Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Blarghy Jan 13, 2009 14:39:00	Anyone know what the policy is for printing website content is? I tried to get Staples to print me off a copy of the Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure for 3rd edition (since I don't have access to a laptop where we game), but the big copyright notice on the first page scared them off. So, is it kosher to print those adventures for personal use? (It would be pretty useless, I think, for them to give those away for free and then not allow anyone to use them)
#2 kythri Jan 13, 2009 19:04:44	I can't find anything in the adventure itself, or on the webpage for it, that explicitly grants you any permission to print. That said, generally speaking, it's usually been accepted that you can print out freebies for personal use - like making copies of the character sheet in the back of the book, etc. I'd imagine that the unofficial WotC stance is just that - personal use, you're cool. Staples and Kinkos are all ****-retentive these days, because they're afraid of getting in trouble for enabling bad people to do bad things. It may not be an option for you, but you should look into buying yourself a duplexing laser printer. I'm sure there's other comparable/cheaper brands, but I'm pretty partial to HP. The HP LaserJet 2015d (USB connect, no network) is going for $249.99 after rebate right now. Nice, compact little printer, pretty bullet-proof. We've got over 100 of them deployed across the company I work for right now. It's a bit of cash, but it's soooooo nice to have a good laser printer - so much faster, cleaner and clearer than an inkjet!
#3 asmodeuslore Jan 14, 2009 19:48:36	This was discussed in the D&D Insider forums here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1104880 This post in particular should be of interest: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17135024&postcount=25 The official WotC stance reported by Solice is that you can print it for personal use, but not for distribution. Of course, if they still give you grief, just print off a copy of the Fair Use Doctrine, show it to them, and tell them that you are granted the right by law to make a copy of any material, even copyrighted, as long as it falls under the terms of fair use. (U.S. residents only) You can also trot out a copy of the case of RIAA vs. Diamond, and explain to them how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that format shifting, which is essentially what you are doing, is a legal use of copyrighted material.
#4 argent_mantle Jan 15, 2009 9:13:36	Well, unluckily, most employees will stick to their guns on this issue... its far easier to tell you 'no.' Than back it up with the fact that they do NOT have to print anything for you. Until WotC disclaimers things with a 'Permission to Print/Copy for Personal use... we aren't getting any relief.
#5 asmodeuslore Jan 18, 2009 2:05:50	You could also bring a cell phone. If any of them give you grief, call up some random number, and have the following fake convesation. Make up your own fake names as needed. "Hello, Kerpinski and Associates? This is John Doe. I'd like to speak to my lawyer please. His name is Shawn Bodwin. Yes, I'll hold." At this point, you turn to the staples employee and say "You've got until my lawyer gets on the phone to work with me, or else I'll file a lawsuit for you impeding my rights under the Fair Use doctrine." Of course, this is a long shot, but if you can really sell it, you may be able to just scare one of them into cooperating with you. I don't recommend this one though.
#6 nexusvalhees Jan 19, 2009 15:04:14	You could also bring a cell phone. If any of them give you grief, call up some random number, and have the following fake convesation. Make up your own fake names as needed. "Hello, Kerpinski and Associates? This is John Doe. I'd like to speak to my lawyer please. His name is Shawn Bodwin. Yes, I'll hold." At this point, you turn to the staples employee and say "You've got until my lawyer gets on the phone to work with me, or else I'll file a lawsuit for you impeding my rights under the Fair Use doctrine." Of course, this is a long shot, but if you can really sell it, you may be able to just scare one of them into cooperating with you. I don't recommend this one though. And I'd tell you to leave before I call the police to have you removed. There's absolutely no reason to try to bully some guy making minimum wage because you're miffed about wizards not including a simple allowance to print your material it's not Kinko's problem if it's that big an issue stop buying it till they fix it.
#7 argent_mantle Jan 20, 2009 14:43:14	I don't recommend this one though. Good call... but your recommendation stands. A company can just refuse you because they want to. They don't need a reason, simple refusal is good enough.
