the famous adventurer handbook that didn't got cancel since he never got announce, I think it's GREAT. If you read the annoucemenet for Prince of the Apocalypse, they say in the article that the PLAYER OPTIONS (background, race, spell, class etc...?) content will be AVAILABLE for FREE in a PDF format. I Love that idea. we are not lossing the new option, groups that want those new player options but doesn't want to buy the adventure since they play home game in a realm other then Fogetten Realm can have access to the book without buying an adventure they won't run anyway.
Our DnD group will buy as a group the Prince of the Apocalypse then the players will download for free the player option.
So why does people keep complaining? WotC is making you save 50$ by giving you the interesting part of the adventurer handbook for FREE as a PDF. If you don't have internet at home?, you can probably go to where you are now reading this download it/print it and use it anywhere. If you want a copy to bring with you put a copy of it on your phone, or print a copy.
First time I see customer complaining because a huge company offer something for free (well... there is also the Iphone customer when U2 gave for FREE there new album, but I believe them to be ridicule as well even if you don't like U2 simply dont' listen to it)
SO why does people complain so much? what is bad with free new player option?
I completely agree. I am really liking WotC's new business model of releasing player content as free pdf while the premium printed content is attached to the adventure in one book. This lets players download the materials they need while keeping the DM with the material she needs. I have already pre-ordered my copy on amazon. IMO I think people complain because they want monthly splatbooks and the old publishing model that has led Wizards to downsize the D&D team (and 4th edition to fail). I think Wizards is trying something new and I for one will support them in putting out what I think is the best and brightest edition of D&D.
Because there are people who post here not because they like 5e, but because they do not. So they will be negative about literally anything that happens. It's like a game to them - find a way to spin the information in a negative way.
Mistwell wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
I am okay with finding new, free stuff on their site. I might start buying WoTC products after their forgotten realms run is over. The products will have to be high quality for me to spend premium bucks.
It could also be that there just wasn't enough player content to justify the cost of the book without adding "bloat" just for the sake of page count.
Personally I'm not too affected because I don't use published mods anyway, but I do think it's a bit premature to worry about products being released when we just got the final core books a couple of months ago.
Mistwell wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I agree with Kalani's reasoning for desiring a physical product, but I also find the lack of opportunity to purchase the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual via iBooks for my iPad to be a more-than-mild perterbance.
It's also disheartening to see the prevalence of pirated copies of those core materials being used on iPads in my local gaming community--all justified by the lack of opportunity to access them equitably via legal means.
Agreed, some say if they buy it physical, they feel having it PDF is legally warranted "for personal use". I'd agree, to the point that Wizard's should be selling it as such.
Kalani wrote:
The thing is, player content is my #1 purchasing preference. I have only purchased 5 adventures in the past 15 years - Dragons of Autumn/Winter/Spring (by Sovereign Press, a Dragonlance product) and Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat. The only reason I purchased the latter two was because I am running AL, and because I purchased them using gift cards my store gives to AL DMs as a thankyou for running the event.
Statistically, sales typically follow the following top down format (in terms of sale volume):
- Players Handbook
- Player supplements
- Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual (possibly on par with player supplements, but I doubt it).
- Dungeon Master Supplements
- Adventures
- Maps, DM screens, and Character Sheet portfolio's.
Focusing on the adventures seems counter intuitive, as these products have the second lowest demand of all printed RPG products. As I said above, Wizards is not the one taking any risk on these products however, as they have outsourced them to 3PPs, and are pulling royalty checks off the licence (which is smart). Well, not entirely true..... Because they are stamping the products with their seal of approval, the quality of these outsourced products will reflect upon Wizards for better or worse, and will affect the longevity of the product line as a result.
Tyranny of Dragons
While the story is passable, both Hoard and Rise have serious design flaws, poor editing, missing content, etc. that reduces the standard of quality considerably. Take for example the Assassin encounter in Episode 4. If run as written, it is an almost guaranteed TPK even with a party of 7 4th level characters... How the writers managed to fumble this encounter so heavily is beyond me. The only reasonable justification as to why this encounter was so difficult, was if the writers based the encounter off an earlier, weaker Assassin, that was later boosted in power and CR.
