Filler Comic #1

[Baru]

Since there hasn't been an update in a while, here's a filler comic I uploaded for your amusement. I might upload another one some time later.

[Scrubbed]

[Gefangnis]

Teehee! :smallbiggrin:

You might not want to use his copyright, though.

[kjones]

I think this might be a copyright violation.

[The Black Cat]

Magnificant!

[Baru]

This is a comic Rich made for Dragon Magazine.
I'll find out if this is a violation sooner or later if a mod storms on me.

[Gefangnis]

Did you fail your spot check?

Yes, yes I did.

[Ithekro]

One day, we shall receive the bounty that is laid as an example here. Oh glorious day that shall be.

[Mr. Dragon]

Man, I think I represent a number of people on this board by saying that I do have appreciated the kind thought of yours. Really. Seriously. But please remove it at once before the "Wizard that lives by the Coast" makes you end up like Zz'dtri...

[maitreyi]

Baru, I did not know that the Giant made the same sized comics for dragon magazine. Which issues of Dragon is OOTS in? Does it have a continuing story? Has he mentioned publishing these strips in the future?

Post another one quick, before they notice!:smallbiggrin:

[Baru]

They are in the last couple issues. There is somewhat of a continuing story, but it doesn't pick up until later. I could post another one -- but I've decided to hold off until the next time Rich disappears. Some of the comics are absolutely hilarious. Heh.

[Elderac]

The above comic appeared in Dragon magazine number 338 and it has appeared regularly since that issue. The current issue is in the high 350's and will end with issue 359 in September.

There may have been one or two issues that did not feature OotS, but the vast majority have had one. It is the first thing I look for when I get my copy. I shall miss the magazine and the OotS strips that appear there. :smallfrown:

[Baru]

I'm considering posting the comic from issue 340 about the will saving throw. That one is probably my favorite.

[slipper]

Screw the copywright, more!

[ThorFluff]

You sir, is made of win and awesome.

Legal or not!

[ChopSticks28]

We need more, please.

[Baru]

I have the next few fillers web ready.

[battleburn]

In what ways did you edit?
It says that you did at the bottom of the comic.

Btw, I like that you're doing this. But I really should wait with extra fillers until you have confirmation that this is allowed.

[tinsmith1]

Since there hasn't been an update in a while, here's a filler comic I uploaded for your amusement. I might upload another one some time later.

Baru - not a good idea. I think everyone appreciates the sentiment, but this ain't right for a bunch of reasons. Please don't compound the problem by doing it again, mmmmmkay?

[teratorn]

We need more, please.

Don't encourage him/her. This is wrong.

[Sinsie]

Get rid of it, please. I don't want you or anyone else getting in trouble over this. It'd just ruin your day. D: Most likely this isn't allowed and more frowned upon.

[Baru]

In what ways did you edit?
It says that you did at the bottom of the comic.

These images require heavy photoshopping to account for lousy scanners. None of the dialog has been altered.


Baru - not a good idea. I think everyone appreciates the sentiment, but this ain't right for a bunch of reasons. Please don't compound the problem by doing it again, mmmmmkay?

Don't encourage him/her. This is wrong.

Get rid of it, please. I don't want you or anyone else getting in trouble over this. It'd just ruin your day. D: Most likely this isn't allowed and more frowned upon.

I'll continue doing this at my leisure until a mod or Rich says otherwise.

Hahahah... Am I not antagonizing?

[maitreyi]

Maybe even the Giant is not allowed to post them.

Post another one quickly before you have to stop!

Hurry!!:elan: :xykon: :belkar: :thog: :biggrin:

[Baru]

Tell you what. I'll upload the 2nd filler in exactly 12 hours from the time this post was made.

[Dragonfoxfly]

Great Comic, well done Giant,:smallbiggrin:

But I think posting them might be against the rules, so I think you will have to delete it.:smallannoyed:

[AngryDaikon]

Rules rules rules. Let him do what he wants. Those of us not in the junior mod and butt kisser ranks appreciate it.

[cheesecake]

Rules rules rules. Let him do what he wants. Those of us not in the junior mod and butt kisser ranks appreciate it.

exactly what i was thinking. He isn't infringing on copy right, he could post that file any where he wanted on the internet over and over and over again without claiming it as his own and it would be fine. It was published in a magazine, and picture is free to show anyone you want to show it to! My gosh people.

[kpenguin]

Hey, we should totally make O'Chul/Chuul puns just to prove how desperate we are for a new OOTS.

[Etiainen]

Incredible :D

Tss I thought you'd let Roy live at least in the filler comic :smalltongue: Oh well

[Gerli]

Saved....
I suggest that don't break the rules of the forum and simply drop the scans in a deep folder in your PC... lets say... your "Shared E-Mule Folder" so everybody is happy..


Oh and turn on your Emule :smallwink:

[battleburn]

exactly what i was thinking. He isn't infringing on copy right, he could post that file any where he wanted on the internet over and over and over again without claiming it as his own and it would be fine. It was published in a magazine, and picture is free to show anyone you want to show it to! My gosh people.

It was published in a magazine, therefore you can make copies for yourself. But redistributing them without consent of the author/magazine owners is illegal.

-Battleburn

[phobiandarkmoon]

Actually, I'm not sure about that - I think if he's not doing it for profit he may be ok.

But it's probably the Giant/a mod's job to rule

[Tundar]

It was published in a magazine, therefore you can make copies for yourself. But redistributing them without consent of the author/magazine owners is illegal.

-Battleburn

You've got that right.

Imagine Bill Watterson's syndicate selling his strips to 2 newspapers and someone scans it and posts them on the internet for public wieving.
I'm pretty sure that would initiate a lawsuit or legal actions of some sort.

Now you must excuse me, I'm off to go find those Dragon magazines.

[Laurellien]

People people, don't have a go at him, you are not allowed to make mod-like comments unless you are a mod. Please, read the code of conduct.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

You've got that right.

Imagine Bill Watterson's syndicate selling his strips to 2 newspapers and someone scans it and posts them on the internet for public wieving.
I'm pretty sure that would initiate a lawsuit or legal actions of some sort.

Now you must excuse me, I'm off to go find those Dragon magazines.

Yet, I've come across several of Bill's cartoons on the web, usually broken down to themes. I like the "Calvin's Sick and Demented Snowmen" series.

