>section. Me thinks that piracy is to mild a word here.
The material on this site has been quite obviously stolen by dishonest pigs
without a shred of honor.
Kevin Cowley
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> > Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
> > needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one.
>
> I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
> law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
>
is that because copyright is not implemented at a global level, people think
they can break copyright with impunity. This does not invalidate the concept
merely demonstate that something needs to be done about it.
From making copy right a social/cultural issue it will be possible to
implement legal sanctions against those who choose to break the moral/social
code. Until all cultures respect copyright the legal system will continue to
be impotent.
Lizard
wrote:
>In article <94sph...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Terry Austin"
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> > Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
>> > needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one.
>>
>> I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
>> law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
>>
>Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete.
It has, however, made enforcement obsolete -- at least if we want any
rights at all. There's always a balance between liberty and security.
The law-enforcement mechanisms needed to enforce copyright EFFECTIVELY
on the internet would require so many assaults on rights of speech,
privacy, due process, etc, that most people would say the tradeoff
isn't worth it. Creative works from Homer to Chaucer to Shakespeare
WERE produced sans copyright laws -- the collapse of copyright would
NOT mean a cultural void.
Terry Austin
>In article <94sph...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Terry Austin"
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> > Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
>> > needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one.
>>
>> I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
>> law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
>>
>Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete. The current state of affairs
>is that because copyright is not implemented at a global level, people think
>they can break copyright with impunity. This does not invalidate the concept
>merely demonstate that something needs to be done about it.
You're an idiot. Electronic material is simply too easy to copy. The only
way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
works, either.
>
>From making copy right a social/cultural issue it will be possible to
>implement legal sanctions against those who choose to break the moral/social
>code. Until all cultures respect copyright the legal system will continue to
>be impotent.
>
And when all cultures do respect it, the legal system will be irrelevant. So
take your fascist, world government fantasies into the closet and don't come
back till your calm.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
If you don't use both your left brain and right brain,
you've basically just got half a brain.
-John Rudd
Paul Will
>> http://www.rpggallery.com
Is this indicative of the kind of thing one generally finds on
RPG_fill-in-the-blank.com? Surely that large a group would know
better than to infringe on IP like that ... unless I'm just
underinformed and this is their modus operandi.
cool game-generic resources
FUDGE rules found here (customized)
http://hexalon.com
Tim Pollard
news:05597t8mvquusee6q...@4ax.com...
> Kevin Cowley <ke...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete. The current state of
affairs
> >is that because copyright is not implemented at a global level, people
think
> >they can break copyright with impunity. This does not invalidate the
concept
> >merely demonstate that something needs to be done about it.
>
> You're an idiot. Electronic material is simply too easy to copy. The only
> way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
> middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
> the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
> works, either.
Hey, chill, and quit calling the guy names because you don't agree with
him - if anyone's confused, it's you, because you either accidentally or
deliberately misread his post. Sure, electronic material is easy to copy,
but that doesn't make copyright infringement any less illegal. If murder was
easier, would you call him an idiot because he pointed out it was still
against the law?
> >From making copy right a social/cultural issue it will be possible to
> >implement legal sanctions against those who choose to break the
moral/social
> >code. Until all cultures respect copyright the legal system will continue
to
> >be impotent.
> >
> And when all cultures do respect it, the legal system will be irrelevant.
So
> take your fascist, world government fantasies into the closet and don't
come
> back till your calm.
That's just paranoid gibberish. Plus, if you truly believed it, I presume
you wouldn't object if anyone ripped off your website/store (curious you
haven't just posted the e-books you're selling for free download, isn't
it...)?
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
www.timpollard.com
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it
made..."
--- Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
Rick Pikul
> news:3A71BF04...@mrlizard.com...
> > jma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
> > > are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
> > > sorted into categories. Come take a look!
> > >
> >
> > Hrm. I am assuming, of course, you have permission from the copyright
> > holders to display those images?
>
> Who truly cares? No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
> envious as to make one vomit blood.
People who cry netcop are the same kind of person who whines that
the cop should go after real criminals after having been stopped for
weaving through traffic at 150km/h.
--
Phoenix
Terry Austin
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>news:05597t8mvquusee6q...@4ax.com...
>> Kevin Cowley <ke...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete. The current state of
>affairs
>> >is that because copyright is not implemented at a global level, people
>think
>> >they can break copyright with impunity. This does not invalidate the
>concept
>> >merely demonstate that something needs to be done about it.
>>
>> You're an idiot. Electronic material is simply too easy to copy. The only
>> way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
>> middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
>> the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
>> works, either.
>
>Hey, chill, and quit calling the guy names because you don't agree with
>him - if anyone's confused, it's you, because you either accidentally or
>deliberately misread his post. Sure, electronic material is easy to copy,
>but that doesn't make copyright infringement any less illegal. If murder was
>easier, would you call him an idiot because he pointed out it was still
>against the law?
When laws become impossible to enforce, they are not longer laws. Copyright
laws are now impossible to enforce. Go to a good search engine and do a
search on "DeCSS" and report back.
This is all self evidence to anyone with the IQ of a rutabaga. You're as
stupid as he is.
>
>
>> >From making copy right a social/cultural issue it will be possible to
>> >implement legal sanctions against those who choose to break the
>moral/social
>> >code. Until all cultures respect copyright the legal system will continue
>to
>> >be impotent.
>> >
>> And when all cultures do respect it, the legal system will be irrelevant.
>So
>> take your fascist, world government fantasies into the closet and don't
>come
>> back till your calm.
>
>That's just paranoid gibberish.
No, that's ad hominem. You're an idiot, so you can't tell the difference.
> Plus, if you truly believed it, I presume
>you wouldn't object if anyone ripped off your website/store
I wouldn't sue anyone. Fortunately, by and large, the sort of folks who
would steal such stuff seem to be rather put off by my willingness to
publicly call them thieves, as it hasn't happened much. By and large, people
are, in fact, fairly honest unless they have reason no to be. 'Tard boy,
with his fascist spewing about New World Order governments, is a reason not
to be. Him, and 'tards like you who agree with him, are part of the problem.
>(curious you
>haven't just posted the e-books you're selling for free download, isn't
>it...)?
There's a few free samples. Since I am merely a reseller, and don't have
permission to post anything else, I decline to be dishonest, illegally or
otherwise.
Curious how you see dishonesty in everyone else. Is that a sign of what you
see in yourself?
Lizard
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>No, that's ad hominem. You're an idiot, so you can't tell the difference.
Terry, there's a sig quote if I ever saw one....
Karen J. Cravens
<3a74a3f5....@news.svol.net>:
>Is this indicative of the kind of thing one generally finds on
>RPG_fill-in-the-blank.com? Surely that large a group would know
>better than to infringe on IP like that ... unless I'm just
>underinformed and this is their modus operandi.
It does kind of make you wonder if the rest of the graphics on their site
are pirated.
Okay, no, it doesn't make *me* wonder. It make me *sure*.
