Now the pessimists are probably going to say that this is because Wizards isn't supporting the line. The optimists are probably going to say that this is probably due to Wizards' plan to eventually update this to the next edition.
Well, whatever else it is, it's time for me to start checking out eBay and used bookstores for a copy for my friend. And I'll probably pick up another copy for myself just in case my book ever falls apart.
Just thought you guys might want to know just in case you want to horde extra copies as well. ;)
only use the MSRD if you have too... buy the book so WotC knows that people will spend money to have more products...
btw... there are plenty on amazon...
Now the pessimists are probably going to say that this is because Wizards isn't supporting the line. The optimists are probably going to say that this is probably due to Wizards' plan to eventually update this to the next edition.
Probably because there is no big demand for ordering another printing run of d20 Modern Core Rulebook.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a Second Printing book out.
Now we strike!!!No 2nd printings for the 3rd Modern Core Set definantly sounds like they no longer want me to throw them my steaming heaping piles $BUSHBUX$(tm).
Is there even some sort of review or treatment of how 4th Ed. applies to Modern?
A-surfing we will go...
Doug
Thanks.
As far as new copies go, I found a softcover CRB in Japanese at the local gaming store, as well as a Japanese version of d20M Cyberscape
Although that would insanely RAWK if all the LS stuff would be in 4th Ed.
"I can either stay here and be annoying or go out and be dangerous. The choice is yours." Axly SureGrip
Doug
To quote Elizabeth Swan: "Bloody pirates!"
Either way, I've got MOST of the d20 Modern books, so I'm off the hook. I only really need Apocalypse & Past.
Disney's method of releasing the classics
Right... Like we are ever gonna see Song Of The South released again.
Like they want that sack of lawsuits dumped ontheir table.
I guess we are all suposed to sing Zippity-Doo-Da but not know where it came from.
But unlike a Song Of The South DVD,
we will probably see Modern being distributed by WoC again in one form or another
Song of the South hangs out with my removed Bugs Bunny/Hitler cartoon and my other non-existant media that the Machine says I'm not capable of owning responsibly. And I believe them cause said non-existant media has fallen over and hurt my wittle feelings.
I don't mind sitters (St Pats in mind and other journeys of the Psychonaut persuasion) but not everyone likes to hold hands. And I'm particular about who and what I allow close to me.
$BushBux$(tm) away!!!!
Doug
And I thought copyright infringement only applied if selling said copied material...
then again, the corporate types would do anything for more money, sadly
Proprietary information is not free.
Copyrighted infringement doesn't require monetary compensation.
FYI, there are people in china that OWN the air above cities, any building project higher than three stories requires permission and maybe royalties to the owner or it's tresspassing or something.
Copyrights are the same thing, I can understand protecting your idea from being copied and sold by someone else, after all, you worked to get that idea into medium and marketed it. But, the protection logically (though the book says otherwise) stops when someone buys the book, starts making copies and hands them out for free (maybe with minor cost to cover medium production, unless electronic). You can also just copy the information onto your own medium without buying the book and hand it out for free (no cost covering allowed since you didn't buy the original work).
This only really works if you elliminate the idealogical fallacies named currency and ownership (which don't actually exist, they are but flawed ideas, like religion), but that's my opinion (which I'm entitled to) and you are entitled to disagree.
FYI, there are people in china that OWN the air above cities, any building project higher than three stories requires permission and maybe royalties to the owner or it's tresspassing or something.
I call BS.
Copyrights are the same thing, I can understand protecting your idea from being copied and sold by someone else, after all, you worked to get that idea into medium and marketed it. But, the protection logically (though the book says otherwise) stops when someone buys the book, starts making copies and hands them out for free (maybe with minor cost to cover medium production, unless electronic). You can also just copy the information onto your own medium without buying the book and hand it out for free (no cost covering allowed since you didn't buy the original work).
Creating something and arbitrarily claiming a space of air above your city is the same? Again, nice rationalization. Medium is irrelevent. Intellectual property is intellectual property. When you buy a book, you're not just paying for the paper. You're paying for the words and ideas that the author has worked to create.
This only really works if you elliminate the idealogical fallacies named currency and ownership (which don't actually exist, they are but flawed ideas, like religion), but that's my opinion (which I'm entitled to) and you are entitled to disagree.
No, this only really works if you twist the context so far out of place that objects no longer have meaning.
You are most entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a discussion of opinions. This is a discussion of illegality, not moral ambiguity based on imaginary technicalities. This is a discussion of facts.
Fact: Copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted material without express permission is illegal, profit or no profit.
I call BS.
Hey, I might be wrong on that, I could research it, but I hate research, and I don't really have a point to prove...
Creating something and arbitrarily claiming a space of air above your city is the same? Again, nice rationalization. Medium is irrelevent. Intellectual property is intellectual property. When you buy a book, you're not just paying for the paper. You're paying for the words and ideas that the author has worked to create.