I'm going to wait to see what Rich/the mods have to say. Personally, I'm in a bit of a testy mood right now, probably has to do with the fact that I pre-ordered SoD but still haven't seen it. :smallannoyed:

[Rowelyn]

It's a pity, really, if it was illegal. I really enjoyed reading the filler comic; otherwise I never would've known about this old material.

It would be nice if there was some kind of legal archive of these kind of old (its from 2005) comics.

Though I wonder if it is really illegal. I mean theoretically it is posted on this site which is mostly filled with material that Rich made and the issue of the magazine in which it was published is no longer for sale (I hope, but it seems logical since the comic is from 2005). :smallamused:

I'm really curious indeed what the mods will say, actually.

[teratorn]

It's a pity, really, if it was illegal. I really enjoyed reading the filler comic; otherwise I never would've known about this old material.
There are 22 of these Dragon strips and The Giant plans to make these strips available to us (check the news section, 4/19/2007).

My objection doesn't have to do with copyright and forum rules. I just think posting these strips is wrong. What's next? Scanning SoD and posting it here?

EDIT: OOTS does not come in the PDF dragons on line due to "licensing restrictions".

[Ronsian]

I think as long as you wait until the Dragon Comic stops printing, I think the copyright has to get null and void. I don't think you should print any more without the Giant or The Wizzys permission, as it could be an infringment of copyright and they could be forced to sue. I think if you only put up one, and it's illegal, you can get off with a warning, you just have to take it off.

Aside from that, very good! Great comic Giant.

[Fascisticide]

People people, don't have a go at him, you are not allowed to make mod-like comments unless you are a mod. Please, read the code of conduct.
Isn't that a mod-like comment?


And I loved this comic. I would never have known about the existence of these comics that are not on this site if you had not posted it.
I hope you'll be allowed to post more, but somehow I doubt it or the Giant would have do so himself.

Well, that's been a welcome comic fix for the past days of no OotS or Erfworld.

[shakes019]

I don't think anyone's going to get sued.

However, Baru might bet warned or banned for impinging on Rich's copyright and the image will probably get deleted.

[Rowelyn]

There are 22 of these Dragon strips and The Giant plans to make these strips available to us (check the news section, 4/19/2007).

Oh, that's really great news!! Something to look forward to.



My objection doesn't have to do with copyright and forum rules. I just think posting these strips is wrong. What's next? Scanning SoD and posting it here?


Yep, you're right that would be a bad idea, well I sure hope the new comic is coming soon.

[StupidFatHobbit]

Rules rules rules. Let him do what he wants. Those of us not in the junior mod and butt kisser ranks appreciate it.

Rules are a second-best substitute for respect. If you have any respect for Rich then you don't scan his stuff and post it without his permission. This would be true whether or not there are actual laws or forum rules against it.

I see a lot of people here who apparently like the comic but aren't willing to give its creator the basic respect they'd give their own friends. I'm amazed.

[Gavin Sage]

I think this might be a copyright violation.

There's a concept in the law known as "Fair Use" which is why say kids can cut up magazines to make collages and call them their own. The posting of a picture from a published comic is the much the same thing.

Though forum rules could be in play, but I don't remember those specifically

[Dragonfoxfly]

StupidFatGoblin, I think you are right, it is indeed quite disrespectful. Although we all like the comics and want more of them, we need to understand that even though he makes them for us (the public) to read them, he also decides which ones we read at which time.

[Kreistor]

Battleburn is correct. Posting this is a violation of copyright laws.

[Laurellien]

Isn't that a mod-like comment?

Stop pointing out the inhrently flawed logic I use!!!

[teratorn]

If you have any respect for Rich then you don't scan his stuff and post it without his permission.

Well, one could have found some old obscure pre-OOTS work and have posted it here and that would not necessarily equate with lack of respect. This is not the case but I don't think the OP meant to disrespect Mr. Burlew. Yet, I do think it's wrong to post here stuff The Giant intended for other media, namely when he said in this site he was planning to make it available to us.

[Drakron]

I don't think anyone's going to get sued.


Well if it was TSR days I would not be so sure about that ...

[Fascisticide]

I dont think it was disrespectful. He only posted one, and that allowed many of us to learn that these other OotS comics exist, and to see that they are as great as what we are used to from OotS.

It would be like finding old art or other stuff Rich has done and posting it here on the forum like "look, Rich has also done all this other stuff and it's great", as we certainly appreciate learning more about the works of artists we like.

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

This was the first OOTS I ever read. Thanks for the nostalgia, and I hope the mods aren't too angry.

[RVallant]

He's one comic behind, and two comics late, Giant should give you a medal and a mod-position for saving the day and entertaining everyone in his stead >_>

Yes, lazy Giant... *whip* put your comic up! Don't become a VG Catter... -_-;; That's the beginning of the end I say, I SAY!!! <_<

So anyway... *cough cough* >_>

toodles...

[theStorminMormo]

Rules are a second-best substitute for respect. If you have any respect for Rich then you don't scan his stuff and post it without his permission. This would be true whether or not there are actual laws or forum rules against it.

I see a lot of people here who apparently like the comic but aren't willing to give its creator the basic respect they'd give their own friends. I'm amazed.

You don't happen to work for the RIAA, do you? ;-) Rich is kind of uptight on the copyright issue, if you ask me. I respect his legal rights, and as a result I have not and never will infringe his copyright, but it does sadden me to see how regressive he is about these things.

Hop on over to xkcd.com and take a look. He licenses all his work under the Creative Commons license. As long as you attribute the work and don't use it for commercial gain, anyone can copy and distribute. The result? Xkcd is a fast-growing comic that now supports Mr. Munroe entirely. He gives a lot of the credit for the rise in popularity of his comic to his use of the CC license that allows people to freely share and distribute his work. It's great publicity.

Rich is much more old-school about things. He's very territorial about his work. He seems to think copyright means you own your ideas and can entirely control how they are distributed. It doesn't. Which, as I said, depresses me. He's clearly not from the same corner of Nerddom as the idealistic open-source guys. And I don't mean the Stallman crazies. Just your average Joe who believe in IP law in general, but think that in the US our IP law (patents, trade and servicemarks, and copyrights) has crossed the line from supporting innovation to stifling it.

But of course Rich has the legal right to defend his copyright to the extent of the law. At least he hasn't resorted to extortion against grandfathers, single parents, college kids and children yet (like the RIAA). I certainly respect him by following his rules even if I disagree with him philosophically.

But in any case, I'm not sure Rich is not the one who would be in a position to sue over these postings. Depends on the terms of his contract with WotC. He may or may not retain the right to re-publish his work for them later on. Knowing Rich, he probably fought hard to retain that right.