Tim Pollard
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote more pointless shite in
message news:a7h97t431npcmllcn...@4ax.com...
> When laws become impossible to enforce, they are not longer laws.
Bollocks. That's a non sequiteur.
> This is all self evidence to anyone with the IQ of a rutabaga. You're as
> stupid as he is.
I'll take that as a compliment. As long as we're not as stupid as you are,
we'll be fine.
> >That's just paranoid gibberish.
>
> No, that's ad hominem. You're an idiot, so you can't tell the difference.
Nope, it's *still* pointless, reactionary gibberish.
> There's a few free samples. Since I am merely a reseller
Surely not? And you seem so creative too, especially with irritating facts
(like international law).
> I decline to be dishonest, illegally or
> otherwise.
Good job it's not dishonest to be an arse then.
> Curious how you see dishonesty in everyone else. Is that a sign of what
you
> see in yourself?
Damn, got me with the clever argument. It certainly proves all of your other
points.
Still, as I feel it'd be unfair to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed
man, I concede. You're right, national and international laws count for
nothing and I'm a retarded criminal. Enjoy.
David Alex Lamb
Tim Pollard <timpo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote more pointless shite in
>message news:a7h97t431npcmllcn...@4ax.com...
>
>> When laws become impossible to enforce, they are not longer laws.
>
>Bollocks. That's a non sequiteur.
>
Terry exagerrates, but his basic premise seems about right to me. With
copying technology in the hands of the average public, copyright violations by
average folks are next to impossible to prosecute; occasionally an
organization of modest size, like a church, gets dinged, but rarely. The RPG
gallery is visible enough to get hit, for now, but perhaps not for too many
more years.
Back to gaming: I've heard that some companies expect to have to make most of
their profit from the first 90 days of sales of game books -- that illegal
copying cuts off the market before saturation does. Anybody have any hard
numbers? My memory is from a conversation with a former TSR employee around
1990; I'd expect things are worse now.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
Robert A. Uhl
>
> People who cry netcop are the same kind of person who whines that
> the cop should go after real criminals after having been stopped for
> weaving through traffic at 150km/h.
Been there, done that, hurt no-one. 90 mph ain't that fast, really,
esp. not between Wichita Falls and Amarillo. Real criminals hurt
people. Faux criminals might possibly have hurt people, but they
didn't.
OTOH, this site is in poor taste--why take folks' work without credit?
It's not right. Who cares about legality--it's Right and Wrong which
matter. It's wrong not to attribute work.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Drawing on my extensive covert operations training I curled up into a
foetal postion and whimpered.
Håvard Rønne Faanes
[Someone whose name i accidentally deleted]:
>> Who truly cares?
>
>People who respect the rights and property of others. Thieves, of course
>will feel differently.
>> No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
>> envious as to make one vomit blood.
>
>Expecially thieves.
I thought that at least among the gaming community, thieves would be more
respected than this. Thieves are a useful character class, and they don't
just steal stuff, they can come in handy when you need a door opened or a
trap removed. Oh, they are called Rogues now? Well, don't pick on em
anyway. Thieves dont no anything about webdesign (according to the Players
Handbook anyway), so they are clearly not to blame for this site. :)
Peace,
Håvard
--
Haavard R. Faanes (h...@nvg.ntnu.no)
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc
"God created man in his image, and then man returned the
favour." -Voltaire
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <94sph...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Terry Austin"
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> > Nonetheless, I'm not going to call the Art Police. I think copyright
>> > needs to move from a legal issue to a social/cultural one.
>>
>> I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
>> law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
>>
>Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete. The current state of affairs
>is that because copyright is not implemented at a global level,
Excuse me? Have you never heard of the Berne Convention? (I will admit
that there are an extremely small number of countries that have not yet
signed that treaty, but that number appears to be shrinking.)
> people think
>they can break copyright with impunity. This does not invalidate the concept
>merely demonstate that something needs to be done about it.
>
>From making copy right a social/cultural issue it will be possible to
>implement legal sanctions against those who choose to break the moral/social
>code. Until all cultures respect copyright the legal system will continue to
>be impotent.
The flaw in your arguement is that it is *already* possible to implement
these legal sanctions, on a near-global basis. However, such action
must be initiated by the copyright holders in most juridstictions.
(Which sounds fair to me - it's their rights being violated, so they get
to protect those rights.)
Graham Wills
> >> I think it's going to, whether it needs to or not, because copyright
> >> law has been made obsolete by the 'net.
> >>
> >Wrong! The net has not made copyright obsolete.
>
> It has, however, made enforcement obsolete -- at least if we want any
> rights at all. There's always a balance between liberty and security.
> The law-enforcement mechanisms needed to enforce copyright EFFECTIVELY
> on the internet would require so many assaults on rights of speech,
> privacy, due process, etc, that most people would say the tradeoff
> isn't worth it.
Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the situation
will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
be ignored.
It doesn't sound *that* bad, does it?
> Creative works from Homer to Chaucer to Shakespeare
> WERE produced sans copyright laws -- the collapse of copyright would
> NOT mean a cultural void.
Post-revolutionary France abolished copyright. It created a cultural
void, so they re-instated it. I don't believe any other nation has
repeated the experiment (i.e. ditched an existing law against
copyright).
- Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Graham Wills
> > > let alone one so obviously
> > > envious as to make one vomit blood.
>
> I'm rather curious what I'm supposed to be envious OF? A web site?
I was curious about that, too. I think it's intended to mean
you are envious of his ability to steal images, perhaps?
I'm more interested in the thought of being envious enough to
vomit blood. I'm considering it as a new spell on the Rolemaster
Mind Erosions list:
lvl 7 Bizarre Envy
If target fails a resistance roll they will envy some
bizarre object, such as a website or the ability to
line dance. The results of failure are as follows:
Fail by < 40:
Target will attempt to satisy envy if possible
Fail by 40 - 74:
Target will immediately try to satisfy envy
Fail by 75 - 99:
Target will attempt to person of whom they are envious
Fail by 100+:
Target will vomit blood at 3 hits/round until
envy is satisfied, or target runs out of blood.
aetherson
Samy Merchi <sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi> wrote:
> In rec.games.frp.dnd lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of talented artists looking for work
>
> Yes.
>
> > even if the only payment is a prominent credit.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Putting money where my mouth is, I'll put up prominent credit to any
> artist who donates a piece of art to my webpage.
>
> I'm holding my breath. Really.
It's all about who you know. I have a number of images and graphics
from talented artists on my web page, used by permission, without
compensation except for credit.
I asked nice.
Mike (aetherson)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bryan J. Maloney
> The RPG Gallery has opened it's doors! Dedicated to displaying the fine
> are of role-playing games and general fantasy. We have over 2600 images
> sorted into categories. Come take a look!
You have been reported to those artists whose work I recognized and to
whom you gave no credit.
YMHOS.
--
For those in the know, a potrzebie is a necessity.
lizard
> Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the situation
> will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
> companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
> of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
> be ignored.