You can't create anything, you can only construct with what materials you have on hand, ideas are just mental constructs, intellectual property and ownership in general is just an idea protected by force, whether legal or physical, if you can't defend it or aren't willing to, then anyone can take it; "law and order" is just a way for people to take things while being protected from retribution, the ones with the money always have the most control, it's an expansion on the feudal system, and quite unethical; unless you're twisting the concepts of ethics to your advantage, which is what the corporations do; GW has a legal contract that says anything you "create" while working for them (I'm pretty sure it applies to off-the-clock creations too), belongs to them by way of IP, I'm sure gleemax has something similar.
Is that ethical? Is that "right"? Is it even logical? no, probably not.
No, this only really works if you twist the context so far out of place that objects no longer have meaning.
You are most entitled to your opinion, but this isn't a discussion of opinions. This is a discussion of illegality, not moral ambiguity based on imaginary technicalities. This is a discussion of facts.
Fact: Copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted material without express permission is illegal, profit or no profit.
Lawyers twist context and facts all the time, granted they're much better at it, far more long-winded, and intentionally misleading.
You can't create anything, you can only construct with what materials you have on hand, ideas are just mental constructs, intellectual property and ownership in general is just an idea protected by force, whether legal or physical, if you can't defend it or aren't willing to, then anyone can take it; "law and order" is just a way for people to take things while being protected from retribution, the ones with the money always have the most control, it's an expansion on the feudal system, and quite unethical; unless you're twisting the concepts of ethics to your advantage, which is what the corporations do; GW has a legal contract that says anything you "create" while working for them (I'm pretty sure it applies to off-the-clock creations too), belongs to them by way of IP, I'm sure gleemax has something similar.
Again, you can rationalize this as much as you want, but then again, you don't have to rationalize or make excuses when you're right.
Lawyers twist context and facts all the time, granted they're much better at it, far more long-winded, and intentionally misleading.
I'm going to rebut your own excuse for your own behaviour with your own words:
Is that ethical? Is that "right"? Is it even logical? no, probably not.
Once more: Copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted material without express permission is illegal, profit or no profit.
Try to debate the point at hand instead of spouting off with the sociology-student crap.
Again, you can rationalize this as much as you want, but then again, you don't have to rationalize or make excuses when you're right.
who says I'm the only one rationalizing, besides, isn't being rational supposed to be a good thing, or maybe that was reasoning and logical, which is what I'm attempting to be, objectively neutral.
I'm going to rebut your own excuse for your own behaviour with your own words:
it wasn't an excuse, I was just pointing out the fact that lawyers (some of whom work for gleemax and almost every other corporation/business) in general are not honest and often attempt to twist the rules to their benefit, and thusly to their employers' benefit, not to the benefit of the law or the people whom the law is supposed to protect. I wonder how they rationalize their actions?
Once more: Copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted material without express permission is illegal, profit or no profit.
Try to debate the point at hand instead of spouting off with the sociology-student crap.
I'd like to make the point that sometimes a rule, law, or order should be disregarded because it is either abusive of its legal power, or just because it doesn't make any sense.
I would like to point out that when you signed onto these boards, you agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct. Part of which reads:
Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense. These topics include crimes relating to drugs, drug paraphernalia, ****, solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation.
Regardless of your personal opinions, please honor the rules that you agreed to. If you wish to continue your discussion with j0lt, please do so through the private messaging.
Here is a relevant quote from the CoC:
Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense. These topics include crimes relating to drugs, drug paraphernalia, ****, solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation.
Please remember that you shouldn't be promoting copyright violation of any sort in any manner on these forums. Current laws must be obeyed.
Thanks,
WizO Ginger
statement: I'm not promoting copyright violation, I'm discussing the (il)logic behind such legal measures.
If I'm wrong in this, correct me and explain so that I understand what, exactly, I did so I don't do it again; if I'm right, leave me alone.
I was just pointing out the fact that lawyers (some of whom work for gleemax and almost every other corporation/business) in general are not honest
i think you watch too much tv and read to much fiction... and since from an earlier post you feel religion is bad, humans cant be inheritantly evil... you should put down you CRB pdf and go socialize a bit more.
and often attempt to twist the rules to their benefit, and thusly to their employers' benefit, not to the benefit of the law or the people whom the law is supposed to protect.
isnt that the job of a lawyer to use the law to the benefit of their client...???
I wonder how they rationalize their actions?
hey i did my job rationaliation...
I'd like to make the point that sometimes a rule, law, or order should be disregarded because it is either abusive of its legal power, or just because it doesn't make any sense.
i bet youre one of those people we see on true stories of the highway patrol that get so irate that they got pulled over doing 70 in a 35... you voted for the people who put those laws into effect... if you didnt vote then maybe you should have...
