# Staples refuses to print my PDFs....



## JVisgaitis

So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples and they refused to print them. They said they need a written document from the publisher which states that they can be printed.

Does anyone else have these problems? Can I even get something written from Mongoose and Morrigan Press that says its okay to print the PDFs? Do other publishers not intend for PDFs to be printed? What's the dilleo with this? I think its insane and never had problems with this before.

Anyone else?


----------



## bento

Were these free downloads or purchased pdfs?  

If they were purchased you can always print out the receipt.  I know for RPGNow and Paizo.com they have a page where all your purchases are listed.

If it was free, then Staples are being nimnulls.   
Maybe for free downloads you can print out the link page to show where the file came from?


----------



## Silver Moon

I am actually glad to hear this - nice to know that somebody out there is actually concerned about pirated files instead of just making a buck.


----------



## rgard

bento said:
			
		

> Were these free downloads or purchased pdfs?
> 
> If they were purchased you can always print out the receipt.  I know for RPGNow and Paizo.com they have a page where all your purchases are listed.
> 
> If it was free, then Staples are being nimnulls.
> Maybe for free downloads you can print out the link page to show where the file came from?




He said he 'bought' them so he sounds legal to me.  

Good call on the printing the RPGNow and Paizo pages!

Edit:  Also, I think the free ones you get at RPGNow are listed on the page of purchases too.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## JVisgaitis

bento said:
			
		

> Were these free downloads or purchased pdfs?
> 
> If they were purchased you can always print out the receipt.  I know for RPGNow and Paizo.com they have a page where all your purchases are listed.
> 
> If it was free, then Staples are being nimnulls.
> Maybe for free downloads you can print out the link page to show where the file came from?




Purchased PDFs. They were based on print products and one of them as the cannot be copied disclaimer. Still stupid though... Looks like my PDF purchases have just gone down. Wonder how well this will bode for Wizards Digital Initiative.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> I am actually glad to hear this - nice to know that somebody out there is actually concerned about pirated files instead of just making a buck.




Sorry, but I disagree. If I came in there all the time and said that I wanted 100 copies, I can see their point. I'm a repeat customer that comes in every 3 or 4 months with a single PDF to print and now I can't. Its ridiculous. If I heard about customers that wanted to print our products and couldn't, I'd be annoyed. I mean that's pretty much the point of PDFs, isn't it?


----------



## smootrk

Just go down to the next block and use Office Max (copymax), or Office Depot, or Kinko's.  Surely one of those other places will have someone who understands the process.  When you find your special contact person, make a note of his/her name so that when the issue comes up again with 'random new employee #x' you have someone who they can check with.

And printing your receipt, along with information on where you bought/downloaded from are very good ideas as well.


----------



## JVisgaitis

smootrk said:
			
		

> Just go down to the next block and use Office Max (copymax), or Office Depot, or Kinko's.




I'd love to. I live in a pretty rural area and Staples is the only thing I got. Closest is Office Max at 25 miles away. I don't even know of a Kinko's closer then Philly...


----------



## Mark CMG

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples (. . .)





Perhaps they do not like to print PDFs for someone who tells them someone else sent them in with someone else's PDFs?  Have you been back personally and spoken to someone who you have dealt with before?


----------



## JVisgaitis

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Perhaps they do not like to print PDFs for someone who tells them someone else sent them in with someone else's PDFs?  Have you been back personally and spoken to someone who you have dealt with before?




That's what I thought, but they said its the new policy. Doesn't matter who you are.


----------



## Nonlethal Force

I applaud staples, and perhaps will take my business to a copy that I know follows the rules that protect the publishers.  'Bout time someone des!  It's kind of like the reason I say that you to the rare person at a check-out stand that actually checks the signature on the back of my credit card.  It's what they're supposed to do.  Good for them.

