Dungeons and Dragons - or, How many times would you pay for something?

[The Straight Story]

Last week I posted an article about some interesting letters sent into Dragon Magazine - and it got me to thinking about when I was a teen and how I used to play AD&D and read Dragon Magazine.

So I went online looking for a way to get the magazines and the books from AD&D I used to own (and have bought several times from dealers but have been lost over the many moves I have had in my life).

When it came to the magazine it was basically "If you can find them on ebay, etc, buy them" in other words, if I got the magazines the money I spent on them would not go to the people who wrote the articles or the original TSR (Now wizards.com) but to the collector who had copies of them to sell.

And then I find a guy who has scanned in all the copies from 1976 to 2005, 355 issues including special editions. All for a free download. So, yeah, I grabbed them - all in PDF format.

I also, while searching, find all the books I have bought and various other products (dungeons/adventures) and download them.

Questions though - is it pirating/screwing people out of money - if you have already paid (more than once in some cases) for a product - or if you cannot get the product anymore from the manufacturer/publisher and can find it elsewhere for free?

Let's say you bought a book 15 years ago and it got lost and you find it again online for free - are you stealing/pirating if you download it to read again without paying again?

I guess the same goes to movies - have you ever bought a DVD and then it got lost/etc and you downloaded another copy off the internet to watch. How many times should you pay for something?

For those looking for a political tie in ;) if you pay into Social Security your whole life should you be punished because someone else lost the money you put in to it?

[notesdev]

1. If it's Frank Zappa's Sleep Dirt album

at least five times... can't stop myself from lending it out and can never seem to get it back once I do...

[RKP5637]

2. We give money to the banksters, they hoard it. Social Security recipients spend their

money and it flows back into the economy (except from the wealthy). I'm all for giving money to Social Security recipients and screw the banksters. Social Security recipients create a demand for goods and services, and create jobs.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Gary Gygax died a while back anyway.

So, unless his wraith is summoned, you should be good.

[The Straight Story]

4. I'll roll a D20 and see

;)

[Tansy_Gold]

6. His estate may hold the rights.

Copyrights survive their original holders.


TG, TT

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Sorta like a revenant?

[Tansy_Gold]

11. No. Like an income-producing property

owned by one person and inherited by another.

[Johonny]

22. Didn't Gary get screwed out of his own company

and Wizards of the coast ran D&D product line into the ground.

The big loser is more likely the local comic store that probably has every back issue. But they are already hurting big time as comics go on-line and onto smart phones and Ipads. The local comic store maybe on its last leg.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Yep, I can tell you have been around a while

Then they tried to re-release chain mail... oh talk about a copyright fight.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. Your analogy to SS is complete nonsense

You bought the AD&D stuff and you lost it. Stupid you. Should you be able to go into a store and tell the owner, "Hey, I lost my Monster Manual so I'm gonna take this new one off the shelf. Thanks!" Not likely. Should you be able to walk into a used bookstore and tel the owner, "Oh, hey, I see you got a bunch of old Dragon Magazine issues. I lost mine so I'm gonna take yours."

If you download something that's copyrighted and has been illegally put on the internet, then yes, you are stealing. You are depriving the copyright holder -- the one who authorizes copies to be made -- of their just compensation, because you are making a copy that you do not have authorization to make.

If you buy a book or magazine in a used bookstore, you are not violating copyright, neither is the store owner. No additional copies are being made.

Same with DVDs -- if you lose it, that's your tough luck. Shoulda been more careful, because that doesn't give you the legal right to make more copies.

If someone uploads PDFs or other copies of material to which they do not own the copyright or which is not in the public domain via expiration of copyright, then they are breaking the law. If you download it, you probably are, too.

Social Security is entirely different. Yes you pay into it, and you're entitled (that's why they're called "entitlements": you have title/ownership of those monies) to get it back, and no of course you shouldn't be penalized if the person(s) entrusted with those funds fuck up and lose it. But that has nothing to do with copyright.


Tansy Gold, who owns several copyrights

[Occulus]

8. What if what you want to get is out of print?

Much of what the poster is talking about simply cannot be purchased legally at all.