You have that law changed or removed.
Until that point, it is very illegal & incorrect to break the law on YOUR INTERPRETATION of its wrongness... thats how we get invalid marriages issued by a city where the mayor 'felt' the state's marriage law was 'wrong' but wasnt bothering to let the court make their decision.... he just went ahead & sold illegal marriage licenses.
Folks dont decide if laws(torts too) are 'wrong', we have courts for you to challenge laws and the court decides, not the guys/mayors that just feel like breaking laws they dont like.
We are not talking about idology & theorhetical constructs of the mind,
we are talking about a very real & very copyrighted, very much owned by WoC book. WoC was nice enough to allow a publisher to sell copy restricted reproductions of WoC's book to the public. If you take WoCs book(or reproduction thereof) against their terms, you will get sued.... whish is better than taking anything with Property Of Backstabbist engraved on it, in which case you would likely get shot by some irate Texan that dont cotton to theivery of his property, intelectual or physical.
In that light, the WoC stand on protecting its possesions (intelectual) seem more reasonable.
though, backstabbist, you do know you'll be charged with... manslaughter (I think) even if you're defending property/life
you are, however, entitled to shoot your own foot off (I do this a lot, my mouth too).
My point is, however scatter brained my writing may be, that the legal system is inefficient and prone to corruption when dealing with those who have the means to fully defend themselves by whatever means necessary, principlly the rich and the corporations who can afford gold(-plated?) toilet seats.
For example, Former President Clinton getting his charges dismissed (or however the... thing ended) because the defense could explain what they meant by the word "is". That's just so ridiculously stupid that it actually did work.
And i believe people are inherintly selfish, or more correctly tribal, but I do not believe in good or evil, selfishness/tribalism/jingoism is a vaible (spl?) means of survival, otherwise it wouldn't be wired into our genes.
I think my real point is that why should a game company care if their books are released by the masses? I'm assuming that the scenario is happening after they stop printing said books, mind, not during the selling of existing stock. In fact wouldn't it be... nice of them to release free (or perhaps sell them if it must be done) pdf-formats of out-of-print books?
Actually yeah, that's a better argument: I'm willing to pay for the book as long as I don't have to search stores and sites for a used copy, just make a stupid .pdf-format of all your OOP products and put em up for sale, that should be easy enough, right?
SNIP
I'd like to make the point that sometimes a rule, law, or order should be disregarded because it is either abusive of its legal power, or just because it doesn't make any sense.
That quote is advocating disregarding the law. If you disagree with the law, then by all means work with your lawmakers to try to get it changed. However, you are still required to abide by the CoC, which states that copyright infringement is one of the things Wizards does not permit to be promoted. If you think copyright law should be disregarded, you'll have to discuss that someplace else.
If you have any further questions, or would like to complain about the CoC and try to get it changed, then contact customer service at wizards.custhelp.com
though, backstabbist, you do know you'll be charged with... manslaughter (I think) even if you're defending property/life
you are, however, entitled to shoot your own foot off (I do this a lot, my mouth too).
For one so vocal about application of statutes vs illegality vs 'wrong',
you should research before making declarations like this.
Such as reading up on the Florida Castle Doctrine,
and other states that prevent the mourners of criminals from sueing the intended victems of their crimes for lethal resistance.
As for shooting one own foot: No, we are not entitled to do so.
That will net you a Discharge in City Limits in most cases, and an involuntary overnight stay under 5150.... and good luck in the hearing to see if you can keep your gun. With all the flap over J.Kevorkian, you should know the govenment controls your body, not you, and you dont want to damage govenment property.
We had over 20000 gun laws a decade ago,
learn a few thousand cause they might affect you.... like believing folks cant shoot you in some situations.
...
As for why would a publisher care about OOP books:
Just because they dont see the demand right now for another printing, doesnt mean that by simply waiting a few more years demand wont increase to the point that another printing would be profittable. That future demand certainly wont appear if all demand is being sated by copies by folks that know right & wrong better than US Legal System.
If you really wanted to burn off copies of copyrighted material,
just get together with a few million CD Burners, Napster-ites, and iPoders & send that 20million signature petition to congress in hopes of abolishing the entire IP system. Until you exhaust (or even try) legal means, dont promote ignoring the legal system.
If IP means so little to you,
I hope you are posting on a Cyrix chip Linux machine, and your cell has a knockoff battery that goes chernobyl on ya.
Orion - even having a .PDF copy isn't illegal/copyright infringement as long as you own the actual book. Much like a copy of a video game or music CD.
How you come by that electronic copy might be considered infringement, whether or not you already have the physical original.
If you paid someone to make an electronic copy, it can be considered infringement. The person is not authorized to distribute electronic copies of someone else's copyrighted body of work.