Besides, it isn't like getting a receipt and printing it out is all that hard.  As Bento said, it isn't that hard.  If they still refuse, perhaps you should contact the publisher rather than getting mad at Staples who are just doing their job?  I'm sure a publisher would like to know that information so that they can either put in a disclaimer buiolt right into the pdf file about being able to print with receipt, or else send you a note to that effect.

If only everyone would play within the rules, we wouldn't need so many rules.


----------



## Mark CMG

By "they" you mean that several people confirmed this policy?  I've been in situations where a single individual goofed up a customer service situation and when the establishment was phoned, this same person happened to also be the person to catch the phone call.  You should ask for a printed copy of the policy to send to the publishers when you request their permissions.  Anyone should know a publisher isn't going to send out a an official permission slip that could be abused in countless ways.  If there were a real written policy, I suspect it would only require a receipt of some sort as suggested above.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> By "they" you mean that several people confirmed this policy?  I've been in situations where a single individual goofed up a customer service situation and when the establishment was phoned, this same person happened to also be the person to catch the phone call.




My gf called me on her cell from the store. A couple of clerks who were behind the counter said that was the policy and she asked to speak to the store manager and got the same thing. If the manager doesn't know, then they have a lot more problems on their hands then not printing a couple PDFs for me. I work in Customer Service, so yeah I've seen some people at Network Solutions relay some pretty ridiculous information to our customers.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> You should ask for a printed copy of the policy to send to the publishers when you request their permissions.




Got one. Their brochure actually has a permission form on it that I would need to fax to the copyright holder. Funny thing is it seems like the brochure was written for the photocopying of physical documents and doesn't say anything about PDFs. I usually don't get mad and vent my frustrations on a forum, but this has me uber annoyed.

Anything you write is copyrighted the minute you write it down. So if someone wanted to take a copy of this post to Staples and get it printed, they would need permission from all of us. I hope they do that with kids high school reports too.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Anyone should know a publisher isn't going to send out a an official permission slip that could be abused in countless ways. If there were a real written policy, I suspect it would only require a receipt of some sort as suggested above.




I'm a publisher and if I knew people were having problems I'd certainly include a statement in the PDF that states a single copy of the product could be made for personal use. They don't want a simple receipt, they want a form filled out. It sucks for all of the small PDF companies out there. I only buy larger PDFs with the intention of printing them out. I won't waste my money anymore as there is just no way I can read a 224 page PDF on my computer. Staring at a computer screen 8 hours a day is bad enough...


----------



## Andre

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> By "they" you mean that several people confirmed this policy?  I've been in situations where a single individual goofed up a customer service situation and when the establishment was phoned, this same person happened to also be the person to catch the phone call.  You should ask for a printed copy of the policy to send to the publishers when you request their permissions.  Anyone should know a publisher isn't going to send out a an official permission slip that could be abused in countless ways.  If there were a real written policy, I suspect it would only require a receipt of some sort as suggested above.




I encountered the same problem with Kinko's, and the PDF I was trying to print was a legal, purchased copy of some "cardboard heroes" - something that has to be printed to be useful. I only went to Kinko's because I wanted them printed in color on cardstock. Their response: I have to have a document from the publisher stating that I had permission to print that specific file. Proving I had purchased the file made no difference. Two different employees at the store told me the same thing. This was almost two years ago.

While I applaud such companies for attempting to follow copyright laws, let's be clear: they're doing this to cover their backsides, not out of some intense concern for a small PDF publisher. I can't blame them - too many people will sue at the drop of a hat, so they have to be careful. But a sledgehammer approach like this will make it more difficult for PDF publishers, not easier, to gain and keep customers.

As for blanket permission, many publishers of boxed games have for years included a "May be copied for personal use" rider on blank gameplay sheets. I don't see why PDF publishers can't put something like that on the cover page of their documents. Seems to me that would cover what most customers would need, while protecting the publisher from the rare individual who tried to print dozens.


----------



## Cthulhudrew

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples and they refused to print them. They said they need a written document from the publisher which states that they can be printed.