I would argue that that ought to be an automatic loss of copyright/public domain entry. Not that it is, mind you, but should be.

[Tansy_Gold]

12. If it's out of print, you're pretty much out of luck.

You think it should revert to public domain because you think potential buyers have more of a right to make free copies than the original creator of the work?

Here's a scenario for you -- Arthur Author writes a book "Fortunes in Funk" and contracts with Gloomy Press to publish it. Gloomy fulfills the contract, prints 5,000 copies, but the book gets little publicity and only 500 copies are sold. The rest are remaindered. Two years later, Arthur Author writes another book, "Greed in Gulag." Unhappy with his results at Gloomy Press, he finds another publisher, Howitzer Books. His editor at Howitzer has lots of faith in Gulag, orders a 100,000 first printing and a massive media blitz. Not only does Gulag become a best-seller, but now people are rediscovering Funk as well. Arthur's contract with Gloomy gives them the right to print more copies -- and make money off them -- so Howitzer is kinda pissed, but they get to contract with Arthur for his next five books, in hopes that they will also be bestsellers.

Some authors have two or three or a dozen books like "Fortunes in Funk" before (if) they break out and become best sellers. So you're saying they should just lose the rights to those works because they didn't sell the first time?

[The Straight Story]

17. So if I buy those books at a garage sale - who gets the money from it?

Are you saying someone cannot sell a book/cd/dvd at a yard sale?

Suppose they put out a box of those things that says free?

[Tansy_Gold]

23. They can sell them. They own those copies

They -- and you -- can't MAKE COPIES.

Once they've bought their legal copy, they can do anything they want with it -- except copy it. That's why it's called "copyright" -- the right to copy.


TG, TT

[Occulus]

49. You ARE aware that the RIAA et al a few years ago wanted to make SECONDHAND sales without royalty

payments violations of copyright, aren't you?

"Once they've bought their legal copy, they can do anything they want with it -- except copy it. That's why it's called "copyright" -- the right to copy."

You left out the exception(s).

[Tansy_Gold]

53. RIAA isn't my area of expertise, but afaik

sales of used/secondhand original CDs/DVDs/etc. are still legal without royalty payments.

Sales of copies -- via iPod, etc -- are not, because they are copies that have not been authorized. While it is legal to download music you own to another device for your personal use, once you sell the device to someone else, the copy is no longer yours and therefore no longer legal.


TG, TT

[Occulus]

54. Ugh. You STILL left out the exceptions.

I'll leave it to you to figure out which exceptions I'm talking about, since you claim- claim- to hold copyrights.

Hint: They're universal and unassailable exceptions.

[Tansy_Gold]

55. I said RIAA isn't my area of expertise

You wanta shoot me over it?

My copyrights are in print media, not recordings. Since the OP was about print media, I offered comment on that. Others switch the discussion to recordings, and I offered comments.

I never claimed to be an expert, and I have certainly never claimed to be a copyright attorney.

The tone of this thread seems to be more along the lines of "This is what I wanta do and I'm gonna find other people who wanta do the same thing and don't care about what's legal or not because it's what we wanta do."

Go right ahead.

[bigmonkey]

56. Copyright should inhere to the author.

They should be able to license the production of their work, but the copyright should inhere to the author. It's this perpetual copyright as saleable property that's the problem.

[hfojvt]

18. what if he walks into a used bookstore

and the owner says "heck, I have five copies of that and it never sells, you are a good customer, just take a copy."

I gave away a number of books back when I had a store.

[Tansy_Gold]

24. That's perfectly all right. As long as they aren't MAKING new copies.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

52. No, I'm sorry, but I am NOT full of shit

Buying one copy of something does NOT give you the right to make unlimited copies of it.

Fair use is strictly defined, and it does not give you the right to make copies or "pirate" it.

In my opinion, you know very little, including civility.


TG, TT

[LAGC]

63. Then how do you explain...

People who rip songs from their old CD's for use onto their Ipods? Are they breaking the law? I don't think so. If you pay for something, you can do with it as you wish so long as you don't re-sale a copy of it for profit. You have every right to make backup copies in case something happens to the original. That's what fair use is all about.