Rise of Tiamat
......is almost a skeleton plot, and has extremely poor design choices (jumping frequently between episodes, which the writers have no excuse). As written, it is almost impossible to run this encounter in Organized Play, and is only suitable for a non-AL game, in which the DM can fill in all the missing encounters/plot. The fact that it relies exclusively on the milestone system also procludes it from AL, as AL DMs are not empowered to grant additional rewards beyond what is written.... As such, we would be limited to granting combat XP exclusively, resulting in the PCs falling behind the expected level. Furthermore, with the constant jumping between episodes, it would be extremely difficult to award downtime and renown as there is no clear "ending" of an episode.
Like most reasonable players, I can forgive the quality and design issues of the first adventure path due to the fact that these products were written during the Dnd Next playtest, and were therefore written without access to the final ruleset.
If PoA is of the same poor quality, it might have serious consequences for the future of 5E, especially if the adventures remain the primary source of revenue outside of core book sales, as nobody will be willing to purchase adventures of such low quality, and it would create a track record of poor-quality adventures.
I sincerely hope Wizard's is not putting all their faith in a 3rd party company, and that they have internal product development going on.
Man, would I love a 5e Al Qadim boxed set. Something like the original. Damn but that would be sweet!
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Kalani wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mellored wrote:
I honestly feel like they're just trying to get their bearings. To me it seems like they're afraid of taking a wrong step, and so are very cautiously taking things in baby steps. I do not blame them at all, the brand has always been on a precarious precipice by it's very nature. What does a lasting business model look like for an RPG in this day and age?
At the moment I'm fine with converting old adventures and coming up with my own mechanics and rules. I definitely don't want them to rush out product to simply have something on market. This whole edition release has been very interesting to me in a certain perspective, because you can tell that they are distinctly aware of past failures.
mrpopstar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mrpopstar... you keep mentioning copying things which are copyright protected, but I am growing unsure whether you mean "copying something to which copyright law applies," or if you mean "copying something which has had features included that must be bypassed in some fashion in order to create a copy in the first place," which are, as far as I know, two completely different things.
I.e. it's not illegal for me to make a personal use back up of an album that I bought on CD (which is how any media playing software on a PC can get away with ripping audio and storing it on your computer, and burning that ripped audio to a blank disc), but another disc like an Xbox game has been designed so that I can't copy it without "cracking" it's copy protection which is illegal to do.
In many places, breaking DRM protections are illegal. In Canada, proposed anti-piracy laws would have caused serious problems in this regard, as it would have stated emphatically that copying material was legal under the law, but breaking DRM was not. This would have caused issues with the fair use clause of the copyright act, preventing schools and individuals from making copies of DRM-protected materials, even if used for educational purposes, or to use an excerpt for an assignment.
I am fairly certain the proposed laws I mentioned were shot down as a result of these problems.
I agree with the OP 100%.
I couldn't be happier that new PC options are free. If I want to run a published adventure, I'll buy it. If I want the crunch for my own setting, I'll print/save it.
Simple, awesome, and awesome. (Yes, I typed it twice. It deserves it.)
the upcoming DnD 5th products are kind of in a strange place for me now
In ADnd 2nd 3.x and 4th If you asked me what the next DnD productyou will be spending money on would be I was always able name a product i was intending to buy.
Even if that product was ona a distant horizon.
But ask me that question for 5th at this point, and my awnser is that they haven't anounced any product that realy has me interested at this point.