>
You mean, like the DECSS prosecution, which attempts to criminalize the
use of software to play legally-owned DVDs on your own hardware?
Or the DMCA, which effectively voids fair use by making it a felony to
break copy protection, even if you would have a legal right to copy the
information?
Karen J. Cravens
29010114...@potato.bti.cornell.edu>:
>You have been reported to those artists whose work I recognized and to
>whom you gave no credit.
I think you need to post-and-mail. You can add "hit and run newsgroup
spamming" to the list of charges.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
<gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>Lizard wrote:
>>
>> It has, however, made enforcement obsolete -- at least if we want any
>> rights at all. There's always a balance between liberty and security.
>> The law-enforcement mechanisms needed to enforce copyright EFFECTIVELY
>> on the internet would require so many assaults on rights of speech,
>> privacy, due process, etc, that most people would say the tradeoff
>> isn't worth it.
>
> Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the situation
> will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
> companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
> of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
> be ignored.
>
> It doesn't sound *that* bad, does it?
Actually, it does.
Enforcing copyrights in the pre-digital age was relatively
straightforward, because the number of potential copiers was quite
small: to copy a book in bulk took a lot of rather expensive equipment
(printing presses) and substantial amounts of expertise to operate
that equipment. In this environment, the amount of policing it takes
to nab major offenders is relatively modest, and the benefits of a
copyright regime easily exceed the costs of enforcing it.
However, digital reproduction has a near-zero marginal cost, and the
equipment to do it is ubiquitous. So -anyone- can make vast numbers of
high-quality copies at very low cost. This means that in order to
actually catch the people who make large numbers of copies, law
enforcement agencies will need sweeping powers of surveillance to find
copiers and draconian penalties to deter potential copiers. The social
costs of enforcing copyright are IMO likely to exceed the benefits.
How likely is this scenario to come to pass? From the perspective of
the legislature, there are three relevant constituencies they have to
consider: the government agencies, the copyright holders, and the
general public.
For the law enforcement agencies, a punitive copyright regime means
that they get increased budgets and authority, which means that they
will tend to lobby for increased spending on copyright prosecution.
The copyright holders have a strong financial incentive to seek
ever-increasing copyright protections, since any increase increases
the monopoly rents they can extort and the enforcement costs are borne
by the general public. Thus they have an incentive to seek
inefficiently high levels of copyright protection. As for the public,
the usual rational ignorance arguments apply: the benefits are spread
thinly and widely, so there isn't a strong incentive for members of
the general public to oppose the other two constituencies.
Looking at the historical record, I note that the term of copyrights
has -never- been decreased, and that the penalties for violating it
have increased steadily, and that any time a substantial body of
material is about to enter the public domain, Congress extends the
term of copyrights (most recently with the Bono Act of 1998). So, in
short I expect a "War on Software Pirates" as expensive, unwinnable
and immoral as the War on Drugs. Watch copyright become a "property"
right, and watch copying become a felony. Hell, we're halfway there
already, what with the the DMCA.
Neel
Terry Austin
>
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote more pointless shite in
>message news:a7h97t431npcmllcn...@4ax.com...
>
>> When laws become impossible to enforce, they are not longer laws.
>
>Bollocks. That's a non sequiteur.
Or you're an idiot. It's self evident. Indiana can pass a law saying that pi
is equal to three, but the circumference of a circle still won't be the
radius times 3. This is, BTW, part of the British common law the US legal
system is based on, and has been (repeatedly) acknowledged as TRVTH by the
US Supreme Court: "What exists in fact must exist in law." In other words,
it is binding case law throughout the US that a law that cannot be enforced
is not a law.
>
>
>> This is all self evidence to anyone with the IQ of a rutabaga. You're as
>> stupid as he is.
>
>I'll take that as a compliment. As long as we're not as stupid as you are,
>we'll be fine.
I know you are, but what am I?
>
>
>> >That's just paranoid gibberish.
>>
>> No, that's ad hominem. You're an idiot, so you can't tell the difference.
>
>Nope, it's *still* pointless, reactionary gibberish.
>
Exactly. I'm imitating you, and the upstream 'tard-ass, and doing it well.
>
>> There's a few free samples. Since I am merely a reseller
>
>Surely not? And you seem so creative too, especially with irritating facts
>(like international law).
In much the same way you're so proficient at masturbating while posting to
Usenet.
>
>
>> I decline to be dishonest, illegally or
>> otherwise.
>
>Good job it's not dishonest to be an arse then.
Indeed. Or a retard.
>
>
>> Curious how you see dishonesty in everyone else. Is that a sign of what
>you
>> see in yourself?
>
>Damn, got me with the clever argument. It certainly proves all of your other
>points.
Yes, it does. Glad you agree.
>
>Still, as I feel it'd be unfair to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed
>man, I concede.
Very nice of you, but you don't have to worry about my reputation. I paste
witless morons like you to the wall all the time. I'm well known to be an
asshole.
>You're right, national and international laws count for
>nothing and I'm a retarded criminal. Enjoy.
I didn't say you were a criminal. Crimes require intent, and you're clearly
too fucking stupid to formulate a criminal intent.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>
>[Someone whose name i accidentally deleted]:
>>> Who truly cares?
>>
>>People who respect the rights and property of others. Thieves, of course
>>will feel differently.
>
>>> No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
>>> envious as to make one vomit blood.
>>
>>Expecially thieves.
>
>I thought that at least among the gaming community, thieves would be more
>respected than this. Thieves are a useful character class, and they don't
>just steal stuff, they can come in handy when you need a door opened or a
>trap removed. Oh, they are called Rogues now? Well, don't pick on em
>anyway. Thieves dont no anything about webdesign (according to the Players
>Handbook anyway), so they are clearly not to blame for this site. :)
>
I thought Pat Pulling was dead.
It's only a _game_, dude. Really.
Terry Austin
>
> Post-revolutionary France abolished copyright. It created a cultural
> void, so they re-instated it. I don't believe any other nation has
> repeated the experiment (i.e. ditched an existing law against
> copyright).
>
years, during a period of extreme social upheaval. It is difficult to tell
how much of that void was caused by abolishing copyright and how much by
everything else that was happening, and three years is not enough to find
out what would really happen in any event.
That said, I do tend to agree with you.
But we live in different times, and copyright is a dying legal technology as
we currently conceive it.
Terry Austin
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:48:50 -0800, Terry Austin
><tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>No, that's ad hominem. You're an idiot, so you can't tell the difference.
>
>Terry, there's a sig quote if I ever saw one....
Go for it. Just spell my name right.
Ryan Johnson
> way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
> middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
> the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
> works, either.
Lawsuits work just fine for copyright protection. Sue enough people butts off and
the word eventually gets out that such and such is really anal about protecting
their intellectual properties.
Ryan S. Johnson
CEO, Guild of Blades Publishing Group
www.guildofblades.com
V-Man
>right,
Uhm, it *IS* a property right, dufus.
A person can own the products of his work, including his ideas.