Tell them that the permission form is bundled in with the pdf files that you are printing.


----------



## Mark CMG

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I usually don't get mad and vent my frustrations on a forum, but this has me uber annoyed.





Oh, I know.  And you certainly seem to have covered every avenue on the situation.




			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I'm a publisher and if I knew people were having problems I'd certainly include a statement in the PDF that states a single copy of the product could be made for personal use.





I think I will follow your lead and do the same in future pdfs from CMG, as well.  Good call.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Tell them that the permission form is bundled in with the pdf files that you are printing.




Heh. I think I'm going to try and take Broken Isles in and see what they say...


----------



## Mark CMG

Andre said:
			
		

> I encountered the same problem with Kinko's, (. . .)





I've heard once or twice of similar things with Kinko's but never had a problem myself and thought they were isolated events.




			
				Andre said:
			
		

> As for blanket permission, many publishers of boxed games have for years included a "May be copied for personal use" rider on blank gameplay sheets. I don't see why PDF publishers can't put something like that on the cover page of their documents. Seems to me that would cover what most customers would need, while protecting the publisher from the rare individual who tried to print dozens.





I, too, now concur.  Good call on your part, too.


----------



## jdrakeh

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I've heard once or twice of similar things with Kinko's but never had a problem myself and thought they were isolated events.




It is supposed to be Kinko's corporate policy as they are the only chain of copy shops successfully sued for violating copyright -- what most people don't know is that the suit hinged on Kinko's copying college text books, binding the copies, and then selling them in their stores for a profit. That is, it had _nothing_ to do with Joe Average Consumer coming in and asking the stores to make copies for personal use. That said, there's always Print-Fu. Cheap and web-based, for all of your PDF printing needs.


----------



## wingsandsword

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I applaud staples, and perhaps will take my business to a copy that I know follows the rules that protect the publishers.  'Bout time someone des!  It's kind of like the reason I say that you to the rare person at a check-out stand that actually checks the signature on the back of my credit card.  It's what they're supposed to do.  Good for them.



I have pretty much the exact opposite feelings, Staples is acting very poorly.  If they place paranoia over not getting sued as a higher priority than good customer service, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Now, it looks clear that purchasing .pdf's to download and have commercially printed isn't what they had in mind with this policy.  Companies that sell .pdf downloads need to contact Staples and let them know how their policy is interfering with their sales, and how a form like they are asking for isn't practical to be faxed around for every customer that wants to take their product to be printed (and since that's the whole idea of the product, that means all of their customers are going to need printing, and a lot are going to be looking at commercial printing).


----------



## Nonlethal Force

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I have pretty much the exact opposite feelings, Staples is acting very poorly. If they place paranoia over not getting sued as a higher priority than good customer service, I'll take my business elsewhere.




It isn't staples "job" to make people happy.  It helps, and that ensures return customers.  It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples.  Sure, they are preventing themselves from being sued.  But in a way, that is good sound customer service policy.  Who do you think is going to pay for legal suits?  The future customers, that's who!  By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Now, it looks clear that purchasing .pdf's to download and have commercially printed isn't what they had in mind with this policy.  Companies that sell .pdf downloads need to contact Staples and let them know how their policy is interfering with their sales, and how a form like they are asking for isn't practical to be faxed around for every customer that wants to take their product to be printed (and since that's the whole idea of the product, that means all of their customers are going to need printing, and a lot are going to be looking at commercial printing).




See, I think this is the equivalent to making the left turns to eventually go right.  It works, but it is certainly the long way to go around.

Let's face it.  The problem is not correctly solved by yelling at staples or kinkos and telling them to change their policy.  That may be the easiest solution, but I've long found out that in life "easiest" seldom equates to "best" and especially seldom equates to "most thorough and effective."  If we want a thorough and effective solution, I put it to the publishers of pdf files to do as JVisgaitis and CMG have suggested.  Simply put on the title page of the document that 'duplication' companies (like Kinkos and Staples) have permission to print one copy for a customer who comes in with proof of purchase for the document.