Thanks for getting my post deleted, BTW. I guess criticism stings.

[pitohui]

9. i worked for that publishing outfit awhile, you're not depriving the WRITERS of a penny

the actual writer/creator gets a one time payment on publication or did at the time of my writing efforts, they never see another penny

giving more money to manufactors/publishers is just giving more money to corporations, i don't see the need for it

buy used dragon magazines etc. online and go on w/ your life is my opinion, you're not helping any real person and you're just hurting yourself by hunting down gary gygax or whoever and shoving more money in his pockets -- giving money to the estate (heirs) is just awful, you're giving money to people who did NO useful work all they did was pick their parents wisely

[Tansy_Gold]

16. Depends on whether or not it was work for hire.

If so, the publisher owns the copyright.

TG, TT

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. It was work for hire

the gaming industry, in a good day, works under that format.

On a bad day, they steal from creatives...

I know, been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.

[Tansy_Gold]

25. So then you know. work for hire = no copyright to the creator n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Of course I do

for the first 100 issues of Dungeon... they did not clarify anything about electronic rights... they did not exist. So when they published a CD collectors edition, they ended up in court. They had to pay writers royalties over that, and hence re-wrote all the contracts to include all future possible formats.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. That's not only for work-for-hire stuff, but also traditional

print contracts during the birth of the electronic age. That was one reason I got out -- too many print publishers wanted electronic rights for free, no royalties to authors at all, while the publishers raked in the dough. Uh, I don't think so.



TG, TT

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. That was one of the landmark cases

that led to that.

I write these days, try to sell these days, but realize how it works,

[Tansy_Gold]

36. IIRC, same thing happened to Nat'l Geographic

I believe they ended up paying some of the authors for electronic rights, either for online availability and/or CD compilations. And I'm sure by now it's incorporated into their contracts.


TG, TT

[walldude]

10. This is the exact reason I don't buy the RIAA line that they

are losing billions. I download a ton of music and all of it is music I have already purchased at one time or another. Look at my favorite albums, Dark Side Of The Moon for example. I own the LP, the 8-Track, the Cassette the CD the "Gold Mastered CD" and the DVD. How many goddamn times do I need to buy something? I downloaded it without a second thought, and continue to do the same to all my favorite albums.

People want to call that stealing, Go ahead.

[Tansy_Gold]

14. It's stealing. n/t

[-..__...]

19. Quite frankley...

I have no problem with what you're doing (I used to be a big-time "pirate" myself, but that was before the DCMA and P2P/file sharing/torrent sites).

What I do have a problem with is with people who know damn well there are laws/protections against it, continue to upload/download anyways, get caught then sob and complain when they receive a letter/bill demanding restitution.

It matters little to me how much the fines are... be it $250.00 or $250,000.

You fucked-up, you got caught, you knew the risks, now deal with it in a mature and responsible manner.

[NashVegas]

26. Ethically, I Agree With You

The trouble is that there really is no such thing as a workable Honor System in the online community, whereby we could all believe that people who DL w/out paying for a track have a hard copy laying around somewhere.

[backscatter712]

13. As far as I'm concerned, if it's out of print, it's fair game. Maybe not legally, but morally. n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

15. So you think you should have the right to reprint the books I wrote

in the 1990s, just because they're out of print?


TG,TT

[Incitatus]

46. For personal use, sure.

If the publisher quit selling them, then they obviously don't care about making money from them anymore. If I happen to come across some works online that I like and no legitimate entity is offering them for sale, I will copy them without a second thought. Pirating books, albums and DVDs that can be easily bought at the store is another matter. There may be some legal recourse for the former, but have you ever heard of someone being sued for copying material for personal use that was no longer available commercially?

[Tansy_Gold]

48. What if *I* -- since I'm the owner of the works and their copyright -- want to

sell them again? The publisher doesn't own the copyright; I do.