V-Man A Knight is sworn to Valor, His Heart knows only Virtue
=/\= His Blade defends the Weak, His Word speaks only Truth
(-o-) His Wrath undoes the Wicked
<*>
Karen J. Cravens
<ol3c7tg7e1cgc6ssb...@4ax.com>:
>Or you're an idiot. It's self evident. Indiana can pass a law saying
>that pi is equal to three, but the circumference of a circle still won't
Have you ever read that [proposed, it never passed] law?
Do so. It's a hoot. (I had a link, somewhere. Dang.)
Bryant Berggren
<dow...@guildofblades.com> wrote:
>> You're an idiot. Electronic material is simply too easy to copy. The only
>> way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
>> middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
>> the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
>> works, either.
>
>Lawsuits work just fine for copyright protection. Sue enough people butts off and
>the word eventually gets out that such and such is really anal about protecting
>their intellectual properties.
In fact, by nearly all accounts they're *too* effective, since the
mere threat of lawsuit seems to be enough to "protect" even
nonexistent "properties" (leading to things like the OGL being
suggested in anything other than a purely satirical vein).
BRB
Bryant Berggren
Krishnaswami) wrote:
>Looking at the historical record, I note that the term of copyrights
>has -never- been decreased, and that the penalties for violating it
>have increased steadily, and that any time a substantial body of
>material is about to enter the public domain, Congress extends the
>term of copyrights (most recently with the Bono Act of 1998).
One could make a fair argument in fact that the current state of U.S.
copyright law is at least partially unconstitutional, since the U.S.
constitution describes Congress's power to pass intellectual property
laws explicitly as "to secure for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries" {caps
theirs}. It's a p-r-e-t-t-y generous notion to consider the *entire
lifetime* of the author and several years thereafter a "limited time"
-- maybe they should have made it clearer whether they meant "limited"
relative to the author or to Congress. :/
BRB
Bryant Berggren
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>> Post-revolutionary France abolished copyright. It created a cultural
>> void, so they re-instated it. I don't believe any other nation has
>> repeated the experiment (i.e. ditched an existing law against
>> copyright).
>>
>It is important not note, however, that the experiment lasted only three
>years, during a period of extreme social upheaval. It is difficult to tell
>how much of that void was caused by abolishing copyright and how much by
>everything else that was happening, and three years is not enough to find
>out what would really happen in any event.
Remember, post-revolutionary France abolished the monarchy, too, and
reinstated THAT after several years. I wouldn't recommend following it
as a model. :)
BRB
John Simpson
>>Watch copyright become a "property"
>>right,
>
> Uhm, it *IS* a property right, dufus.
>
> A person can own the products of his work, including his ideas.
No; ideas are not protected by copyright. You're thinking of patent
law.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
If someone asks if you're a god, say "Yes."
If someone asks if you're Sarah Conner, say "No."
Rick Pikul
ru...@latakia.dyndns.org says...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:56:21 GMT, Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >
> > People who cry netcop are the same kind of person who whines that
> > the cop should go after real criminals after having been stopped for
> > weaving through traffic at 150km/h.
>
> Been there, done that, hurt no-one. 90 mph ain't that fast, really,
> esp. not between Wichita Falls and Amarillo. Real criminals hurt
> people. Faux criminals might possibly have hurt people, but they
> didn't.
Yes, there are highways where that kind of speed is safe, IMHO
none of them would involve weaving through traffic. It gets even worse
when done on highways like the 401 across Toronto[1].
Of course, one of the most annoying things about reckless drivers
is that they are rarely in the accidents they cause.
[1] One of, if not the, busiest highways in North America.
--
Phoenix
V-Man
>>>right,
>>
>> Uhm, it *IS* a property right, dufus.
>>
>> A person can own the products of his work, including his ideas.
>
> No; ideas are not protected by copyright. You're thinking of patent
>law.
I was addressing the concept that ideas can be property. What is a novel but
a very large idea? I was (intentionally) being vague. I thought my subject
needed it. He hasn't realised that a copyright-able work is property yet, so I
thougt I should be broad/vague.
Sir Bob
news:3a7692f7....@news.theramp.net...
If you'll read the OGL terms closely, all it actually protects is
the d20 name and logo itself. You can use any or all of the d20
System in any way you please, as long as you don't put their name
and logo on it. If you want the logo (it's a marketing tie-in,
eh?), adhere to the terms of the OGL. Otherwise, you're free and
clear. Our friend Ryan S. Dancey (when he was still in charge)
actually stated that you could rip the entire d20 System,
complete with character creation and advancement rules, and sell
it as your own product, and they wouldn't hassle you, provided:
a) None of the actual text is duplicated, and
b) You do not at any point express or imply either in advertising
or in the product itself that "your" system is in fact the d20
System.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>>I thought that at least among the gaming community, thieves would be more
>>respected than this. Thieves are a useful character class, and they don't
>>just steal stuff, they can come in handy when you need a door opened or a
>>trap removed. Oh, they are called Rogues now? Well, don't pick on em
>>anyway. Thieves dont no anything about webdesign (according to the Players
>>Handbook anyway), so they are clearly not to blame for this site. :)
>>
>I thought Pat Pulling was dead.
>
>It's only a _game_, dude. Really.
Oh right!
Cheers :)
R. Scott Rogers
> copyright law is at least partially unconstitutional, since the U.S.
> constitution describes Congress's power to pass intellectual property
> laws explicitly as "to secure for limited Times to Authors and
> Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries" {caps
> theirs}. It's a p-r-e-t-t-y generous notion to consider the *entire
> lifetime* of the author and several years thereafter a "limited time"
> -- maybe they should have made it clearer whether they meant "limited"
> relative to the author or to Congress. :/
I totally agree. I've heard several artists' rights advocates now advocating
eternal copyright ownership. The argument is, roughly, "If I build a
building, I can pass it down to my descendants and my family can benefit
from my work forever. So if I write a song, why can't I pass it down to my
family too?"
Now, I'm a writer and an editor, and I appreciate copyright in the short
term, but there's no excuse for the current length of IP protection. It's
what, lifetime plus like 50 or 75 years now, after the Bono act? That's
limited in the sense that copyright lasts just slightly less than the
current age of the republic. Every time "Happy Birthday" is about to pass
into the public domain, Congress extends copyright.
Scott
--
Some people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the
other hand, are colonized by wankers.
-- Renton, "Trainspotting"
David R. Klassen
>
> Who truly cares? No one enjoys a netcop wannabe, let alone one so obviously
> envious as to make one vomit blood.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Peter Seebach
>If you'll read the OGL terms closely, all it actually protects is
>the d20 name and logo itself.
But even then, consider the existance of oil caps "usable with Ford trucks".
Does Ford have the ability to protect its name? Not in a context where there
is no possibility of consumer confusion.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Sir Bob
news:3a76e714$0$26812$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <3a76c...@news.newsdudes.com>, Sir Bob
<pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
> >If you'll read the OGL terms closely, all it actually protects
is
> >the d20 name and logo itself.