That's the effective solution.  Getting mad at Staples and taking your business elsewhere is simply an understandable gut level response.  But the effective solution ultimately lies in telling pdf producing companies about the policies of others and asking them to make permission public and documented.  I'm sure that pdf companies who want to make their products continue with good sales will consider this - as demonstrated above by CMG and JVisgaitis.

As annoying as it may be, there is no fault to be held by Staples.  Now, they are responsible for telling costomers about their policies in a nice manner, but policy is policy.  And I can't blame them for that one.


----------



## jdrakeh

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> As annoying as it may be, there is no fault to be held by Staples.




Well, you'd be wrong in some cases, as many PDF files include a 'permission slip' as it were. Kinkos routinely refuses to print any and all PDF files, even those with permissions for printing incorporated into the file. It has to do with the aforementioned lawsuit, but the policy is still flawed (especially when you know why that suit actually came about). I'm not certain about Staples, but I suppose that the policy is similar -- no PDF printing, even with permissions incorporated into the text of the file (I've had Staples refuse to print copies of PDFs that _I_ authored, for the record).


----------



## bento

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Well, you'd be wrong in some cases, as many PDF files include a 'permission slip' as it were. Kinkos routinely refuses to print any and all PDF files, even those with permissions for printing incorporated into the file. It has to do with the aforementioned lawsuit, but the policy is still flawed (especially when you know why that suit actually came about). I'm not certain about Staples, but I suppose that the policy is similar -- no PDF printing, even with permissions incorporated into the text of the file (I've had Staples refuse to print copies of PDFs that _I_ authored, for the record).




That's why I go to the "self-help" PC that's set up at Kinko's and stick in my credit card to print my pdfs.  Usually this is only to print the document covers in color though, as I took last year's tax refund and invested in my own laser printer.


----------



## jdrakeh

bento said:
			
		

> That's why I go to the "self-help" PC that's set up at Kinko's and stick in my credit card to print my pdfs.  Usually this is only to print the document covers in color though, as I took last year's tax refund and invested in my own laser printer.




Yeah, I knew (and gamed with) a Kinko's manager in Topeka, so that wasn't an issue that I ran into there. Here, I know the manager of a locally owned chain that beats Kinko's _and_ Staples for prices. I can typically submit a file for printing via their web interface and have it ready for pick up on the same day.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> It isn't staples "job" to make people happy.




Well, if a company likes to be in business it should be their job. Whatever happened to good ole customer service and the customer is always right?



			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.




I see where you're going with this, but who's interests do you think they are looking out for? If you say its their customers, you have a lot to learn about life and how big corporations work.



			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> The problem is not correctly solved by yelling at staples or kinkos and telling them to change their policy.




No customer service representative should *ever* be yelled at. They don't make the policy and I hate seeing people like that get abused. Its a huge peeve of mine.



			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> If we want a thorough and effective solution, I put it to the publishers of pdf files to do as JVisgaitis and CMG have suggested.  Simply put on the title page of the document that 'duplication' companies (like Kinkos and Staples) have permission to print one copy for a customer who comes in with proof of purchase for the document.




Personally, I wonder what would happen if I would take a PDF into Staples that was my own copyright or that did have a notice that said one copy can be made for personal use. I think they'd say the same thing. We'll see, cuz I'm really curious. I'll let you all know what happens.


----------



## Graybeard

I work at Staples and feel compelled to put in my 2 cents. As for the copywrite policy, it applies to newspaper articles, school photos, etc. Anything really old (say 75+ yrs old) we don't worry too much about the copywrite. Newspaper articles we have no problems getting permission to copy those. It's a simple phone call. PDFs I have never encountered anyone wishing us to print them. However, if there was indeed a premission line in the file such as the one used on character sheets in RPGs, we would be happy to print a copy for the customer. I don't know if the PDFs to be printed had that or not. If they did and the staff simply didn't look, then they are at fault. Otherwise, they are doing their job and could face serious disciplinary action if they ignored the copywrite policy. You could always hope you run into a gamer at your local Staples or other copy shop who understands about downloaded PDF files.