To all those who say "this is wrong" or "this is illegal" it's worth nothing that in cases like this you can't really know whether or not it is illegal until after it goes to court. This isn't like a case of petty theft. The law has to be interpreted to determine if this constitutes fair use or not.

You can check out the relevant US Law here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

The specific doctrine reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It's not a substantial chunk of the work, it's clearly non-commercial, and it doesn't dampen the market for Rich to publish these later on in some kind of special anthology. On the other hand, it's a bit of a stretch to say the use is for "comment" (and it's certainly not educational) so you could really make a case for this either way, I think.

[Gravedjinn]

OK I am just guessing here but none of you are actual lawyers are you???

after going out and acctually READING the copyright law on artistic design....

they can make him remove it ... they can NOT however sue him....he not makeing profit or anything as such....

unless i am just completely misinterping the law here .... worst case scenario is a fine from the court and being forced to take it down...

[Pantler]

In other words: http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s265/dolorite/elanoo.gif Ooooo, you are SO gonna get detention!

[theStorminMormo]

OK I am just guessing here but none of you are actual lawyers are you???

after going out and acctually READING the copyright law on artistic design....

they can make him remove it ... they can NOT however sue him....he not makeing profit or anything as such....

unless i am just completely misinterping the law here .... worst case scenario is a fine from the court and being forced to take it down...

Got a link to the relevant portion? I'm reading up more on wikipedia and it seems as though you can sue both for injunction *and* damages. That's why the RIAA gets to extort so much money out of its victims. Because the law provides for them to recoup damages. So you either settle with them out of court or they take you to court for tens of thousands of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law


Barring investigation by law enforcement, therefore, a copyright holder must file a lawsuit in federal court to pursue his or her remedies. These remedies fall into two general categories: Injunctions and damages.

Injuctions: Copyright Act &502 authorizes courts to grant both preliminary and permanent injuctions against copyright infringement and against violations of the author's rights of attribution and integrity in works of visual art. There are also provisions for impounding allegedly infringing copies, phonorecords, and other materials used to infringe, and for their ultimate destruction upon a final judgment of infringement.

Damages and/or profits: Section 504 of the 1976 Act gives the copyright owner/author a choice of recovering: (1) their actual damages and any additional profits of the defendant; or (2) statutory damages.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm extremely interested in IP law. It's not a subject that should be left up to lawyers, it's a subject that all people should be interested in.

Edit: Oh, and there are two types of damages. There could be no actual damages since no profit was made from the work, and that means it would be statutory damages. Those range from $750 to $150,000 per work. ($300,000 in the case of "willful infringement").

[shakes019]

The other thing to consider is that Baru doesn't own this web site, or even this thread. He does not have ultimate control over it. He can choose or not choose to delete his original post, but but even if he wanted to ensure that it stayed up, if Rich and by extraction the mods want it down, it comes down.

So his only actionable infraction is against the rules of this board.

If, on the other hand, he were to create his own site and post all his OOTS content that he scanned, then he'd have a problem.

[Rowelyn]

He's one comic behind, and two comics late, Giant should give you a medal and a mod-position for saving the day and entertaining everyone in his stead >_>

Yes, lazy Giant... *whip* put your comic up! Don't become a VG Catter... -_-;; That's the beginning of the end I say, I SAY!!! <_<

So anyway... *cough cough* >_>

toodles...

Talking about respect....

[Wizzardman]

My objection doesn't have to do with copyright and forum rules. I just think posting these strips is wrong. What's next? Scanning SoD and posting it here?


Comparison: Scanning and posting Start of Darkness, which is in a cohesive book format and now available in a variety of stores, is not equal to scanning a random OotS comic from a now out of print magazine. Since Dragon is out of print, you can only buy this comic if you buy back issues of Dragon [which means that you'd have to know which magazine had this comic in order to see it]; Start of Darkness is in book format, and thereby much easier to access. So while posting this comic helps those of us who can't afford to buy several dozen back issues of Dragon magazine, posting Start of Darkness would be depriving Rich of a lot of money. Additionally, as you must have bought a copy of Dragon in order to scan this comic in, then by copyright laws you have the legal right to show it wherever you wish, as long as you don't charge money for it or use it for other commercial purposes.

Query: Since when has posting an OotS comic onto Rich's own website been disrespectful? If so, then, to use a specious argument, a lot of people are already guilty. Isn't it a common practice on this forum to post OotS comics into threads when referencing something, or pointing out the sheer awesomeness that oozes from a particular frame? So what would be wrong with this situation? All the thread's creator is doing [legally] is revealing the sheer awesomeness of another OotS comic to the starving, awesome-hungry masses. If someone thought my creative works were great enough that people on my website repost lost or hard-to-find works in order to save other fans from death by awesomeness-deprivation, I'd be pleased. Of course, I'm not the greatness that is Rich Burlew, and if Rich disagrees with me [and with this thread], that's fine, and it is within his rights to remove this thread, and ban anyone who supports this comic being posted here. But as of yet, he hasn't said anything for or against it.

Statement: This isn't 4chan. I don't think anyone here is seriously considering posting an entire OotS book online, as that would be actually harmful to Rich.
...Also, that would take too long.

Irritated finale: ...Of course, I'm almost beginning to hope that someone does post Start of Darkness on here, so that I actually get to read it. Darn slow-shipping preorders...

[kjones]

I dont think it was disrespectful. He only posted one, and that allowed many of us to learn that these other OotS comics exist, and to see that they are as great as what we are used to from OotS.


The other way to inform people that other OOTS comics exist would be to say, "Hey, OOTS is published in Dragon."

I could care less about copyright law, but I think that creators deserve ultimate say over their own content. I love XKCD, and I respect Munroe greatly for licensing all his work under CC (under which this thread would be perfectly fine... CC allows copying as long as it's attributed to the creator and is for non-commercial purposes). But that's Randall Munroe, not Rich Burlew, and you can say that he should do this and that with his art, but that doesn't mean he'll do it.

If The Giant wanted these Dragon strips online, he would put them online. How would you feel if Baru scanned and uploaded a page from his copy of Start of Darkness? What if he uploaded the entire thing?

I appreciate the sentiment, but it just seems wrong.

Addendum: You can't be serious about buying "dozens of back issues"... according to Wikipedia, it's been in Dragon since #338, so any issue of Dragon since then will have an OOTS.