>
> But even then, consider the existance of oil caps "usable with
Ford trucks".
> Does Ford have the ability to protect its name? Not in a
context where there
> is no possibility of consumer confusion.
Would putting the Ford logo on Ford-compatible oil caps create
the possibility of consumer confusion? I think so. Tha's why I
specified "logo".
As for "name protection", you can say that it "requires" or is
"for use with" x d20 product (where x is the PHB, Star Wars core
book, whatever), but you can't say that it *is* the d20 System
('tis the difference between saying "this is a Ford-compatible
oil cap" and saying "this is a Ford oil cap").
Bryant Berggren
>The flaw in your arguement is that it is *already* possible to implement
>these legal sanctions, on a near-global basis.
It is possible. The question, for Terry, is whether it's FEASIBLE. The
Internet approaches the old joke about how speed limits are void when
you're driving a Ferrari (unless the cops have one too). Because ...
> However, such action must be initiated by the copyright holders in most
> juridstictions.
The number of potential copyright violations created by circulating a
theoretically illegal document on the Internet balloons geometrically.
Our beleaguered plaintiff can spend the rest of his life pursuing
lawsuits, and never catch all of them -- never catch the majority of
them -- possibly never catch a measurable percentage of them. The law
ceases to exert any "punitive" deterrent force because the odds of
being punished are so low -- and it has already lost much of its
"ethical" deterrent force as more people are coming to view existing
intellectual property notions as a scam than a right.
BRB
Graham Wills
>
> Graham Wills wrote:
>
> > Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the situation
> > will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
> > companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
> > of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
> > be ignored.
> >
>
> You mean, like the DECSS prosecution, which attempts to criminalize the
> use of software to play legally-owned DVDs on your own hardware?
Yeah, pretty much. DECSS is a tangential question which basically asks
whether you have bought the data or a right to use the data on the disk
in a certain way. If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
- Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
David Alex Lamb
R. Scott Rogers <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> ... It's a p-r-e-t-t-y generous notion to consider the *entire
>> lifetime* of the author and several years thereafter a "limited time"
>
>eternal copyright ownership.
There was an editorial in the National Post (Canadian) last week wherein a
lawyer advocated eliminating Copyright and Patent (basically saying there is
no good reason to treat them as "property"), leaving only stuff that could be
protected entirely by contract, like trade secret.
It's not likely to affect anybody's public policy anytime soon.
The NP is mostly "right-wing" (small government, sanctity of the free market,
etc.) so I was surprised to see an anti-property editorial. Unless the
lawyer's position is common among libertarians -- anyone know?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
Graham Wills
> Enforcing copyrights in the pre-digital age was relatively
> straightforward, because the number of potential copiers was quite
> small: to copy a book in bulk took a lot of rather expensive equipment
> (printing presses) and substantial amounts of expertise to operate
> that equipment. In this environment, the amount of policing it takes
> to nab major offenders is relatively modest, and the benefits of a
> copyright regime easily exceed the costs of enforcing it.
You have a somewhat narrow focus on printed material. Some obvious
examples where copying is cheap compared to purchase that have been
available for a decade include:
1) Sheet music: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:100 Mimeoing
sheet music has been an issue for a generation.
2) Audio music: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:8. Taping
LPs has been an issue for a generation
3) Videos: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:8. Pirate videos
have been around for at least a decade.
4) Software: cost of copying:purchase is 1:lots! Don't tell me
that software piracy is a 'new-to-the-net' thang.
I know it's nice and fashionable to say that the net changes everything,
that communication patterns are disrupted and it's a totally new world,
but, ummm, it's not so revolutionary that we can't learn from the
lessons of the past. Telephones revolutionized communication *way more*
than the net does. Printing revolutionized distribution of information
way more than the net does. It isn't necessary to paint a dichotomic
future of either neo-fascist 1984-style government with huge spy
surveillance systems checking every byte coming down into your home.
or a total death of copyright with nothing written or produced but
trash, because everything only gets sold once.
John Kim
Sir Bob <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>Bryant Berggren <vo...@theramp.net> wrote:
>> the mere threat of lawsuit seems to be enough to "protect" even
>> nonexistent "properties" (leading to things like the OGL being
>> suggested in anything other than a purely satirical vein).
>
>If you'll read the OGL terms closely, all it actually protects is
>the d20 name and logo itself. You can use any or all of the d20
>System in any way you please, as long as you don't put their name
>and logo on it.
I've read the WotC Open Gaming License closely, and it never
mentions anything regarding "d20" at all. I suspect you are confusing
the OGL with the D20 System Trademark License. The D20STL does indeed
only have to do with use of the D20 trademark license. What the OGL
does is give you the right to use other OGL "open content" at the cost
of not mentioning any trademarks or designated "product identity".
cf. http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
"Open content" is defined in the OGL as "the game mechanic and
includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent
such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an
enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly
identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".
Interestingly enough, the U.S. copyright office has a circular
on the copyright of games (FL108) which says "Copyright protection
does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark
material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a
game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law
prevents others from developing another game based on similar
principles."
So while the OGL has some meaning, the content which it is
making "open" was to a large degree *already* open.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
lizard
the SRD -- indeed, that's the point of the OGL, not to protect the
uncopyrightable, but to allow the free use material which IS
cvopyrightable -- the actual expression of the mechanics.
The SRD, at the moment, has hundreds of spells and monsters, and I think
they've added the magic items. The next person to create Senzibargine
only needs to cut, paste, and start adding in "Ultimate Asskickers Of
Clichename" presitge classes and "Ultramegasuperdamage" weapons.
Terry Austin
"R. Scott Rogers" <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B69C3654.C8E1%sro...@mindspring.com...
does quite a lot of lobbying on copyright extensions.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Sir Bob" <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
news:3a76c...@news.newsdudes.com...
same thing as Title 17: Game systems cannot be
copyrighted. The only thing protected is the expression
of them.
Wow.
How generous.
Terry Austin
lizard
>
> > You're an idiot. Electronic material is simply too easy to copy. The only
> > way to enforce copyright is to kick in doors and examine computers in the
> > middle of the night. Governments that try that on the US population - and
> > the folks who support them - won't live long enough to figure out if that
> > works, either.
>
> Lawsuits work just fine for copyright protection. Sue enough people butts off and
> the word eventually gets out that such and such is really anal about protecting
> their intellectual properties.
>
a)Result in increased sales for such&such, or
b)Result in consumer loathing for such&such, the appearence of
such&suchsucks.com, and people pirating their material just for spite?
When TSR had their "We own the words 'armor class' and ever bit of D&D
fanboy stuff on the net REALLY belongs to us, totally and without
question", I did not buy a single TSR product. When WOTC took over, came
up with their much saner net policy, created logo and other images which
could be freely used by non-profit web sites, etc, I started looking at
their products again. It's a sort of zen thing, I suppose. You gain by
giving, or bend in the wind, win by losing, or whatever.