And as a matter of fact, yes, I do know of several cases where copying for personal use led to lawsuits, or at least threats of lawsuits. One involved a professor who, to save her students the expense of buying a particularly expensive, out of print, and hard to find textbook, told them just to go to the library and copy the pages she wanted them to read. She could have got permission from the publisher and the author in such a way that both would have been compensated; instead she got what amounted to a cease and desist order.

Just because a book or other printed work is "out of print" doesn't mean it is "public domain."

There's a reason copyrights have a time limit. It's to protect the creator's investment at least through their lifetime and a period beyond. They own that work -- unless, of course, they sell the actual copyright or give it away. Contracting with a publisher to print/reproduce/distribute a work is not the same as giving that publisher ownership of the copyright.


TG, TT

[progressoid]

20. What if you buy a CD and then someone steals it from you?

[Tansy_Gold]

27. File an insurance claim. n/t

[Incitatus]

47. Download it

and take your chances that you are not one in hundreds of thousands if not millions the RIAA tries to make an example out of.

[Major Hogwash]

29. I would say no. Theoretically.

I don't know when that game came out, but I would say that you should have a clear conscience for downloading it.
But, a guilty conscience if you start playing it again.

LoL

[NashVegas]

30. If The Work Is Not Commercially Available Someone's Sleeping On the Job

That was true for much of the late '90s and early '00s, when the majority of what I saw flying through the Napster screen was (comparatively, today) obscure alternative stuff.

That's not the case anymore, though, in regards to most music.


The trouble with online downloading, as I've written elsewhere in this thread, is that while it seems justified to DL a free copy when you've already bought a hard copy, we have no way of separating out people who actually did buy a copy once upon a time, from people who didn't and have no intention of paying. Not unless you want to hang on to every music purchase receipt you ever get and use that for some kind of proof.

[tridim]

33. I'm kind of stunned that people still play D&D.

Seems like it kind of died out (in my life at least) when computers started becoming common.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. The local DnD group was playing

at the local game shop last Saturday. It was FOURTH edition, in case you wonder.

[Johonny]

50. I hate 4th

Only play 3.5 or pathfinder. 4th to much like warcraft to bother with.

[Codeine]

57. 4th is fantastic.

I've played every edition and 4th is a complete blast.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Oh fully agree

[Codeine]

38. I just played last weekend.

We've got a group of seven adults in the 38-42 age range who all played as kids and got back into it about two years ago with the release of a new edition. Still fun and still geeky as hell!

[notesdev]

41. You need some Order of the Stick

enjoy

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html

[MrsBrady]

37. do you pay your plumber? your light bill?

would you walk into a retail store and steal a book?

you don't own the information. you are paying (or not) for ONE copy of the information.
It is stealing, because it's not yours to copy.

Now, I'm not going to judge you for what you do or don't do.

Just in the pure sense, yes I think it's stealing.

As a songwriter, if someone copies my cd and gives a copy to someone else...it's stealing. I won't earn the money for that.
One could argue that it's also free publicity. Good exposure (but one can die of exposure).

But it's stealing. You don't own the copy write.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. It is gotten to the point that only those

doing the work get it...

I remember having this same conversation with a bunch of kids who LOOVEEED to put the books the company they loved on the web as free PDFs. and then they whined when the company went out of bidness. (It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed to it)

[Tansy_Gold]

40. Yeah, see, it's not like it's really a THING they're stealing

You know, like a chair or a bike or a loaf of bread or anything. They're just makin' a copy of it.

Behind that "free" song is

A composer
A lyricist
An arranger
A band with
Instruments
A studio
Recording equipment
A producer
Technicians
Engineers

Not to mention years of time and investment.


But it's okay to make a "free" copy. . . . .

:grr:

[krispos42]

64. Unlike books, music and video is broadcast for free into our airwaves

No, I wouldn't walk into a store and steal an apple, but if the conveyer line runs through my living room I might be inclined to snag one once in a while.

[notesdev]

43. It is not stealing

stealing is taking something away from someone else... if you make a digital copy of something you have taken nothing from anyone.

If someone wasn't going to buy it in the first place, no one has lost a thing in the transaction.