[Gefangnis]

The other thing to consider is that Baru doesn't own this web site, or even this thread. He does not have ultimate control over it. He can choose or not choose to delete his original post, but but even if he wanted to ensure that it stayed up, if Rich and by extraction the mods want it down, it comes down.

So his only actionable infraction is against the rules of this board.

If, on the other hand, he were to create his own site and post all his OOTS content that he scanned, then he'd have a problem.

This is exactly correct.


I'm not a lawyer, but I'm extremely interested in IP law. It's not a subject that should be left up to lawyers, it's a subject that all people should be interested in.

*coughcommunistcough* :smalltongue: I don't see anything wrong with leaving a complex set of laws that the public doesn't have to deal with on a regular basis to the people that were trained to understand and enthusiasts, such as yourself.

Wizzardman: Of course, since Rich and all these posters are meatbags anyways, wouldn't it be easier to just kill them all?:smallbiggrin:

[BRC]

I say take the mod's silence as approval.

[Haarculaneaum]

You know, Baru, if your intention was to get us to discuss copyright law on this Forum then you certainly fall under fair use ;)

Haar

[teratorn]

Copyright is a tricky subject. Some people talked about fair use of photos. Tell that to European zoos. In many of them (notably in Germany) photos taken there can be used for strict personal use only. No web catalogs, no blog pages, no internet at all. I don't how that would hold in a lawsuit but their lawyers do contact people.


Additionally, as you must have bought a copy of Dragon in order to scan this comic in, then by copyright laws you have the legal right to show it wherever you wish, as long as you don't charge money for it or use it for other commercial purposes.
I can't even do that to stuff with papers I published (and that I paid for). You can show your printed copy wherever you wish but that's all. Besides, if you bought printed media, it's not clear that you can distribute digital versions. Being out of print has nothing to do with it, you have to wait something like 75 years before distribution rights expire (in the USA).


So while posting this comic helps those of us who can't afford to buy several dozen back issues of Dragon magazine, posting Start of Darkness would be depriving Rich of a lot of money.
Rich said on this site that he is going to release this stuff, so it's exactly the same thing.

[Gefangnis]

So while posting this comic helps those of us who can't afford to buy several dozen back issues of Dragon magazine, posting Start of Darkness would be depriving Rich of a lot of money.

More importantly, I'm sure Rich isn't paid directly when someone buys Dragon Magazine - he's probably payed by the strip by WOTC, and as such is already payed.

[DreadArchon]

I say take the mod's silence as approval.
No, listen carefully: I think you can hear the mods crying in the background when you read this thread.

[TheNovak]

The fact that I love this and hope Baru posts more, in spite of these so-called copyright laws, probably means I'm not Lawful Good. Ah well, bein' Chaotic lets you enjoy things like this without feeling all that bad. Unless it's hurting Rich's wallet...I guess as long as it's just ripping off a corporate entity and not an individual artist, I don't mind.

Eh. Thank you for sharin' that, Baru. Here's hoping the modhammer doesn't come down too hard on ya.

[Hushdawg]

Whoo! that's a hefty amount of copyright infringement conversation for this posting.

See, the way I'm looking at it (as a photographer who has suffered copyright violations before) the scanned image is low-quality and it retains all the information regarding source and origination.
The posting individual is posting it on the forum of the original author's website, not his own site or a location that he has control over and recieves any degree of income from.

If someone posted my artwork in a similar fashion I would not be upset.

However; if the posting individual had placed this scan somewhere else on the internet, used a high-resolution (and therefore copy-worthy) scan, had removed the copyright information or had failed to indicate the original source then trouble would ensue.

[theStorminMormo]

The other thing to consider is that Baru doesn't own this web site, or even this thread. He does not have ultimate control over it. He can choose or not choose to delete his original post, but but even if he wanted to ensure that it stayed up, if Rich and by extraction the mods want it down, it comes down.

So his only actionable infraction is against the rules of this board.

If, on the other hand, he were to create his own site and post all his OOTS content that he scanned, then he'd have a problem.This is exactly correct.

Actually, I think is precisely the opposite of what the DCMA does. It specifically places culpability on posters and *not* on the sites that host the posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millenium_Copyright_Act


DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if they restore the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.


*coughcommunistcough* :smalltongue: I don't see anything wrong with leaving a complex set of laws that the public doesn't have to deal with on a regular basis to the people that were trained to understand and enthusiasts, such as yourself.

IP law impacts people every day:

* high cost of video games and other software
* frequent attempts to pass laws that restrict what people can do with hardware after they buy it
* Sony distributing rootkits to thousands of unsuspecting users
* not being able to transfer MP3s from your iPod to a computer you own * having your personal info encoded in DRM-free songs from iTunes
* not being allowed to make backup copies of your DVD movies
* valuable cancer drugs not being developed because they can't be patented

From video games to privacy concerns to cancer drugs, IP law is an integral part of the way we live our lives. If you don't care about IP law at all you're not paying attention.

[theStorminMormo]

The fact that I love this and hope Baru posts more, in spite of these so-called copyright laws, probably means I'm not Lawful Good.

For what it's worth, I'm probably a very lawful-type, and I think he's fine. There's a point at which the law begins to overshadow it's original intent, and we hit that point a long, long time ago for copyright. Initially you got exclusive rights to your works (not including Fair Use) for 28 years with a possible 28-year exception. Now you gave your lifetime plus 75 years. Some of the most profitable musicians record labels own are the dead ones like Kurt Cobain and Elvis.


Eh. Thank you for sharin' that, Baru. Here's hoping the modhammer doesn't come down too hard on ya.

Speaking of which, when was the last time anyone heard from Baru? For all we know the modhammer has already squished him...

[shakes019]

I enjoy a good freedom of speech vs infringement of copyright discussion as much as the next guy, but I would also like to point out that the comic is very funny, and extra-specially rules-based.

I hope that Rich releases the rest of them as well. It's kind of fun seeing the team in action without worrying about the ongoing story arc.

ETA: I notice that the image is still up, so either they're okay with it, or haven't seen it yet.

[Castamir]

There's a point at which the law begins to overshadow it's original intent, and we hit that point a long, long time ago for copyright. Initially you got exclusive rights to your works (not including Fair Use) for 28 years with a possible 28-year exception. Now you gave your lifetime plus 75 years. Some of the most profitable musicians record labels own are the dead ones like Kurt Cobain and Elvis.
Actually, 14+14.

The intent of the law was to protect the artist. How exactly a monopoly which lasts 75 years, or even 1 minute, _after_ the artist's death, is protecting him?
Unless, you see, it's record labels who's profiteering here.

[innk]

theStorminMormo, and what happens if he is not from USA and well, maybe dont have all these copyright law crap?

Will it be an international crime or something? =p

[theStorminMormo]

I could care less about copyright law, but I think that creators deserve ultimate say over their own content.

I find that most people are incredibly uninformed about copyright law when they say things like this. It comes down to a simple question: can you own ideas? The answer is "no". Not yet, anyway.

IP laws were developed for a very simple reason: the tragedy of the commons. Take Rx drugs. If company A invests $1 million developing a drug, but then companies B - Z can copy it the moment it hits the shelves, then company A goes out of business. The result? No new drugs.

Same idea with music, books, and comics. If you can't recoup costs, you have little incentive to develop. So IP law allows creators a *limited* time frame to recoup costs by giving them rights to their expression (*not ownership of their ideas!*)

The entire point of IP law is to promote innovation. There's also the idea that it's only fair to allow people a chance to profit from the hard work they did. But the idea that an author should own their work forever is ludicrous. Original copyright lasted just 28 years from the time you published it (hint: "published" as in "made public" It's not private anymore!) Even our current laws (which have ensured no song enter the public domain for something like the last 60 years) only guarantee lifetime of artist plus 75 years.


I love XKCD, and I respect Munroe greatly for licensing all his work under CC (under which this thread would be perfectly fine... CC allows copying as long as it's attributed to the creator and is for non-commercial purposes). But that's Randall Munroe, not Rich Burlew, and you can say that he should do this and that with his art, but that doesn't mean he'll do it.

Of course it doesn't. I'm just opposed to anti-innovative IP law and to people that I see as embracing that philosophy that you can own/control ideas. IP laws should promote innovation, not stifle it, and no one can "own" an idea.

EDIT: I also think his stance probably hurts his marketing and popularity both because it's harder for copies of his comics to circulate around the net (the way several XKCD ones do) and because people like me constantly feel a pebble in the shoe or our excitement over his great comics that he's so authoritarian and possessive about them. "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Vader..." Of course if I had to pick one: always updated or used a CC license, I'd go with always updated. :smallbiggrin:


If The Giant wanted these Dragon strips online, he would put them online.

So if the Giant had wanted to update on time, he would have? Is that what you're saying?


How would you feel if Baru scanned and uploaded a page from his copy of Start of Darkness? What if he uploaded the entire thing?

First of all, the two aren't the same. Copyright law includes the notion of how much you can "sample" under fair use. Just look at MCs who remix music. The court takes seriously the question of how much of a CD they can use without accredition or payment. And the answer is "more than zero". So one page out of entire book may or may not be fine. If I wanted to criticize (in the constructive, not negative sense) Rich's comic, I would be within my rights to put not 1 but several pages from his books online as part of that criticism.

Putting the *entire* book online, however, may be infringement because you're potentially cutting into his revenue. (It depends on things like how high-res the scans are.)



I appreciate the sentiment, but it just seems wrong.

It may "seem" wrong, but you don't seem to know a lot about copyright law or IP law. That might be the reason it seems wrong to you. On the other hand, it seems wrong to me that we are cutting off the flow of works into the public domain. Imagine a world where you couldn't quote Shakespeare without the copyright police coming after you. There is such an idea as public culture, and there is such an idea as the tragedy of the anti-commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

[Baalzebub]

And that's why I'm shifting my alignment from Lawfull to Chaotic.

[theStorminMormo]

theStorminMormo, and what happens if he is not from USA and well, maybe dont have all these copyright law crap?

Will it be an international crime or something? =p

Something like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_treaties

International treaties

* Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886
* Universal Copyright Convention of 1952
* Rome Convention of 1961
* The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), of 1994
* WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996
* WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996

[innk]

Something like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_treaties

International treaties

* Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886
* Universal Copyright Convention of 1952
* Rome Convention of 1961
* The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), of 1994
* WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996
* WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996

Cool thanks for the reply..


Im just wondering, why they dont just remove the warning "updates on mondays, weds, fris before midnight. usually." from the main page? By doing so ppl wont be able to complain that the comic is late since there is no schedule at all, and well, things like this topic wont happen, probably.... and honestly, removing the warning would also be good, since its wrong, it can be anything BUT "usually" anyway....

[Gravedjinn]

google it under copy right law ......

I closed the link out already so i dont wanna go hunt it back down.

but it specificly states that if is up for noprofit and the owner of said material does not want it there.... then he must make a honest effort to request it removed and unless it would cause damage of structrual issues with in the location it is at .... then the person posting it or putting it up would have to remove or pay a fair amount for its use.



Like i said It just what i interpreted from the writeing... you know how legal mumbo jumbo is written so feel free to look it up and correct me if i am wrong.
and here is the link to the first part you gonna have to dig through PDF like i did :D

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

[theStorminMormo]

Im just wondering, why they dont just remove the warning "updates on mondays, weds, fris before midnight. usually." from the main page?

I don't know, but I agree with you 100%. We'd all love to see a new OotS every day and obviously Rich is too busy for that (which is OK), but it just seems unprofessional to advertise updates MWF when they are late so often. And even when they are "on time" it's usually around midnight. Which is great for server load I guess, but most people don't think "updates Monday" means "Monday at 11:45pm".

Something like "usually by Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday" would make more sense, and if Rich can't reliably get 3 a week, then I'd say just go for two a week and be reliable rather than trying for 3 and not getting it most of the time. Like the stock market, it's not just about how well you do it's about how well you do vs. expectations.

[teratorn]

The posting individual is posting it on the forum of the original author's website, not his own site or a location that he has control over and recieves any degree of income from.

Nitpicking: it's really hosted on photobucket. I don't think Baru expected a discussion on copyright laws. This is really a strange forum.

One particularly bad aspect of copyright laws are scientific articles. Scientific institutions have to pay reasonable page charges (around US$100 per page or more) to journals yet the scientists who wrote the paper can not keep pdf versions of their papers online (they still own the ideas of course). And you can not copy a figure from one of those papers and put it online, but if you copy the data and do a similar plot it's ok. It's crazy.

[kjones]

Mormo: You're right, I don't know that much about copyright law, though it's certainly something everyone should at least have some familiarity with, especially in this day and age. However, when I said, "I could care less about copyright law" and "It just seems wrong to me", what I meant was that even if this isn't illegal (a proposition of which I am not thoroughly convinced) it still doesn't seem respectful to the Giant to post his Dragon strips without his permission. Something can be legal and still wrong; I can talk with my mouth full without breaking any laws, but it's still rude.

Rich's inconsistent updates notwithstanding, he has announced his intent to release the strips published in Dragon at some point, so it seems rude to me to preempt him on this.

You talk about sampling and commentary as examples of fair use, but this is neither; this is simply reproducing the work in its entirety. I know that there's a difference between quoting Shakespeare and duplicating his work entirely (although Shakespeare is public domain, of course) but how is this "sampling"? What if Start of Darkness was only one page long? Would it be okay to upload a single page then, because it's just "sampling?"

These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. I don't know where the law draws the line, and I'm curious, because I want to learn more about IP law.

Finally, I agree with you in that the Bono Copyright Extension Act is one of the most egregious pieces of legislation to have passed in the past few decades. Have you, by any chance, read the Spider Robinson short story "Melancholy Elephants"? It touches on many of the ideas of the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons to which you reference. However, these strips were published within the past 5 years, so ultimately, this is neither here nor there.

In conclusion, yes, copyright law is pretty booped up in general. Whether this strip violates those laws is up for debate.

[mec]

Law sets the boundaries when there is no respect.

The respectful thing to do would have been to e-mail Rich. "Hi, I've got some Dragon magazines with some of the print OOTS comics, is it okay with you if I scan them and upload them to the message boards?"

Rich might have said yes, he might have said no way, he might have said "thanks, but I have the originals and I'm planning to make them available my own way" (which is pretty close to what he actually has said about the Dragon comics). He might have said "wow, the originals for one of those got lost, would you send me the scans please". He might have said "ooga booga booga"!

[kjones]

Law sets the boundaries when there is no respect.

The respectful thing to do would have been to e-mail Rich. "Hi, I've got some Dragon magazines with some of the print OOTS comics, is it okay with you if I scan them and upload them to the message boards?"

Rich might have said yes, he might have said no way, he might have said "thanks, but I have the originals and I'm planning to make them available my own way" (which is pretty close to what he actually has said about the Dragon comics). He might have said "wow, the originals for one of those got lost, would you send me the scans please". He might have said "ooga booga booga"!

But, you see, mec, he wouldn't have gotten a response in time to post this as a filler comic, because as denizens of the Internet, each of us is entitled to free content and timely updates on comics for which we pay nothing.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Copyright infringement for the win! Already saved this on my PC. Call the feds on me.
People people, don't have a go at him, you are not allowed to make mod-like comments unless you are a mod. Please, read the code of conduct....but now aren't you talking like a mod right there?

[theStorminMormo]

when I said, "I could care less about copyright law" and "It just seems wrong to me", what I meant was that even if this isn't illegal (a proposition of which I am not thoroughly convinced) it still doesn't seem respectful to the Giant to post his Dragon strips without his permission.

Once you make a work public, I don't think you can expect people to treat it as private property. It's not. And so I feel that you (and Mec) are going overboard on the "respect" card. Respect is a good thing, but it can be excessive. I don't feel that it is disrespectful to use someone else's copyrighted works within the bounds of fair use.

And seriously - do you think Rich would have answered Baru if he asked? Or that he would have answered before he got the next comic up?


Rich's inconsistent updates notwithstanding, he has announced his intent to release the strips published in Dragon at some point, so it seems rude to me to preempt him on this.

That seems odd. Would it be rude for me to show you a copy of the magazine if we happened to be sitting next to each other and I happened to have a copy of the magazine in question? Would it be rude for me to pass around a copy of the magazine if you and I and a bunch of other fans happened to be playing D&D together or something?


I know that there's a difference between quoting Shakespeare and duplicating his work entirely (although Shakespeare is public domain, of course) but how is this "sampling"? What if Start of Darkness was only one page long? Would it be okay to upload a single page then, because it's just "sampling?"

Point #3 in determining fair use addresses this:

3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Note that it's the amount of work in relation to the whole. If SoD was 1 page than posting 1 page is posting the entire work. If SoD is 100 pages, then posting 1 page is not posting the entire work. Since I'm pretty sure SoD is more than 1 page, it's clear he did not post the entire work.

But you can't measure the portion used in minutes or seconds (for music) or frames (for movies) or pages (for comics). The question is whether or not the portion is a sizeable chunk of the entire message. Obviously I can't answer this: I haven't seen SoD. But since this comic was, as far as I can tell, pretty much stand-alone and didn't reveal anything significant about SoD as a whole, it seems like sampling to me.


Have you, by any chance, read the Spider Robinson short story "Melancholy Elephants"? It touches on many of the ideas of the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons to which you reference.

Nope, but it sounds interesting.


However, these strips were published within the past 5 years, so ultimately, this is neither here nor there.

True, but I was also talking about problems with copyright in general. Not just this specific question.


In conclusion, yes, copyright law is pretty booped up in general. Whether this strip violates those laws is up for debate.

Lol. That's kind of obvious, since we're debating it! :smallbiggrin:

[Post]

Look, it's Burlew's call.

And I think I can hear mods crying in the background. Sweet sound.

[TheRiov]

legally you must activly work to protect your copyright or you lose it.

(if you dont work to take legal action or at least approach people about taking down your stuff, you lose rights to your stuff.)

No, I'm not a lawer. just married to one.

[Dragonfoxfly]

Now, I am really interested in what the mods will say. I suspect they will lock the thread and remove the picture.

[Lord_Butters_I]

Thanks a lot for the comic, and even if it is illegal, this is the frigging internet. The absolute worst case senerio would be that his acount gets banned, and he could make another.

[Dragonfoxfly]

Thanks a lot for the comic, and even if it is illegal, this is the frigging internet. The absolute worst case senerio would be that his acount gets banned, and he could make another.

Making another account wouldn't be very honorable, would it? I mean, you have a certain code of conduct, in life, I mean. Who cares about if it is against the law or not, it just isn't nice and not even respectful.

[Barak]

"The intent of the law was to protect the artist. How exactly a monopoly which lasts 75 years, or even 1 minute, _after_ the artist's death, is protecting him?
Unless, you see, it's record labels who's profiteering here."

Um... maybe the artist has children and wants them to benefit from their work after they're dead?

It's not a monopoly, artists get paid from their work with _royalties_. Rich does not receive royalties from Dragon, he gets paid a flat rate per strip. If he were to publish an OOTS anthology with a larger publishing firm, say Simon and Schuster or something, he would receive roylaties for every book sold. Since he self-publishes, he incurs the expense of producing the books and takes home all the money from sales.

You see, then you can will those royalties to your descendents. Say if I publish a novel, and I die tomorrow, and my book sells 1 million copies, copyright law provides that my royalties will go on to my surviving heirs. It's kinda nice that way. And they will continue to go to my heirs for the next 75 years until it becomes free for everyone.

75 years after my death, none of my relatives will get any more money from that book, the only people making money from it will then be publishing companies--of course, any publishing company would then be free to publish their own version of the book.

That's how copyright law protects artists.

In this case, Rich stated he was going to do it himself, he didn't specifically authorize us to post the other strips. Rich is not losing money from it being posted here. The entity which is likely to be peeved is WOTC, which published Dragon, because they have a contract with Rich--they paid him for the strip and he is probably not free to post it willy-nilly anywhere because it would diminish its value in their eyes. So, Rich is likely to say: hey, I had a contract with WOTC, and you need to take down that picture because it violates that contract.

Again, if I publish a book through Simon and Schuster, I give them exclusive publishing rights, which means I can't go out and self-publish the same book I just gave them. I would be violating my own contract on my own book. WOTC probably has exclusive publishing rights to those strips, which means that Rich can't legally post them here, and you can't either.

My two cents.

[tanonev]

Fair Use, Disney style. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo)

Also, could someone explain to me how posting 100% of a self-contained comic published in a magazine (in other words, the equivalent of an article in the same magazine) is "insubstantial" according to Fair Use?

[mockingbyrd7]

It was published in a magazine, therefore you can make copies for yourself. But redistributing them without consent of the author/magazine owners is illegal.

-Battleburn

Quoted by some other guy: Do more! Do more! Before they catch you!



Heh, it's like a battle between Law and Chaos. I pick Neutral. :smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

legally you must activly work to protect your copyright or you lose it.

(if you dont work to take legal action or at least approach people about taking down your stuff, you lose rights to your stuff.)You're thinking of trademarks, not copyrights. That is how trademarks work, because the purpose of trademarks is to identify your brand and avoid confusion with other brands (or people outright pretending to be you); if you don't protect your trademark and it enters common usage to the point where it's no longer associated with your brand when referring to the market you have it in, then there's no longer any purpose to letting you enforce it, and you end up losing it. This is what happened to Xerox. (Note that it's possible for this to happen even if you do try and protect it)

Copyrights, on the other hand, can lapse if you don't take various steps to renew and maintain them, but they don't have to be constantly enforced the way trademarks are--it remains your creation (or the property of whoever you sold the rights to) even if it's plastered all over the internet and nobody knows you made it anymore.

(Anyway, I suspect the reason no mods have posted here is because they're waiting to ask Rich, and don't want to give the appearance of giving an 'official' position without his input. Or it could just be that they're all asleep.)

[Dragonfoxfly]

The idea is that when people read it, people are less likely to buy a book containing that comic. So mr Burlew or WoTC can make less money. This is bad and that is why Copyright protects them.

[mockingbyrd7]

Making another account wouldn't be very honorable, would it? I mean, you have a certain code of conduct, in life, I mean. Who cares about if it is against the law or not, it just isn't nice and not even respectful.

*ahem ahem* You have been deemed by the gods of Byrd as...

LAWFUL GOOD!

Move along, nuthin' to see here.

-------------------------------

Back to the strip: Awesome strip! I wonder if Roy will live? It sure would suck if he died AGAIN. I think they should have just stuck with the grapple, but the stupid monster un-grappled and full-attacked instead. Stupid monster.

P.S. Does anybody know what kind of monster that was?

[kjones]

Point #3 in determining fair use addresses this:

3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Note that it's the amount of work in relation to the whole. If SoD was 1 page than posting 1 page is posting the entire work. If SoD is 100 pages, then posting 1 page is not posting the entire work. Since I'm pretty sure SoD is more than 1 page, it's clear he did not post the entire work.

But you can't measure the portion used in minutes or seconds (for music) or frames (for movies) or pages (for comics). The question is whether or not the portion is a sizeable chunk of the entire message. Obviously I can't answer this: I haven't seen SoD. But since this comic was, as far as I can tell, pretty much stand-alone and didn't reveal anything significant about SoD as a whole, it seems like sampling to me.


But the comic in question wasn't from Start of Darkness. It was a stand-alone strip from Dragon Magazine. The first post of this thread is the entire thing; therefore, it is a "sizeable chunk" of the total work. Unless the "whole work" is something like "all the strips Rich has done for Dragon," I don't see how this is quoting or sampling.

This is how I see it: When I was a young(er) lad, I used to "borrow" stuff from my brother all the time. Socks, markers, books, what have you, it doesn't matter. The point is, I would go into his room and just take it whenever I felt like it. He would get mad, even though he didn't really mind that I was borrowing his stuff; it was the fact that I wouldn't ask first.

So, posting this comic is probably OK with Rich in the long run; it doesn't cost him anything, really, and it gives his Dragon strips a bit of exposure, and it makes some fans happy. I'm just trying to put myself in his shoes and think of what I would want if it were my comics on the line. I would want to be asked first. It's just common courtesy.

[mudbunny]

Rich is not losing money from it being posted here.

He may not be losing money right now. However, when he does release the strips in a dead-tree format, he may be losing money on people who would otherwise buy the book but for the fact that "they already saw it on the internet..."

[TheRiov]

Giant Crayfish?

[Dragonfoxfly]

It was a chuul. See page 35 of the MM.

EDIT: SRD link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/chuul.htm)

[WarriorTribble]

For something as minor as a few minutes of entertainment I'd think a creators personal wishes should trump all, but that's just me.

[Haarculaneaum]

the whole "saw it on the internet" isn't a good argument at all. How many copies of the first two OOTS books have sold (not the prequels, but the ones from this site)? How many copies of Penny Arcade and Sluggy have sold? Strong Bad DVDs? All thats are on the interwebs.

So, when has the 12 hours for the next one passed?

Haar

[skywalker]

Mods have been silent this long...

Maybe they're at work. Or trying to ensnare us all so that we're banned. Maybe they're sick? Or maybe, they think it's okay? Maybe they're trying to contact the Giant and cannot.

But I say it's highly unlikely for a mod to be silent this long in the face of something he/she did not want up.


EDIT: @haar
Tell you what. I'll upload the 2nd filler in exactly 12 hours from the time this post was made.

So... 5:42pm? Eastern Time?

[mudbunny]

the whole "saw it on the internet" isn't a good argument at all.

Doesn't matter whether I think it is a good argument or whether you think it is a bad argument. It matters whether a judges thinks that, due to it being on the internet, there is a loss of income.


How many copies of the first two OOTS books have sold (not the prequels, but the ones from this site)? How many copies of Penny Arcade and Sluggy have sold? Strong Bad DVDs? All thats are on the interwebs.

You can't compare the two. In this case, the comic is being put up without[1] permission from the copyright holder. In all of the other cases, the owners of the copyright are putting them up themselves. They are choosing to put them online, available for free, with the knowledge that there *will* be people who will not buy the dead-tree versions because they are available for free online. In the case of the OP, the copyright holder has not been consulted about whether he wants it put up or not.

In addition, the fact is that the OP has changed the comic from the original[2], without asking permission from the copyright holder.

[1]Without any confirmation either way, we can make no assumptions about whether or not the OP has permission to post the comic.

[2] And the changes are not done to place the new work in the form of parody or critique, both of which are allowed through Fair Use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) in the US. In my opinion, the OP's post does not fall under the provisions of fair use. It fails under points 1, 3 and 4, according to my (I am not a lawyer) opinion.

[Wizzardman]

Unfortunately, if Rich is getting paid per comic by Dragon, then posting the image on this board is technically ripping off Dragon Magazine [as they now technically own the comic, pending rights discussions between Rich and Paizo].

Of course, when Rich does actually put all the Dragon strips into a new book [and thus we would actually be ripping off Rich], we can always get rid of this thread. In a way, this thread is functioning like fansubs do for some Animes [i.e. they're legal until the anime becomes licensed].



Wizzardman: Of course, since Rich and all these posters are meatbags anyways, wouldn't it be easier to just kill them all?:smallbiggrin:

Chuckling reply: Of course, master. Why do you think Rich hasn't posted a new comic in a while? And why do you think the mods haven't locked this thread yet?

[silvadel]

"Again, if I publish a book through Simon and Schuster, I give them exclusive publishing rights, which means I can't go out and self-publish the same book I just gave them. I would be violating my own contract on my own book. WOTC probably has exclusive publishing rights to those strips, which means that Rich can't legally post them here, and you can't either.

My two cents.

Then again -- and this is 100% postulation -- maybe RB cant publish the works in any form or fashion and WC decided to let them die with the magazine -- or be published on some CD compliation 10 years in the future...

In that case people might be being oblivious on purpose -- as there is a loophole potential here -- or at least the main poster would be he who gets in trouble as opposed to official channels...

Who knows -- when I first saw it I thought it was going to be removed within 10 minutes even though it was in the wee hours.

[evileeyore]

No, listen carefully: I think you can hear the mods crying in the background when you read this thread.

The thread is better when the mods cry...

[Jorkens]

First of all, the two aren't the same. Copyright law includes the notion of how much you can "sample" under fair use. Just look at MCs who remix music. The court takes seriously the question of how much of a CD they can use without accredition or payment. And the answer is "more than zero".
Actually, that one's been changed - I can't remember whether it was a change in the law or a legal precedent being set, but it's no longer legal to sample even a single cycle of a waveform.

Yeah, I agree with you that IP law has clearly gone from 'encouraging innovation at the cost of temporarily restricting the free flow and development of ideas' to 'choking the free flow and development of ideas to make it easier for big businesses to make money without having to come up with anything new.'

On this occasion, though, given how indebted we are to Rich for giving us OotS at no cost, it would seem polite to do what he asks us regarding copyright...

[theStorminMormo]

But the comic in question wasn't from Start of Darkness. It was a stand-alone strip from Dragon Magazine. The first post of this thread is the entire thing; therefore, it is a "sizeable chunk" of the total work.

It's debatable. But I don't think it makes sense to see a comic as completely stand-alone. If not part of SoD it's part of the Order of the Stick. I agree that there's room for disagreement, here. By the same logic you could argue that an entire song is really just part of an album (and I don't think that works). It all hinges on what you define to be the work it's taken from.


This is how I see it: When I was a young(er) lad, I used to "borrow" stuff from my brother all the time. Socks, markers, books, what have you, it doesn't matter. The point is, I would go into his room and just take it whenever I felt like it. He would get mad, even though he didn't really mind that I was borrowing his stuff; it was the fact that I wouldn't ask first.

The problem with that metaphor is that when you take a physical item from someone you deprive them of the use of that item. If you took a pair of socks, he could not use those socks while you had them. If you copy a comic you aren't taking the comic away from anyone however.

And again: published works are not private property. There's no "fair use" to take someone's socks for educational purposes.


So, posting this comic is probably OK with Rich in the long run; it doesn't cost him anything, really, and it gives his Dragon strips a bit of exposure, and it makes some fans happy. I'm just trying to put myself in his shoes and think of what I would want if it were my comics on the line. I would want to be asked first. It's just common courtesy.

That's very polite of you. I just think it's a bit of overkill. *If* it's fair use (and that's up for debate) you don't need to ask for permission to be polite. The NYT doesn't ask permission before it prints quotes from books in it's review.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I read this whole thread, anticipating some great cataclysm of mod vengeance. I am... disappointed. No drama. Just lots of discussion on things that I discuss during the school year. This is summer! I don't want to think!

You know, the Chuul could have taken a -20 penalty to the grapple, and it still would have threatened the area around it and retained its DEX bonus to AC. Of course, then Roy would've been able to get free, in all likelihood.

[theStorminMormo]

On this occasion, though, given how indebted we are to Rich for giving us OotS at no cost, it would seem polite to do what he asks us regarding copyright...

First of all, what do you mean by "at no cost". As far as I know, this is how he makes his living.

And secondly, it's worth pointing out that I do respect Rich's wishes. I think he's hurting himself by being the copyright-nazi with his own work. I think it creates ill-will and restricts his own marketing. So I'm not advocating that we ignore his wishes at all. I'm just saying I'm not sure if this is fair use or not, and that in addition to that question I think Rich is out of touch on copyright issues.

I'm sensitive to the fact that RPGs and comics aren't an easy way to make a living and that he wants to squeeze every dime out of his work that he can. He's not Bill Gates. I empathize with that. I just don't think he's going about it the right way.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't do that.

See the Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=29&a=1)

Posting Copyrighted Content
Posting any copyrighted material without permission is against the rules. Posts containing such content will be edited to remove that content.

Thanks.