John Kim
Sir Bob <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>As for "name protection", you can say that it "requires" or is
>"for use with" x d20 product (where x is the PHB, Star Wars core
>book, whatever), but you can't say that it *is* the d20 System
>('tis the difference between saying "this is a Ford-compatible
>oil cap" and saying "this is a Ford oil cap").
Item #7 of the WotC Open Gaming License states quite clearly:
"You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent
Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
i.e. So if you make a game under the WotC OGL, then you cannot
say that it is compatible with any trademarked game without a separate
license from the Trademark owner. Note that non-WOGL games can in
theory claim compatibility so long as the Trademark is not used
deceptively.
Peter Seebach
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:3a76e714$0$26812$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
>Ford trucks".
>> Does Ford have the ability to protect its name? Not in a
>context where there
>> is no possibility of consumer confusion.
>Would putting the Ford logo on Ford-compatible oil caps create
>the possibility of consumer confusion? I think so. Tha's why I
>specified "logo".
I believe they can use it as long as they use it in a manner that's clearly
a *reference*, but I'm not sure.
>As for "name protection", you can say that it "requires" or is
>"for use with" x d20 product (where x is the PHB, Star Wars core
>book, whatever), but you can't say that it *is* the d20 System
>('tis the difference between saying "this is a Ford-compatible
>oil cap" and saying "this is a Ford oil cap").
Yup. The big concern has always been the way Hasbro/TSR/WotC have harassed
people for saying "compatible with D&D", and the fact that they've filed
lawsuits based on it.
lizard
>
> lizard wrote:
> >
> > Graham Wills wrote:
> >
> > > Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the situation
> > > will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
> > > companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
> > > of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
> > > be ignored.
> > >
> >
> > You mean, like the DECSS prosecution, which attempts to criminalize the
> > use of software to play legally-owned DVDs on your own hardware?
>
> Yeah, pretty much. DECSS is a tangential question which basically asks
> whether you have bought the data or a right to use the data on the disk
> in a certain way. If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
> that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
>
>
have stolen merchandise in my house, the cops will bust in and seize it
-- why not 'stolen' data?
Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
*does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
Indeed, something akin to this was tried -- it was called DIVX -- and it
failed badly.
Sir Bob
news:956t3c$lsh$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
>
> Sir Bob <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
> >As for "name protection", you can say that it "requires" or is
> >"for use with" x d20 product (where x is the PHB, Star Wars
core
> >book, whatever), but you can't say that it *is* the d20 System
> >('tis the difference between saying "this is a Ford-compatible
> >oil cap" and saying "this is a Ford oil cap").
>
> Item #7 of the WotC Open Gaming License states quite clearly:
> "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability
with any
> Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work
containing
> Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another,
independent
> Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered
Trademark."
>
> i.e. So if you make a game under the WotC OGL, then you cannot
> say that it is compatible with any trademarked game without a
separate
> license from the Trademark owner. Note that non-WOGL games can
in
> theory claim compatibility so long as the Trademark is not used
> deceptively.
Bingo.
(Though non-OGL games can't use the logo.)
- Sir Bob.
Sir Bob
Wasn't that back in plain ol' TSR days, when they were under
control of that woman-whose-name-must-not-be-spoken and her
legal-nazi cousin?
Sir Bob
news:956q4...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Correction. They wrote a license saying you can plaster their
logo all over your product if you use the game system in the
manner they dicate. Sounds reasonable, no?
SD Anderson
> i.e. So if you make a game under the WotC OGL, then you
> cannot say that it is compatible with any trademarked game
> without a separate license from the Trademark owner. Note that
> non-WOGL games can in theory claim compatibility so long as the
> Trademark is not used deceptively.
The requirement that the D&D 3e PHB be stated as necessary to
use the non-WotC game tends to put the D&D logo on the cover
anyway. In theory WotC could forbid a game from using the logo
but the specific purpose Ryan Dancy gave for going with Open
Gaming was to sell more PHBs.
Peter Seebach
>Wasn't that back in plain ol' TSR days, when they were under
>control of that woman-whose-name-must-not-be-spoken and her
>legal-nazi cousin?
Mostly, sure. But consider that Hasbro, once they knew they had no case
against "clue computing", went ahead and sued them, filing hundred-page
documents, with the intent of breaking the life of the man who had "clue.com",
even though they had already been told, unambiguously, that they wouldn't
win.
They probably spent a good half million dollars, out of sheer malice, with
no goal other than raising his legal bills.
And they own WotC.
Sir Bob
> In article <3a770...@news.newsdudes.com>, Sir Bob
<pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
> >Wasn't that back in plain ol' TSR days, when they were under
> >control of that woman-whose-name-must-not-be-spoken and her
> >legal-nazi cousin?
>
> Mostly, sure. But consider that Hasbro, once they knew they
had no case
> against "clue computing", went ahead and sued them, filing
hundred-page
> documents, with the intent of breaking the life of the man who
had "clue.com",
> even though they had already been told, unambiguously, that
they wouldn't
> win.
>
> They probably spent a good half million dollars, out of sheer
malice, with
> no goal other than raising his legal bills.
>
> And they own WotC.
You assume they give a damn. D&D is marginal in the extreme
compared to even their more obscure board game lines.
Terry Austin
"Graham Wills" <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:3A76F11A...@research.bell-labs.com...
> Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
>
> > Enforcing copyrights in the pre-digital age was relatively
> > straightforward, because the number of potential copiers was quite
> > small: to copy a book in bulk took a lot of rather expensive equipment
> > (printing presses) and substantial amounts of expertise to operate
> > that equipment. In this environment, the amount of policing it takes
> > to nab major offenders is relatively modest, and the benefits of a
> > copyright regime easily exceed the costs of enforcing it.
>
> You have a somewhat narrow focus on printed material. Some obvious
> examples where copying is cheap compared to purchase that have been
> available for a decade include:
>
> 1) Sheet music: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:100 Mimeoing
> sheet music has been an issue for a generation.
> 2) Audio music: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:8. Taping
> LPs has been an issue for a generation
> 3) Videos: cost of copying:purchase is about 1:8. Pirate videos
> have been around for at least a decade.
> 4) Software: cost of copying:purchase is 1:lots! Don't tell me
> that software piracy is a 'new-to-the-net' thang.
All of these require distribution by transporting a physical
object from one person to another. This limits the extent
of distribution based on money available to do so, and
makes catching the big-time pirates much easier (and
prosecuting them, as well). The 'net is a fundamental
change in this equation. Now, you can distribute pirated
material to millions all over the world for free, with zero
chance of being caught or prosecuted. As MPAA has
found out, trying to put the DeCSS genie back in the
bottle.
Terry Austin
lizard
> So while the OGL has some meaning, the content which it is
> making "open" was to a large degree *already* open.
>
>
Not really. What's being opened is the copyrightable expression, not the
uncopyrightable idea.
For example, the new Relics&Rituals books from Sword&Sorcery press will
have the spells as open content. If, say, Atlas Games (a direct
competitor, more or less, of S&S) wants to use some of those spells in a
new module, they can do so without asking and without any risk of
lawsuit, and without having to laboriously rewrite the spells 'in their
own words', change the names, etc. You can't copyright the idea of "A
spell which makes a ball of fire", but you CAN copyright the words
"Fireball (Evocation):This spell creates a flaming sphere 10 feet wide,
which streaks towards the target and incinerates it for 4d6 points of
damage." Rewriting a lot of spells is a lot of bother, and it also makes
interoperability difficult. Even if the game mechanics of "Flamberg's
Inflammation" are 100% identical to the game mechanics of "Solvar's
Sizzler", it is not evident from glancing at character sheets that this
is so.
Likewise, in turn, Sword&Sorcery can cut&paste the monsters and magic
items published by Atlas Games into THEIR modules and supplements, and
so both legally *and* ethically. (Even if it's legal to go through a
book and rename every spell and monster, there's an aura of sleaze to
it. I know I'd look somewhat sidelong at a non-White Wolf game about
angst-ridden vampires that used a dice-pool system and had a magic-using
clan, an ugly clan, an artsy clan, a rebellious clan, a beastial clan,
etc, and was otherwise bereft of original ideas. It might be *legal*,
but it doesn't make it *right*. Under the OGL, permission is explicitly
granted to "Take what you like!" Anyone who releases something under the
OGL and then whines when someone else reprints it, changed or otherwise,
is missing the point.
I am working on a D20 based supers game. When I get to the 'combat'
section, I am looking forward to taking the entire Combat chapter of the
SRD and pasting it in, THEN making whatever edits are necessary, as
opposed to having to rewrite every paragraph to dance around copyright
laws. If I wanted to do that much work, I'd design my own system. :)
Terry Austin
> lizard wrote:
> >
> > Graham Wills wrote:
> >
> > > Well, rather than take up either extremist views, perhaps the
situation
> > > will continue exactly the same as before. Violations by people or
> > > companies intent on profit will get prosecuted, whereas a percentage
> > > of people will frown on personal copying, which will by and large
> > > be ignored.
> > >
> >
> > You mean, like the DECSS prosecution, which attempts to criminalize the
> > use of software to play legally-owned DVDs on your own hardware?
>
> Yeah, pretty much. DECSS is a tangential question which basically asks
> whether you have bought the data or a right to use the data on the disk
> in a certain way.
Not in any way. DMCA explicitly protects the centuries old
fair use of reverse engineering. It says *explicitly* that reverse
engineering for purposes of cross-compatibility is legal.
DeCSS was written to make DVDs play on Linux. Legally
bought DVDs.
MPAA claimes othewise; that it was written for purposes
of commercially exploiting piracy.
The DeCSS lawsuits are about abusing the law.
> If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
> that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
>
The kid in Norway who wrote (most of) DeCSS was
arrested and charged with criminal wrongdoing, and
his equipment was seized.
Close enough?
Terry Austin
Peter Seebach
Sir Bob <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:3a770753$0$26817$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
>malice, with
>> no goal other than raising his legal bills.
>> And they own WotC.
>You assume they give a damn.
You honestly think the most-successful-RPG-ever isn't at least as interesting,
financially, as the marginal difference between having "clue.com" and having
"hasbro.com/clue"? I'm pretty sure it's a lot *more* interesting... and this
means I expect them to be just as destructive as old TSR.
>D&D is marginal in the extreme
>compared to even their more obscure board game lines.
Perhaps. Clue has been around for a long time, and I'm not sure it still
makes a lot of money.
John Kim
lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>Actually, if you use the OGL and D20 SRD, you CAN duplicate the text in
>the SRD -- indeed, that's the point of the OGL, not to protect the
>uncopyrightable, but to allow the free use material which IS
>
>The SRD, at the moment, has hundreds of spells and monsters, and I think
>they've added the magic items. The next person to create Senzibargine
>only needs to cut, paste, and start adding in "Ultimate Asskickers Of
>Clichename" presitge classes and "Ultramegasuperdamage" weapons.
I would caution that the D20 SRD has *not* yet been released
as an open game. There are a bunch of files available at
www.opengamingfoundation.org , but they all have big warnings on
them that they are only in draft form and no permission to
redistribute them has been granted.
Graham Wills
> > Yeah, pretty much. DECSS is a tangential question which basically asks
> > whether you have bought the data or a right to use the data on the disk
> > in a certain way. If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
> > that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> > will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> > down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
> Based on your logic, I don't see why they wouldn't. If I am known to
> have stolen merchandise in my house, the cops will bust in and seize it
> -- why not 'stolen' data?
It's not logic, it's pragmatics. In the 80s, everyone I knew had stolen
data in their house - pirate music tapes. No-one ever got in trouble
except people who did the copying large scale. It's the same now.
> Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
> words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
> DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
> play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
> right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
> *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
Sure. This sort of contract is pretty common. I would tend to buy from a
competitor who didn't do that.
> Indeed, something akin to this was tried -- it was called DIVX -- and it
> failed badly.
Yeah. Exactly right. That's the way it's supposed to work. Market forces
and all. If there's little price difference, I'd much rather buy from a
company that lets me play their DVD anywhere. If I'm in the majority, the
company with a more restrictive attitude dies. Isn't this a *good*
scenario?
Graham Wills
> > If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
> > that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> > will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> > down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
> The kid in Norway who wrote (most of) DeCSS was
> arrested and charged with criminal wrongdoing, and
> his equipment was seized.
> Close enough?
Yep.
I modify my claim to "I doubt individuals simply using such
software for their personal use rather than making it or
distributing stuff will get prosecuted".
Terry Austin
they threatened hot pokers to anyone who actually
said "D&D" out loud without their permission.
But their "open gaming license" is mostly smoke
and mirrors, generously giving you permission to
do something you could legally do anyway.
Now I understand why their shills made such
a bid deal over it.
Terry Austin
Matt Lathrum
se...@plethora.net says...
> Mostly, sure. But consider that Hasbro, once they knew they had no case
> against "clue computing", went ahead and sued them, filing hundred-page
> documents, with the intent of breaking the life of the man who had "clue.com",
> even though they had already been told, unambiguously, that they wouldn't
> win.
>
> They probably spent a good half million dollars, out of sheer malice, with
> no goal other than raising his legal bills.
>
> And they own WotC.
And Infogrammes now owns Hasbro :)
Steve Eley
>
> And Infogrammes now owns Hasbro :)
No, they own Hasbro Interactive (formerly a division of Hasbro).
Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfe...@sff.net
Steve Eley
>
> But their "open gaming license" is mostly smoke
> and mirrors, generously giving you permission to
> do something you could legally do anyway.
>
> Now I understand why their shills made such
> a bid deal over it.
Sure, but it's not trivial. The granting of an explicit *license* to do
it makes a statement, and encourages activities that might not otherwise
happen.