I really only want at least 2 more major books. A book of well thought out Archetypes and a book of spells for wizards.
arnwolf666 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
I don't think that says what you think it says, unless you were meaning to direct me to more proof of my position - though I admit I may be failing my Intelligence check to parse legalese, the continually repeated prhase "noninfringing uses" seems to me to be clear indication of their being such a thing as a use for a copy of a thing which does not infringe upon the copyright... so it seems to indicate that an archival copy, for example, is legal even if you had to remove copy protection measures to make it (and stipulates how one would prove their copy was for archival or educational purposes and thus isn't an illegal breach of copy protection).
Retailer saying less RPG books from WotC is not a good thing. http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.ca/
Let the spin and personal attacks begin!
So when is product due out?
Kram-Odlog wrote:
Again, mrpopstar, that appears to be specifically talking about bypassing copy protection - not about copying things which have no copy protection at all - and uses the phrase "otherwise perfectly legal things" which the article uses ripping a DVD you already own so that you can transfer the movie to a device, such as a tablet, that can't play DVDs.
It specifically calls out that having the copy for personal use is legal, and that is the basis for requesting that an exemption be made to the law that bypassing copy protection is illegal.
So, according to what I read in that article, the following are currently true:
1) Personal use copies are not inherently illegal
2) Bypassing any measures intended to prevent you from making a copy is illegal.
3) Basically everybody except the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress wants to make an exception to 2 for the purpose of 1.
So, to translate that to D&D, it would appear that it is entirely legal for me to create a personal use copy of the Monster Manual that I bought because it has not been given any kind of protection against my ability to copy it - but if we were talking about those old-school TSR products that used that shade of blue ink that photo-copy technology of the era could not correctly interpret, it would be illegal to bypass that ink's ability to prevent photocopying such as by shading over it with a pencil.
And to conclude, you still haven't shown me anything that says personal use archival copies are illegal in situations where copy protection or DRM are not involved.
Is anyone else having trouble with their cursor jumping back to the beginning of the Response field whenever they hit Return at the end of a sentence? #MakingMeCrazy
mrpopstar wrote:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with mrpopstar on these topics; laws tend to be restrictive rather than permissive, whether or not the treatment of those laws is viewed in the same manner.
JohnLynch wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
To my knowledge, copyright does not prevent copying.... It prevents distribution and/or profiting off a copied work. It affords the IP holder, licence to profit off their work, and not have that profit undermined by someone distributing their content without proper authority, and/or claiming credit for work they did not do.
The "Fair Use" clause is for the purpose of distribution of content, not for the purpose of making the copy in the first place. Photocopying a book from the library and taking those photocopies home is distribution. Photocopying a book you own, and using the photocopies yourself (and only for yourself), does not count as distribution. Showing those photocopies to someone else does. Copying someone's work without proper citation and bibliography, is also an infringment..... I could go on.
In Canada, it is perfectly legal to make copies of stuff (at least it was the last time I checked). It does not violate copyright in the slightest under Canadian law. Distributing and/or sharing those copied products however may violate copyright (although I believe there are situations in which it doesn't), as does breaking DRM encryption. In addition, changing media formats is perfectly legal in Canada as well (such as ripping a CD for private use, or creating a PDF backup of a hardcopy book that you own) - again providing you do not break any encryption to do so. You must however provide the original upon request.
Different countries have different laws which are adjunct to the copyright laws (I believe that the laws you have been quoting are examples of such). But copyright itself does not do what you say it does - it simply provides the IP holder claim of authorship, and exclusive rights to distribute and profit from distribution of said. In addition, a body of text is automatically copyright to the author. Lodging said copyright with the Copyright agencies simply protects you in the case of a lawsuit, proving that you are the author (or acknowledged author) in the case of a lawsuit.
There are other methods of proving authorship without lodging it with a Copyright agency - but they are harder to prove. Examples include mailing yourself a copy of the text in a sealed, post-marked envelop and only opening it if a lawsuit were to occur.
Kalani wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition: "Exclusive rights: ... Only the copyright owner has the right to do and to authorize the following: 1. To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." (Glossary, p. 6)
Doesn't get much simpler than that.