----------



## Karlson_the_red

I too work at a Staples, and I have to say, it is the policy.  Basically, if there is a question about it, we don't print it, simply because other chains/organizations have gotten their pants sued off for reproducing pirated materials.

Most customer PDF's I have encountered are easily told from the more professional.  Some PDf's have the line "Can be reproduced for personal use..." as well.  

If you brought in a reciept for the digital download, I would have run it with no issues.  

As it stands, the copyright laws are still way behind the digital age...

I am sorry you had such an issue, but as it stands, its the law and Staples is just protecting itself.

Karlson


----------



## nedleeds

Get a PDF editor and slap a graphic with "CAN BE REPRODUCED AS OFTEN AS NEEDED FOR PERSONAL GAIN" on the front cover.


----------



## Psion

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Besides, it isn't like getting a receipt and printing it out is all that hard.  As Bento said, it isn't that hard.  If they still refuse, perhaps you should contact the publisher rather than getting mad at Staples who are just doing their job?




The _cashier _is doing their job.

The _company _is being needlessly paranoid.

It's their right to protect themselves. But in the end, their _job_ is to provide the customer with a fair service. And customers who don't see that service rendered should take their money elsewhere.


----------



## Korgoth

It seems my paranoia about paying for PDF products is justified after all.

I don't want to pay for nothing... or pay for something that requires intermediaries to access.  If I buy a printed item, it's mine and I can always know where it is and access it as I please.


----------



## Delta

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples and they refused to print them. They said they need a written document from the publisher which states that they can be printed.
> 
> Does anyone else have these problems? Can I even get something written from Mongoose and Morrigan Press that says its okay to print the PDFs? Do other publishers not intend for PDFs to be printed? What's the dilleo with this? I think its insane and never had problems with this before.
> 
> Anyone else?




This happened to me at a Kinko's a few years ago when I was trying to get a SimCity map I'd created printed out poster-sized. I was mad as hell. Frankly, I thought the guy at the counter was just lazy because I was the 3rd person in a row he refused to do a job for, for a variety of reasons.

I must say that the person above who works at one of these stores, who tried to describe their policy, and is unable to even spell "copyright" correctly is pretty rich.


----------



## jdrakeh

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Personally, I wonder what would happen if I would take a PDF into Staples that was my own copyright or that did have a notice that said one copy can be made for personal use. I think they'd say the same thing. We'll see, cuz I'm really curious. I'll let you all know what happens.




See my post above. I've had a Staples (in SoCal) refuse to print copies of a PDF that I authored/owned. It was incredibly frustrating


----------



## Nonlethal Force

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Well, if a company likes to be in business it should be their job. Whatever happened to good ole customer service and the customer is always right?




Naw.  It shouldn't be their "job."  It should be their desire.  The job is what a contract (or the law) compells you to do.  However, don't hear me as disagreeing with you.  You are exactly correct.  If they wish to be able to continue to do their job, they will desire to make the customers happy and do their job in such a way that the corporation and the customers are satisfied.  And that is usually the rub, isn't it?



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I see where you're going with this, but who's interests do you think they are looking out for? If you say its their customers, you have a lot to learn about life and how big corporations work.




I never said that they're looking out for me.  I am saying that when a corporation gets hit with a lawsuit, it is the future costomers who have to pay.  So, whether they are looking out for me or looking out for themselves, my point is that the fewer the copyright lawsuits they have to pay out, the cheaper their service is going to be.  But you're darn right they're doing it for their protection, not my wallet!



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> No customer service representative should *ever* be yelled at. They don't make the policy and I hate seeing people like that get abused. Its a huge peeve of mine.




Totally agreed.  I'm even polite to telemarketers who call.  It isn't their fault the computer randomly called my house.  



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Personally, I wonder what would happen if I would take a PDF into Staples that was my own copyright or that did have a notice that said one copy can be made for personal use. I think they'd say the same thing. We'll see, cuz I'm really curious. I'll let you all know what happens.




Please do.  I think that would be very interesting to hear.  To be fair, though, I recommend a 3-part test:

1. Control: Take in a pdf from another company without receipt or permission line.

2. Sample #1: Take in one of your own with the ability to prove it is your own design.

3. Sample #2: Take in your own, or another companies, that has a permission line specifically written into the front age of the pdf.  (As well as any necessary things like a receipt).

I would be interested in seeing how that goes.  And to be fair, they should all be done with the same customer service rep at the store.  But I am interested to hear how it turns out.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Staples has it's head up it's butt. Massively.

"We need a signed permission slip before we let you off campus, children!"


----------



## Karlson_the_red

Well, call the company paranoid, but their view point is better safe than sorry.  One of the stores I used to work at in NC, was sued because someone at the copy center made color copies of wedding pictures without the photographers permission.  They may be pictures of your wedding, but the person who took them, owns them.  That entire experience was just nasty...

And that pretty much lead to the: if its questionable, don't do it.  Its frustrating, yes, but its better than a huge lawsuit.  

Plus, if you really need it printed out, buy a $50 printer and some ink and have at it...  It would probably work out to nearly the price, depending on the page count

Karlson


----------



## jdrakeh

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> See my post above. I've had a Staples (in SoCal) refuse to print copies of a PDF that I authored/owned. It was incredibly frustrating




[Edit: I guess I should mention that this has also happened at Kinko's in the interest of being fair.]


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Well, call the company paranoid, but their view point is better safe than sorry.




In my mind, it's an insult.

"You're a thief unless you can prove you're not. You're not a customer, you're a criminal. We don't serve you, we serve our suspicious superiors who treat IP and copyright law like a bludgeon against consumers."

It's a pet peeve with me, I get angry out of proportion with it, but I loathe the assumption that all users are abusers.


----------



## Morrus

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> See my post above. I've had a Staples (in SoCal) refuse to print copies of a PDF that I authored/owned. It was incredibly frustrating




They don't print a document _you _ created?

Errmm.. this may be a daft question.  What _do_ they print?  It doesn't actually sound like they _have_ a printing business.  Are you sure they actually print stuff?


----------



## JustinA

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> [Edit: I guess I should mention that this has also happened at Kinko's in the interest of being fair.]




I think the most ridiculous example of this I've run into is when Kinko's refused to print out a copy of a large manuscript I needed to mail to a publisher (this was back in the days before digital submissions had become the norm). It didn't even have a copyright notice on it, but the Kinko's position was that this looked "clearly official" and even had a byline that identified a specific author.

I showed them my driver's license and said, "Yes, I'm the author."

Still wouldn't print it.

The store manager showed me the policy. It specifically stated that they would not print "any copyrighted material". Not "any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright", but "any copyrighted material".

When I pointed out that this policy literally meant that they couldn't let anyone copy anything that wasn't at least three-quarters of a century old (or thereabouts) the guy just frowned at me.

Yet another example of copyright taken to insanity.


----------



## ssampier

Asanine. I'm not surprised, but just because it's not surprising does not mean it's not asanine.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Staples has it's head up it's butt. Massively.
> 
> "We need a signed permission slip before we let you off campus, children!"




We need a note from your mother and a report card from your third-grade teacher.


----------



## Nonlethal Force

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a pet peeve with me, I get angry out of proportion with it, but I loathe the assumption that all users are abusers.




Yes, but I equally loathe the assumption that anyone couldn't be an abuser.  Certainly not all users are abusers.  But certainly there are more abusers out there than who get caught.