If you scan it yourself into an electronic backup copy for your own personal use, it cannot.
who says I'm the only one rationalizing, besides, isn't being rational supposed to be a good thing, or maybe that was reasoning and logical, which is what I'm attempting to be, objectively neutral.
Rationalization and being rational are two completely different things.
Being rational is use of logic, rationalization is abuse of logic to your own point. The same thing you've condemned all lawyers of doing.
it wasn't an excuse, I was just pointing out the fact that lawyers (some of whom work for gleemax and almost every other corporation/business) in general are not honest and often attempt to twist the rules to their benefit, and thusly to their employers' benefit, not to the benefit of the law or the people whom the law is supposed to protect. I wonder how they rationalize their actions?
You mean like the same thing you're trying to do now with copyright laws?
question: didn't someone state that copyright violation wasn't illegal, it could only get you sued?
No, they said it WAS illegal, just not directly "stealing".
statement: I'm not promoting copyright violation, I'm discussing the (il)logic behind such legal measures.
If I'm wrong in this, correct me and explain so that I understand what, exactly, I did so I don't do it again; if I'm right, leave me alone.
lol, you're wrong.
By "discussing the (il)logic behind such legal measures" and taking the stance you have, you are actively promoting copyright violation.
My point is, however scatter brained my writing may be, that the legal system is inefficient and prone to corruption when dealing with those who have the means to fully defend themselves by whatever means necessary, principlly the rich and the corporations who can afford gold(-plated?) toilet seats.
Yeah, they're wrong, so it's okay if we are! Oh wait, no it's not.
I think my real point is that why should a game company care if their books are released by the masses? I'm assuming that the scenario is happening after they stop printing said books, mind, not during the selling of existing stock. In fact wouldn't it be... nice of them to release free (or perhaps sell them if it must be done) pdf-formats of out-of-print books?
They care because they worked hard to make something, and rightfully expect to be compensated for their work. It would be nice, but it's their choice, not ours.
Actually yeah, that's a better argument: I'm willing to pay for the book as long as I don't have to search stores and sites for a used copy, just make a stupid .pdf-format of all your OOP products and put em up for sale, that should be easy enough, right?
d20 Modern on Amazon 15 copies new and/or used copies available. Go buy one and enjoy!
i was able to add it to my cart... i have it already so i did not try to buy it all the way... ive bought stuff here before fine...???
could be the man just trying to keep you down...
Gleemax can just make PDF downloads of OOP books, whether free or at normal price, i don't really care, I just want to be able to acquire them on a short time frame, like seconds, not the days or weeks it takes to get things from e-bay/amazon. It's the waiting I hate more than the paying.
EDIT: btw, the above site doesn't work
you can spend $40 to get the book in .pdf in seconds,
which is exactly what you want.
They even had this while the book was still available hardcopy from retailers, such as right now when you get the list of retailers that will sell a new book to you from Amazon.
So no,
you dont have to wait for it to go OoP to get the pdf,
Woc have exactly what you want in place via drivethrurpg, even for books still being sold new.
The thing that might be stopping you is that you still have to pay for the pdf merchandise you want. If you want to pay to recieve pdf merchandise in seconds, then you are in luck cause that is in place & ready for your money.
If you want store merchandise without paying, that is theft to the common man.
I don't agree with paying full price for a digital copy, and I myself find it difficult to find spare copies of d20 modern to give to my players.
Actually, the thing that stops me is a price of $40 for a digital copy. Without the overhead of printing a book and shipping it to a store, I want at least 50% off. Selling it for the standard, retail price is ridiculous. Thus, they do not get my money.
I think it's a fair deal, speaking as an owner of the physical copy. :evillaugh
I can understand if the product is electronic only (with no chance of being professionally and commercially ink-printed).
whether free or at normal price, i don't really care, I just want to be able to acquire them on a short time frame, like seconds
Some folks pay $5 for a small box of $2 cookies, but they do it at 3am just at the corner of their block. Some cant wait the 3 or 4 days for $7 UPS and FedEx it overnight for an insane amount more.
Some folks might want to get PDFs in seconds at any cost,
and there is a place for them to do just that.
Besides, by the end of summer the price of gas will make the trip to the store to get the hardcopy cost far more than the book :P
Besides, by the end of summer the price of gas will make the trip to the store to get the hardcopy cost far more than the book :P
Get a bike or get a bus pass.
Or take a one roundtrip to your local bank and get a plastic. Let FedEx or UPS Brown waste gas money (although I can see them pass their expense onto their customers).
Don't talk to me about the price of 'gas', you guy's have it easy.
Don't talk to me about the price of 'gas', you guy's have it easy.
But you guys have Mad Max. :evillaugh
Wish good ole Max would fill my car up regurarly!
You mean that literally, right? No metaphor?
* ;) ;) nudge, nudge *