Kalani wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
It doesn't matter much in any case - we went off on a huge tangent that doesn't mean anything for the discussion at hand.... How did we get on this tangent anyway? Oh right - someone mentioned all the pdf copies of the rules floating around on peoples portable devices.
Kalani wrote:
It's legal now in the UK to circumvent DVD copy protection and make an archival copy for yourself.
Copying for personal use is perfectly legal in Sweden. That and the abundant supply of swedish women are like the only two advantages of living in this God-forsaken frosty hell-hole.
kalil wrote:
While it is legal, illegal, or in some grey area of the law, the making of a personal, back-up copy of a dvd, cd, book, picture, etc, that you will never distribute to anyone else, whether for free or for profit, would not be prosecuted. However, do not ever get rid of the originals and keep just the copies, as I remember reading about a couple of cases where people were actually prosecuted for that.
As for the original topic, I do not think the game books themselves will be the priority for WotC/Hasbro when it comes to making them a lot of money. I would think the real money for them from D&D-related products would be found in Neverwinter, if it makes the kind of money in microtransactions that the rest of the popular free games do.
Interesting discussions. 1. Some people are unhappy with this edition and complain and troll. 2. I am glad for less bloat (but love to buy and read new content! 3. In the end I am happy waiting if they use the time to pursue quality and avoid making the rules into a maze of munchkin creep.
Whati would love--right now---is a character generator for iOS and desktop similar the the free disk that came with 3e! But slow and methodical on releases suits me very well for the sake of quality!
JohnLynch wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Kram-Odlog wrote:
All this rigamarole about copywrite back-and-forth only reminds me of one thing.
"What do you mean?"
Do you wish me a good morning?
Or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not?
Or that you feel good this morning?
Or that it is a morning to be good on?"
Aaaaaaaanyways, I doubt I'll buy the campaign, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the new .PDF has to offer.
JohnLynch wrote:
In all this arguing over what is legal to copy for personal use and what is not, I went and looked in various rpg books from different publishers, all recent releases. It is interesting how much the copyright notice at the beginning of the book can vary from publisher to publisher. These are all printings for sale in the US and not imports, so far as I know, for those mentioning the laws in other countries.
Phobos wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I'm lumping myself in the category of "random person on the internet". Any perceived slight is directed at myself as much as it's directed at anyone else.
Note: None is intended.
JohnLynch wrote:
If copying was inherrently illegal, there would be no DMCA needed. The *reason* they wanted that law passed is becuase it is considered legal to make a copy, so now they have a law that says you can legally make a copy, but you can't legally bypass the protections.
It is also why so much software is not actually 'sold' but rather licensed, because if you own it, you can copy it.
The Librarian of Congress may be a cool dude, but until the constitution puts him above the congress for writing laws, and the court system for interpreting those laws.... he is not the 'final word'. He is responsible for determining what items are not covered by the DMCA.... but that has no effect on things like books and such.
I appreciate the link to the "definitive document on the matter"...but perhaps you should tell them that, becuase they titled the document a Compendium of *Practices* which has been meant as an interneral document for most of its existence. Even the Compendium knows its limitations, to wit:
The policies and practice set forth in the Compendium do not in themselves have the force and effect of law and are not binding...
..courts may consider the interpretations set forth in administrative manuals, policy statements, and similar materials "to the extent that those interpretations have the 'power to pursuade'"
Huh... someone already posted this, but I just read it.
When even the RIAA *and* the MPAA say that it is legal to make a copy..... (and the Soliciter General).... I am not sure what the Librarian is thinking...
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/united-states-copyright-office-ripping-illega
For what it's worth, the surpeme court of the US (highest available) made a ruling saying it was totes okay to record stuff off of tv, even pay-per-views.
Now, taking that VHS tape and trying to sell it ("without the express permission of the NFL, NBC, and its affiliates") is illegal.
So yes, copy your CD, photocopy your book, and tape the superbowl. All for personal use. Yay! But if you sell it or give it to anyone...