To put it another way: You can take a day off work, buy things to give
away, put a dead tree up in your living room, and celebrate the birth of
a sun god in the wrong season any time you like. It's perfectly legal;
you don't need anyone's permission to do it. Given that, why does the
U.S. government and most of the private sector declare December 25 a
holiday, and why do all the churches and stores keep advertising it?
It's all "smoke and mirrors," right? Do they really expect it to
influence anybody's behavior? Can you imagine that it would?
Have Fun, (Now I understand why those Vatican shills make such a big
deal over it...)
- Steve Eley
sfe...@sff.net
David R. Klassen
>
> Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
> words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
> DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
> play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
> right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
> *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
This is pretty much the gist of the Microsoft license agreement.
They don't seem to have suffered much...
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Terry Austin
> lizard wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, pretty much. DECSS is a tangential question which basically asks
> > > whether you have bought the data or a right to use the data on the
disk
> > > in a certain way. If the courts decide on the latter, then every
company
> > > that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> > > will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> > > down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
>
> > Based on your logic, I don't see why they wouldn't. If I am known to
> > have stolen merchandise in my house, the cops will bust in and seize it
> > -- why not 'stolen' data?
>
> It's not logic, it's pragmatics. In the 80s, everyone I knew had stolen
> data in their house - pirate music tapes. No-one ever got in trouble
> except people who did the copying large scale. It's the same now.
The kid who wrote DeCSS got in trouble - he's been indicted on
criminal charges.
And he didn't even copy stuff for his _own_ use. In point of
fact, DeCSS doesn't enable copying. If you decode the contents
of a DVD, it _won't run_.
Things are _not_ the same any more. They will be, eventually,
but only after a long and bloody political fight.
>
> > Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
> > words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
> > DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
> > play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
> > right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
> > *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
>
> Sure. This sort of contract is pretty common. I would tend to buy from a
> competitor who didn't do that.
There are no competitors who don't do that. That contract
is inherent in the _technology_ of DVDs. It can't be turned off,
because DVDs without it _won't play_ on any commercially
available player. So you won't be buying any DVDs at all.
(Which, BTW, is what will happen, until someone breaks ranks
with the MPAA.)
>
> > Indeed, something akin to this was tried -- it was called DIVX -- and it
> > failed badly.
>
> Yeah. Exactly right. That's the way it's supposed to work. Market forces
> and all. If there's little price difference, I'd much rather buy from a
> company that lets me play their DVD anywhere.
No one will do so. All DVD playes in the US use region coding.
>If I'm in the majority, the
> company with a more restrictive attitude dies. Isn't this a *good*
> scenario?
In the long run. However, in the short run, we are losing
centuries of fair use rights. Pretending we're not won't
stop it from happening.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin wrote:
> > > If the courts decide on the latter, then every company
> > > that produces such software will get screwed, but I doubt individuals
> > > will get prosecuted. Do you see it differently? Armed police breaking
> > > down your doors and erasing your hard drive?
>
> > The kid in Norway who wrote (most of) DeCSS was
> > arrested and charged with criminal wrongdoing, and
> > his equipment was seized.
>
> > Close enough?
>
> Yep.
>
> I modify my claim to "I doubt individuals simply using such
> software for their personal use rather than making it or
> distributing stuff will get prosecuted".
>
that had DeCSS *legally* in the countries they were
hosted in.
You are, again, simply wrong.
Terry Austin
lizard
>
> lizard wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
> > words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
> > DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
> > play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
> > right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
> > *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
>
> This is pretty much the gist of the Microsoft license agreement.
> They don't seem to have suffered much...
>
makers of WINE, for example. And I can execute my MS software on any
platform I can trick it into running. *And* I can make archival copies.
And, lastly, the license isn't in Big Red Letters. Most people don't
really know or understand what they're buying.
Nils K Hammer
copyright. I have friends with 500 year old books that are practically
unheard of anywhere in public. I think, gee, wouldn't it be nice for
history enthusiasts to have access to these things, lets use the
alleged technology of desktop publishing to make and sell copies.
When I share this concept with others, looking for a bit of support,
I keep running into people who say "that would be illegal!"
Nils
Rupert Boleyn
Which I seriously doubt. AFAIK any copyright would've long-since
expired on a 500-year old book.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Terry Austin
"Steve Eley" <sfe...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3A772FC1...@sff.net...
> Terry Austin wrote:
> >
> > But their "open gaming license" is mostly smoke
> > and mirrors, generously giving you permission to
> > do something you could legally do anyway.
> >
> > Now I understand why their shills made such
> > a bid deal over it.
>
> Sure, but it's not trivial. The granting of an explicit *license* to do
> it makes a statement, and encourages activities that might not otherwise
> happen.
The granting of an explicit license to do something that is
mostly perfectly legal anyway does, indeed, make a statement.
Not the statement you think, but it does make a statement.
You now officially have my permission to post to this newsgroup.
>
> To put it another way: You can take a day off work, buy things to give
> away, put a dead tree up in your living room, and celebrate the birth of
> a sun god in the wrong season any time you like. It's perfectly legal;
> you don't need anyone's permission to do it. Given that, why does the
> U.S. government and most of the private sector declare December 25 a
> holiday, and why do all the churches and stores keep advertising it?
> It's all "smoke and mirrors," right? Do they really expect it to
> influence anybody's behavior? Can you imagine that it would?
In fact, it those things do influence people's behaviour, since
a good many employers would require people to work otherwise.
>
>
> Have Fun, (Now I understand why those Vatican shills make such a big
> deal over it...)
Heh. You're onto something. Again, not what you think,
but somebody might get it.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"David R. Klassen" <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:3A772FF2...@rowan.edu...
> lizard wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
> > words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
> > DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
> > play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
> > right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
> > *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
>
> This is pretty much the gist of the Microsoft license agreement.
> They don't seem to have suffered much...
>
is a no-longer-necessary evil.
(And, BTW, MS EULA has provisions in it that are specifically
illegal and unenforceable. There are rights you cannot give up,
even in writing.)
Terry Austin
Rupert Boleyn
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>"David R. Klassen" <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote in message
>news:3A772FF2...@rowan.edu...
>> lizard wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps the issue could be settled simply by making sure the following
>> > words, in text larger than the title of the movie, appeared on every
>> > DVD:"WARNING! You are not buying this DVD. You are buying the right to
>> > play it, on whatever subset of possible hardware we will permit. This
>> > right can be revoked at any time and for any reason. REPEAT:This DVD
>> > *does* *not* *belong* *to* *you*, no matter how much you paid."
>>
>> This is pretty much the gist of the Microsoft license agreement.
>> They don't seem to have suffered much...
>>
>Which is why more people are coming to believe that copyright
>is a no-longer-necessary evil.
Of course the loss of copyright laws won't affect those companies able
to afford the legal staff to write EULAs and the law suits to enforce
them. However those smaller companies and poorer authors could well
suffer even more than they do already.
Terry Austin
"Nils K Hammer" <nh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:ouRnv4C00...@andrew.cmu.edu...
if you'd like to clear up their misconceptions.
Terry Austin