#8 asmodeuslore Jan 20, 2009 20:52:57	And I'd tell you to leave before I call the police to have you removed. That is a possibility. Thats why its not something I really recommend. Just something that has worked for some others, so bears mentioning. There's absolutely no reason to try to bully some guy making minimum wage because you're miffed about wizards not including a simple allowance to print your material it's not Kinko's problem if it's that big an issue stop buying it till they fix it. I would counter that by saying that there is absolutely no reason for some company to bully me over making a copy of something, when I have a right to make such copies, and when even if I didn't, they would have no reason to stop me anyways, because its not their responsibility. Now, the guy making minimum wage is not my enemy here. He's just been put in a bad situation by a combination of bad policies by the government and bad policies by the company that he works for. And if he submits to 'bullying', then thats something that his manager should deal with through training. And as Argent said, he can just refuse to serve me, or call his manager. Wizards isn't in the wrong here. They have a mark stating that they have a copyright on their material. However, Kinkos is wrong in their policy of not allowing copies to be made for any material with a copyright symbol on it. A copyright symbol does not mean that there is no way to legally make copies.
#9 guivre Jan 21, 2009 5:08:04	Hooray! More ignorant advice on copyright law on these forums. You have no right to make copies unless WotC EXPLICITLY grants you that right. Fair Use DOES NOT APPLY HERE. End of story.
#10 kythri Jan 21, 2009 11:11:17	I have a right to make such copies, and when even if I didn't, they would have no reason to stop me anyways, because its not their responsibility. YOU have a right to make such copies. You do NOT have a right to have Kinkos or any other company make those copies for you. They have the right to tell you to get stuffed, and stay out of their store. However, Kinkos is wrong in their policy of not allowing copies to be made for any material with a copyright symbol on it. A copyright symbol does not mean that there is no way to legally make copies. Kinkos, and every other copy shop that refuses to let copyright material be reproduced is being ****-retentive to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit. It's completely asinine that things have gotten this bad, but unfortunately, you can blame the copyright holders and their agents (RIAA, MPAA, etc. ad naseum) for the stance that the businesses are taking. When an ISP can be sued for "facilitating software piracy" simply because someone used their service, things have gone too far. I don't like the CYA attitude that a lot of businesses have, but I understand it. If you don't like the CYA attitude, stick it to them where it hurts - the pocketbook. Stop using them. Go buy yourself a laser printer. I'm going to sound like an advert for HP again, but, dang. Last Tuesday, I just bought myself an HP Color LaserJet CP2025dn. Automatic 2-sided printing, color laser, networked to share with all PCs in my house, and DAAAAAAAAAMN, it's fast. It was $400, sure, but if you're visiting the local printshop a lot, the thing pays for itself in no time.
#11 xxphilosopherxx Jan 21, 2009 12:40:55	Hooray! More ignorant advice on copyright law on these forums. You have no right to make copies unless WotC EXPLICITLY grants you that right. Fair Use DOES NOT APPLY HERE. End of story. Care to tell us why you believe Fair Use does not apply? WotC, to my knowledge, does not exist as a special exception to US law. Not intending to be rude, the tone of your post doesn't make me want to listen to you. Additionally, you've included no reasons or evidence to back up your claim.
#12 Hocus-Smokus Jan 21, 2009 20:34:09	Calling "Fair Use" laws up might not be the best direction to take. Fair Use, even by the standards of the Copyright division of the US Government, is extremely limited and flexible. Some examples: "The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use." Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters,[11] the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial." - Wikipedia (Fair Use) So, we have Sony's case not being upheld even when entire programs were copied, then, at the other end of the spectrum, we have less than 400 words used from a memoir being seen as infringement. It's all very subjective. If the owner of the material sees it as "substantial", then Fair Use might not apply. If you copy an entire adventure, there's bound to be something in there WotC considers "substantial"...hence the store's hesitance to copy it. Wikipedia goes on to say, "The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses." Would WotC see an individual copying an adventure for personal, non-profit use as a threat to their potential market? I seriously doubt it. Would I push the issue? Nope. Also, Wikipedia offers several myths concerning Fair Use: Any use that seems fair is fair use. Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. If it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement. It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued. The lack of a copyright notice means the work is public domain. It's okay to quote up to 300 words. You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. All of the above are myths. As in all things that could lead to you being sued....consult a lawyer.
#13 asmodeuslore Jan 22, 2009 22:35:49	Hooray! More ignorant advice on copyright law on these forums. You have no right to make copies unless WotC EXPLICITLY grants you that right. Fair Use DOES NOT APPLY HERE. End of story. WotC has explicitly given us the right to make copies for use with our games. See my link above about Solice's post. Also, I do have the right to make copies, in some situations, even if WotC did not grant me explicit permission. Fair Use is only one such situation. I think that media shifting is a more appropriate situation to apply here, but honestly, I'll take whatever gets Kinko's to listen to reason. I'm not a lawyer. I could be wrong, but I've provided links to back up my claims. Also, I try to follow the Intellectual Property situation as closely as I can, and keep myself relatively well informed. But I'm not a lawyer, so if you are one, or if you have a well-informed opinion, please share it and enlighten me. Preferably, without shouting at me. YOU have a right to make such copies. You do NOT have a right to have Kinkos or any other company make those copies for you. They have the right to tell you to get stuffed, and stay out of their store. True, Kinko's can refuse me service, on just about any grounds they like, even for purposes of covering their own ass. But if I prefer to use Kinko's service instead of simply getting my own printer, then I am also within my rights to try and persuade them to change their policy, or make an exception. I can't force them to listen to me, or agree with me, but fortunately, the 1st amendment makes sure that I can at least make the attempt to convince them of the error of their ways. @Hokus-Smokus - Excellent post. Lots of good information there. Unfortunately, I don't see a counter-suggestion. If Fair Use isn't the route you would take, what do you suggest? Also, I wouldn't get too worked up about the possibility of being sued. First off, Kinko's has no legal grounds to sue, since they are not the copyright owners, and WotC has given permission to make copies for personal use, so as long as that's all you are doing, then they won't sue either.
#14 thax Jan 23, 2009 21:24:48	Gonna have to add something here. Fair use had been getting more and more limited as time has gone by. Use to be, when you filmed a movie, and some music was in the background on a radio or speakers, it was under fair use. Now you have to pay for the use of the music or pay to remove it from the soundbase. Most of the time, it is cheaper to give money for it's use, even though the owners of the music did nothing. Having copyrighted labels onscreen for any amount of time, even if it is something that isn't to do with the action on the screen, means payment for the copyright owner. Reality programs have become a blur fest as they "remove" content that they simply don't want to pay for. (as well as nudity and vulgar symbols/sayings) Pretty soon, fair use will lose all meaning completely and only be viable for kindergarten pics that might be construed as having copyrighted material (like a soda bottle).
#15 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Jan 24, 2009 10:18:42	Care to tell us why you believe Fair Use does not apply? Because he's giving ignorant advice on copyright law on these forums?
#16 Guest569801500 Jan 24, 2009 12:19:55	True, Kinko's can refuse me service, on just about any grounds they like, even for purposes of covering their own ass. But if I prefer to use Kinko's service instead of simply getting my own printer, then I am also within my rights to try and persuade them to change their policy, or make an exception. You've hit the nail on the head. Kinko's can refuse service simply on the grounds that your patronage isn't worth the effort of finding out whether they can create copies legally, or the risk of a lawsuit if it turns out that they can't. You actually have more de facto protection against this kind of lawsuit than Kinko's, simply because they have more to lose. Kinko's may not be worried about WotC/Hasbro suing them for copyright infringement, but they have a vested interest in ensuring that companies that might sue them know that Kinko's takes a hard stance against printing copyrighted materials. Unlike most individuals, Kinko's has sufficient assets that it might be financially worthwhile to sue them. At the very least, the direct and indirect damage their company could take from such a lawsuit is worth more than any money you're willing to pay them. On the other hand, even if a company decided to sue you for copyright infringement, they'll never recover the cost of doing it, and you probably have relatively little to lose by it. Threatening legal action is more likely to get you banned from the premises than anything else, and it's certainly not going to make them print copies for you - if anything, it will make them wonder why you are so desperate to have copies made of something with such an obvious copyright notice. In short, you're better off buying a printer. It will be cheaper in the long run.