The net result of our stupid ass copyright system: In China, you can watch Monday Night Football (our national pastime as proven by its outsized network ratings, despite what baseball lovers might claim) live and for free, whereas in the USA you gotta pay for cable service or an equivalent in order to get it. Or if you're watching football on Sunday, if you're in China you can watch any game you like, but in the USA you have to pay again to get the premium channels so that you can watch the game you like.

Many people who argue for copyright think that it is the creator(s) getting stiffed; most of the time this is not the truth, it is actually some predatory corporation extracting those economic rents, having bought the rights from the creator.

Either way, copyright is near-obsolete. Very little will be found to be worth paying extra for in a world full of free information.

Intellectual "property" creators will have to find a different way of making money off their work if that is what they wish to do.

[Codeine]

58. People who make those statements have never created anything of worth. nt

[notesdev]

59. Is that so?

The open-source IT community would strenuously object to your generalization fallacy.

[Codeine]

60. You know what?

You got me on that one. You're right.

[LAGC]

42. I would say "fair use" comes into play.

If you've already bought a copy of a product, you should have the right to reproduce it (for your own purposes) as many times as you want. If that includes "pirating" a download of a movie or book, more power to you. The key is that you DID once pay for the product, so you gave the author your support. If you like an author's product, you SHOULD support them. That's all that matters.

Especially in the case of out-of-print productions, I see no problem with it at all.

[bhikkhu]

66. That's how I look at it, especially for music

I'm not too adventurous in music, so most of what I have is what I liked years ago and had bought as records, cassettes and cd's. One way or another most of those were lost or trashed, but I have replaced them with downloaded copies. The question would be how many times you should have to pay the distributor for a product, if you have the means yourself to make copies. I would say once is fair. That in no way gives one the right to sell or distribute copies, but I do feel I have a right to keep and enjoy copies of what I have paid for.

I imagine it would be the same for movies and books, but that hasn't come up yet.

[canetoad]

45. Here's what the law says in Oz

Whether under jurisdiction of federal laws or state laws, every company or incorporated body must provide either the National Library or the appropriate State Library with copies of all their archive; newsletters, publications, balance sheets etc. It will then be digitised an put on public record.

As far as I can see, the only value the source documents have is of collector value, much like a Superman comic. The information contained in them probably has limited interest these days. Your concerns seem like a beat-up to me.

If we cut to the chase, the question you are asking seems to centre around copyright. More specifically, is it wrong (I ask, morally or legally?) to download media. From the very fact you asked this question I draw the inference that you, personally, would like reinforcement of your own position.

Your final line seems disconnected from the body of the post. Was this a long winded and clumsy way of drawing an analogy? Forgive me for dissecting your post so assidously but I detected a crude hidden agenda in it and wish you had come right to the point, instead of using innapropriate comparison to make a brief and unarguable political point.

[Nihil]

51. Depends on your alignment!

Lawful Good = Find some way to pay wizards.com (current copyright owners).
Lawful Neutral = Don't pay anyone but argue in favour of copyright on websites.
Lawful Evil = Donate to the host of the download site.

Neutral Good = Pay up if requested by the author (not the copyright holder).
Neutral Neutral = Not interested in the archaic issues of copyright.
Neutral Evil = Print it off then shop the download site.

Chaotic Good = Pay the equivalent amount to a charity.
Chaotic Neutral = Buy your mate a beer if he gives you a copy.
Chaotic Evil = Post copies on your own site and charge for them (after advertising on DU)

:evilgrin:


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 for non-D&D DUers)

[Enrique]

62. I would love to see some of those old products again

do the pdfs reproduce all the artwork, the maps for the modules, etc? That would be cool.

[MrSlayer]

65. I still have all my 2nd edition hardback books.

Doubles of some of them.

But to answer your question, no. First, these books are all out of print so no one is getting royalties anyway. Secondly, Gary Gygax is dead, I'm sure he doesn't mind.

I would like to know where you got the Dragon magazine download. That is something I'd surely like to have. I have various random copies stored away but I'd love the full collection.