(not to be confused with the idea of "second sale" or whatever it's called when you buy a CD from a store, and then sell it in a garage sale. Surpeme Court says that's okay too)
What this means is, if you're the one who copied it, it's fine. Taking it from Pirate Bay (whether you HAVE the PHB or not) is illegal. YOU did not make that copy of the PHB. Also, giving it to anyone (so if you're the one uploading it to reddit or whatever)
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I'd also just like to share how much I'm geeking out that we're discussing the Librarian of Congress right now. LOL
mrpopstar wrote:
Kalani wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I don't think any of us have strayed from the CoC to my knowledge.... We have been surprisingly non-political in this discussion (which is impressive tbh, given its subject matter), nor has anyone of us condoned criminal activity such as piracy.... We have simply been discussing our understanding of the copyright legislation, and how it has been interpreted in the laws of each of our respective countries.
It is quite refreshing to see such a conversation not take on a moral highground or political bent and that we have simply discussed the topic in a highly civilized manner.
In comparison to other threads, this tangent has been comparable to all of us sitting around in a Victorian manner having a nice old chat over piping hot tea and scones or chilled brandy and expensive cheeses, dressed in our best formal wear, while many other threads are drunken brawls at the pub.
Kalani wrote:
What I am *not* sure about... and I have tried to look into it...
Is if you own a book, and are allowed to create and have a .pdf copy of the book.... can someone else make that copy for me? IOW, what if I gave the book to a friend to make copies of it. (Assuming he gave them both back to me) Or what if my friend and I both own the book, and he makes two copies and gives me one? Which of course leads to.... What if I own the book, and download a .pdf of it to use as my back up.
The law doesn't seem overly clear at that point.... and I *think* the reason is because there is little case law on the subject...and I *think* that is because no one cares at that point. The court cases where people have downloaded copyrighted content, they do not own a physical copy of it.
Coredump00 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
The thing I find most ironic, is the fact that it is the record companies who are most offended. Most musicians (with the exception of Metallica and a few other specific bands) have no problem with people sharing their work, especially on p2p networks and/or youtube. It results in their work reaching a far wider audience than it otherwise would, and results in greater sales as a result.
Take Psy for example.... Were it not for someone sharing his music video gangam style on the internet - he would have remained a successful (but otherwise obscure) popstar, whose audience would only extend as far as the South Korean borders..... Now he is a world wide phenomenon.
The same is true for Ozone and their song dragonstea din tei - more commonly known as the Numa Numa song (popularized by Gary Brolsma), or a million other artists..... Sharing increases exposure, which results in albumn sales. The artists know this, yet the record lables simply see lost revenue - not realizing (or caring) that increased exposure is increasing revenue as well.
It is my belief that there has to be a win/win scenario somewhere - that allows sharing to increase artist exposure, yet at the same time makes Big Media happy.... I am not sure where the line should be, but I do know one thing for certain. If Big Media gets their way, the Psy's and Ozone's of the world will remain in obscurity as sharing their work would be illegal, keeping their exposure local.
It would also prevent many youtube Karaoke stars from being discovered, as they also seek to make it illegal to use any part of a recorded song illegal (even if its just the instrumental). This would require such amatuer artists to record the cover themselves, using their own instruments and recording equipment - rather than relying solely on karaoke tracks and the power of their voice.... But this is a separate (yet related) issue.
Ultimately, the current copyright laws are an antiquated mess, which fail to reflect the reality of our modern, interconnected world. There is only so much you can cludge an ammendment to something that was written a hundred+ years ago.
Meanwhile, the proposed solutions which would "fix" those holes are draconian in their wording, and by extension - will only benefit Big Media and Big Government, while leaving the artists themselves to suffer from lack of exposure. There has to be a solution which reflects our modern world, recovers lost revenues, and supports the artists who create our media.... I haven't the foggiest clue what it would look like, but there has to be a way to make it work for everyone's benefit.
Kalani wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Coredump00 wrote: