Full Version: Looking for books in electronic format
I have most the shadowrun books, but I prefer them in electronic format (.pdf ect) so I can use my computer to search through them instead of flipping pages to find that vehicle/rule/gun ect. I have most of them, but I can't find threats (1 or 2)out there anywhere and I don't have a scanner. If any1 wants any others drop a line and I will send them to ya.
Though they're obviously quite available through various p2p software, this board has a strict policy and culture opposed to book piracy. If you want to discuss it, take it somewhere else. We don't ask and we don't tell.
If they were easily found in p2p networks I wouldn't have posted. I understand the stand against piracy and I support it, but if I own the books and I just want them in e-format wheres the piracy? Point taken though, I will keep it of this forum.
paulmighty@hotmail.com
paulmighty@hotmail.com
legally, the piracy is in owning an electronic copy, period. except for select pages (namely, the charsheets) it's illegal to make, own, or transfer any copies in any format of any SR book. not that i walk a strictly legal line myself, but you asked.
Doesn't that depend on which country you're in? Or is it some global law?
It is not illegal to make copies of books you own for personal use. But it is illegal to download them, as they are backups of someone else's copy, whether you own them or not.
Huh? That's weird.
Consumer rights. Been that way for a long time. Which is why the DMCA— which forbids users from making backup copies of digital material for personal use and allows things like copy protection— are so ridiculously wrong and horeendously backwards that people with brains have been lobying against the RIAA and software companies that bought that bill through Congress and the altogether worthless Clinton administration.
| QUOTE |
| Huh? That's weird. |
Makes sense to me in a technical way. In the real world, though, I doubt you'd ever be charged with anything if you do in fact own the books.
all of this applies only if you live in canada
in canada it MAY be legal to have an electronic copy of a book that you own.
highly questionable but legal.
it would also be legal to get an electronic copy of a book that you own.
however it is still ilegal to get a electronic copy of a book that you dont own.
when you up load information onto the internet you may assume for some idiotic reason that all of the criminal eliments out there will obay the laws and only download things they own.
internet policy in canada as i understand it.
in canada it MAY be legal to have an electronic copy of a book that you own.
highly questionable but legal.
it would also be legal to get an electronic copy of a book that you own.
however it is still ilegal to get a electronic copy of a book that you dont own.
when you up load information onto the internet you may assume for some idiotic reason that all of the criminal eliments out there will obay the laws and only download things they own.
internet policy in canada as i understand it.
But does the same rules aplly to me in Sweden, for instance. How about someone in Peru?
Well, that's pleasantly sane. Why the US refuses to follow suit and likes being backwards is beyond me. Yay for soft money being a system of voting and free speech.
LD: you'll have to read up on international copyright law. Some of it will apply and some of it won't. Sweden's traditionally been quite lax about it, but recently, as US insistence, they've been getting more (illegally, at that) strict about things. It's a crazy world out there.
LD: you'll have to read up on international copyright law. Some of it will apply and some of it won't. Sweden's traditionally been quite lax about it, but recently, as US insistence, they've been getting more (illegally, at that) strict about things. It's a crazy world out there.
As someone who has made a living for 25 years producing and selling copyrighted material, I'm very pleased with the concensus on dumpshock that we should pay for what we use, and we should support the gaming companies that produce the materials we like.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, everyone.
That doesn't change the fact that my life would be a WHOLE lot easier if they would legitimately release the books in a digital format, even DRM protected. I would sell my mother to be able to do a word search across all sourcebooks when im looking for something.
Ugh. Never suggest DRM seriously.
It would be a hell of a lot better if they'd just release .pdfs on cds on the backs of the actual books.
It would be a hell of a lot better if they'd just release .pdfs on cds on the backs of the actual books.
I agree, BitBasher, it would make things much easier for us. Unfortunately, with all the digital piracy out there (particularly on College Campuses, I hear) it would sure cut into their revenue. I'd be willing to pay $250 for a legitimate searchable digital copy of every SR book I own, with either technology or my word to ensure that I wouldn't let any copies out of my hand.
Did you notice the shading on many tables in the third edition books? The shading makes them stand out to us, the readers, but I wonder sometimes if it was done to make photocopying harder.
Did you notice the shading on many tables in the third edition books? The shading makes them stand out to us, the readers, but I wonder sometimes if it was done to make photocopying harder.
The shading shows up fine on my pirated copies, so I think it's just because it looks cool.
Just as a side note, it's not downloading or otherwise receiving copyrighted material that's really the illegal part -- you have no way of knowing if something is copyrighted when you acquire it. It's the distribution of copyrighted material, or otherwise making it accessible to others, that's illegal.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| Just as a side note, it's not downloading or otherwise receiving copywritten material that's really the illegal part -- you have no way of knowing if something is copywritten when you acquire it. |
Mine have the copyright information clearly written on the title page. That's a good way of knowing that it's copywritten.
And how do you know that before you've acquired it? I didn't realize you were psychic.
If it were illegal, millions of people could be thrown in jail for downloading some file some jackass renamed or otherwise labeled the file as "free for public use." But you can't, because it's not illegal nor should it be.
If it were illegal, millions of people could be thrown in jail for downloading some file some jackass renamed or otherwise labeled the file as "free for public use." But you can't, because it's not illegal nor should it be.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| Just as a side note, it's not downloading or otherwise receiving copywritten material that's really the illegal part -- you have no way of knowing if something is copywritten when you acquire it. It's the distribution of copywritten material, or otherwise making it accessible to others, that's illegal. |
It seems now, as of the DMCA, this isn't true anymore. This is why some media downloaders are being sued by RIAA. "Buyer" beware!
Lime, it's nice you think that, but thanks to the DMCA, your sanity is completely legally inapplicable because we have corporate interests who bought their way into fucking customers and potential customers because they don't understand how to adapt in business. And, wonderfully, the people have no say because they don't have the money to compete. So I guess that's 'democracy.'
Data havens had better become a reality soon.
Data havens had better become a reality soon.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| I didn't realize you were psychic. |
Well now you know.
I already knew Zazen was psychic. Somehow I just felt it.
Can someone please quote the part of the DMCA where it states "and if thou downloads a file, thou shall rot in prison until you are dead Dead DEAD!" please? I recall no such clause.
There's lots about caching, archiving, and otherwise making files available (knowingly or not) to others. But I'm unaware of the parts you guys are referring to. Note also that simply because some organization or individual is suing another, that doesn't mean it's illegal either. I could sue you for offending me by wearing the color green at any point in your life, for instance, but that's certainly not a crime to wear green regardless of my insanity.
There's lots about caching, archiving, and otherwise making files available (knowingly or not) to others. But I'm unaware of the parts you guys are referring to. Note also that simply because some organization or individual is suing another, that doesn't mean it's illegal either. I could sue you for offending me by wearing the color green at any point in your life, for instance, but that's certainly not a crime to wear green regardless of my insanity.
No, but if a DMCA existed that allowed you to sue me frivolously for that without the case getting tossed out in hearing, I'd be worried. If it let you win pretty much ever single one of those cases in flagrant ignorance of the 1st Amendment, I'd be pretty fucking annoyed. And if it allowed you to sue me for wearing green underwear that you only found out about because you broke into my house illegally and poked around, in defiance of illegal search and seizure, I'd get a knife and we'd finish this like the Romans did, two men in the mud.
The DMCA completely ignores the bill of rights and much of the constitution. That's all there is to it.
The DMCA completely ignores the bill of rights and much of the constitution. That's all there is to it.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| Can someone please quote the part of the DMCA where it states "and if thou downloads a file, thou shall rot in prison until you are dead Dead DEAD!" please? I recall no such clause. |
Right at the top, actually:
| QUOTE |
| `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. |
Notice that "knowingly" is conspicously absent. As I said: "Buyer" beware.
Maybe we're reading that differently. I see nothing there talking about acquiring copyrighted material. It just states that you can't break copy protection and the like.
L.D. - Just for reference the same rules apply in EU countries as of 2001. Downloading a book you own but haven't transfered into a digital medium yourself is a no-no. Copying it into a digital format yourself is okay though. Distributing of any kind without copyrighter's consent and explicit approval is illegal too. Exception to the rule is for buying certified digital copies from a licensed and fully authorized vendor. This covers 90% intellectual properties (defined by the WTO accords) including music, films and books.
Fines in the EU range from 550€ to 5 million euro and Europol has a taskforce working on this (the same one who broke last year's paedophile scandals in the UK and Belgium) and, you guessed it, the Scand nations are at the forefront.
Fines in the EU range from 550€ to 5 million euro and Europol has a taskforce working on this (the same one who broke last year's paedophile scandals in the UK and Belgium) and, you guessed it, the Scand nations are at the forefront.
Okay, how 'bout this (emphasis mine):
| QUOTE |
| `(2) As used in this subsection-- `(A) to `circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and `(B) a technological measure `effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. |
It can, and probably either has been or will be, argued in court that avoiding a "technological measure" (eg, printing a bood rather than making it available in electronic form) means downloading and opening a file with the copyrighted material on it.
media downloaders are not being sued. it's the media sharers--the guys (or 12-yr old girls) with 1,000+ songs available to p2p networks.
Exactly.
No, not exactly. Are you completely blind? Downloaders are being ripped in half for downloading single kids' songs by the RIAA. They pick the people that will scare downloaders the most— the weakest, least offenders— and nail them to a cross for all to see. It's moved far beyond getting the big offenders.
Care to provide links to where they sued for that (and most importantly, won the case)?
sadly, they don't actually have to win the case, for two reasons: a) media spin, b) cost of being sued, even if you win.
but, yeah. i'd like to see some cases.
but, yeah. i'd like to see some cases.
They don't bother winning. They present a case that they likely would lose against a competent attorney, but since the people they pick can't afford such help, they instead plea bargain and settle for paying something like 10,000 and, mor eimportantly, signing a piece of paper saying that they'll never pirate again. If they do, they agree to pay massive fines and waive certain rights.
[edit]
There are sites dedicated to this stuff that you can Google pretty easily. I don't really have time for that, at the moment, though I'll get back with links at some point if no one beats me to it.
[edit]
There are sites dedicated to this stuff that you can Google pretty easily. I don't really have time for that, at the moment, though I'll get back with links at some point if no one beats me to it.
Which is thus my point.
It is not illegal to download copyrighted material. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn't make it illegal. Whether or not you'll get sued for doing it is something else entirely. But the act of downloading it is not the illegal part -- uploading/serving it is.
It is not illegal to download copyrighted material. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn't make it illegal. Whether or not you'll get sued for doing it is something else entirely. But the act of downloading it is not the illegal part -- uploading/serving it is.
But that's our point too. File-sharing software today--from BitTorrent to Napster to GNUtella--works by making everything you download available for others to download from you. Having no idea if the thing you just downloaded used to have copyright protection on it is completely irrelevant; the moment you download something it becomes available for upload, and you just violated the law. Frustrating, isn't it?
If you're using software that puts copyrighted material up for grabs, you deserve everything you get. It is illegal, and it should be illegal. Copyright owners have every right to determine how their products are distributed, even if you don't like it.
But just because you acquire such a copy, that doesn't make it illegal. Though if you're using P2P software to "accidently" acquire them (and then keep them for any length of time once you do), then it's entirely your fault, especially since it's very unlikely that you "accidently" happened to get such a file via such a network.
But just because you acquire such a copy, that doesn't make it illegal. Though if you're using P2P software to "accidently" acquire them (and then keep them for any length of time once you do), then it's entirely your fault, especially since it's very unlikely that you "accidently" happened to get such a file via such a network.
actually, you can change your settings on most p2p software, so that it won't share any files.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime @ Apr 18 2004, 04:32 PM) |
| It is not illegal to download copyrighted material. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn't make it illegal. Whether or not you'll get sued for doing it is something else entirely. But the act of downloading it is not the illegal part -- uploading/serving it is. |
Actually, the downloading is illegal. There was one copy before (on the server) and after the download there are two copies, one on the server and one on your own computer. You have made a copy. Only the owner of the copyright can authorize making a copy.
Regardless of anyone else's illegal actions, you are responsible for your own actions.
I believe the reason the RIAA isn't pursuing people who dl, but don't share music is two fold:
1) You need both kinds of people for a p2p network, and generally the people who share are the worst offenders (aka, they commit the most crimes, owning AND distributing, and have the most files). Similarly, suing distributors rather than just owners is just slightly better for PR.
2) It's technologically infeasible. Its very easy for them to search for any song, then catalog the other files the user is sharing. If the user isn't sharing, they have to wait until the person tries to download from a computer they own (which involves more equipment, obviously), and then they only have evidence that he TRIED to download a single song until they get to seize the computer (and until then, the user has plenty of time to erase the evidence).
It has nothing to do with legality
1) You need both kinds of people for a p2p network, and generally the people who share are the worst offenders (aka, they commit the most crimes, owning AND distributing, and have the most files). Similarly, suing distributors rather than just owners is just slightly better for PR.
2) It's technologically infeasible. Its very easy for them to search for any song, then catalog the other files the user is sharing. If the user isn't sharing, they have to wait until the person tries to download from a computer they own (which involves more equipment, obviously), and then they only have evidence that he TRIED to download a single song until they get to seize the computer (and until then, the user has plenty of time to erase the evidence).
It has nothing to do with legality
<just shakes his head>
All i know is, if someone tries to enter my home using force and not showing a warrant or at teh very least a badge of some recognized policing agency, they will never survive going to court, period. it's hoime invasion, I'm an armed citizen, you do the math.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| they will never survive going to court, period. it's hoime invasion, I'm an armed citizen, you do the math. |
...which you can also be sued for now, so I understand.
No in the municipality that I live in.
Gotta love a city where it is law that every resident own a firearm for the express purpose of home defense.
Gotta love a city where it is law that every resident own a firearm for the express purpose of home defense.
But, back on topic, they could simply make it available on the web, you pay a one time subscription fee, say 2 US dollars and download a digital certificate, you then have all teh access (online only) to browse and search. no broadbased printing, only excepts and no copy/pasting (done through java or some other web-trick). now everyone is happy.
Actually, they really just do digital illegal search and seizure. No warrants required to get your ISP to hand over everything that you've been doing. Not if you're the RIAA and bought half of Congress. No way.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| legally, the piracy is in owning an electronic copy, period. except for select pages (namely, the charsheets) it's illegal to make, own, or transfer any copies in any format of any SR book. not that i walk a strictly legal line myself, but you asked. |
There is some debate about that now in court, mostly concerning music, but i think i applys here. A court has ruled that if you own a dvd, say matrix revolutions, and you convert it to DIVX format and watch it on your pc that is ok. You have paid for and own a "License" to view the product.
TO apply it here i would suggest that you have a right to own an electronic copy of anything that you have already bought. I know what the Fanpro/fasa has a big disclaimer in the front of their products, but in all fairness..if my dog pissed on my Paranormal animals of NA, then why cant i obtain another copy. Fanpro has already got my money once???
Just a though...I want Fanpro to continue to produce this product, and i have bought damn near everything EVER produced for this game..
Maybe we could push Fanpro to make Out of print products avail in a software package like the old AD&D product they did for second edition books...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.