In response to your inquiry, Morrus, they do print Masters Thesis.  My wife recently had to have 5 copies of her thesis printed up on some high quality paper, so we took it to a staples and they had no problems doing it.  Word Documents are apparently pretty easy to print out.  They have problems with things like pdfs which can be (and should be) appropriately locked by the publisher.


----------



## jdrakeh

Morrus said:
			
		

> They don't print a document _you _ created?




That was my experience, yes.



> What _do_ they print?




Well, it's actually a "_copy_ center". Accordingly, making copies of an existing physical document (though not a bound book) doesn't seem to be an issue for Staples. It's the printing from an electronic document intended for distribution that seems to have them running scared. Honestly, it seems to be a policy based almost entirely on fear of dealing with a new medium and lack of understanding about copyright, rather than a sane, rational, measure of protection against piracy.


----------



## Morrus

JustinA said:
			
		

> I
> 
> The store manager showed me the policy. It specifically stated that they would not print "any copyrighted material". Not "any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright", but "any copyrighted material".




Yeah.  That's all material.  The store manager told you that the company doesn't print stuff.


----------



## Morrus

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> In response to your inquiry, Morrus, they do print Masters Thesis.  My wife recently had to have 5 copies of her thesis printed up on some high quality paper, so we took it to a staples and they had no problems doing it.  Word Documents are apparently pretty easy to print out.  They have problems with things like pdfs which can be (and should be) appropriately locked by the publisher.




So it's the file format?  They'll print it if it's in .doc format, but not if it's in .pdf format?


----------



## Nonlethal Force

I don't know that for certain - as policy.  But we've never have them refuse to print a Word document.  We've also never tried a pdf.  So, I'm not claiming to paint a fair picture - merely talking about my own experience.

EDIT: I should also claim that I live near State College, PA.  [Penn State for those who don't know]  Since State College is largely a university town and only a university town, they're pretty accustomed to doing things like thesis and even dissertations.


----------



## Karlson_the_red

Well, we actually print lots of things...  But there is a difference between a pdf of Joe's painting service flyer, and a copy of Complete Warrior.  I had to recently "let someone go" for printing pirated pdf's using the stores equipment.  So there are a lot of abusers out there,,,

To Delta:  It is a fine line to walk.  No one should accuse anyone of anything, that is actually part of the training.  But I will put it to you this way, if you worked hard on a project, say writing a book, and you get a percentage of all sold, would you not be unhappy if you found out people were making copies of it?  As an artist, I had someone steal some of my stuff once and say it was their own, so I can tell you, I was not pleased.  Copies were made and sold, and I saw nothing.  What really hurt was the fact this guy got all the praise for my stuff...  

Plus, just because someone wrote something, does not prove that they still control the IP.  

As for the map of Simcity, What was wrong with printing out the Jpg with no copyright?  It does sound like the guy was lazy...

Karlson


----------



## Morrus

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> Well, we actually print lots of things...  But there is a difference between a pdf of Joe's painting service flyer, and a copy of Complete Warrior.




What's the difference between Joe printing his flyer and an author printing his book?  Does Joe need to prove he has permission to print his flier?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what the criteria are.  Seems that file type seems be one from evidence above; and it seems that _size _ seems to be one, too, from what you're saying?

It sounds to me that people would be better off using an online service like Printfu, rather than using a shop like Kinko's or Staples.


----------



## Nonlethal Force

Actually, I am curious as well.  In my sig (post above) you'll notice that I have a few Story Hours that are fictional (not table-top based).  My wife hates reading off the computer screen, so for Christmas this past year I printed out my entire first Story Hour (~180,000 words).  I realized that it also took about an entire cartridge of ink.  It would have been better for me to go to staples, have them print it out, and probably get a better quality product.  But, being a document of 180,000 words that looks like an unpublished novel, would they have prnted it for me?  I'm curious ... because when I finish story hour 2 I want to print that one out for my wife, too.


----------



## Karlson_the_red

The big difference is the quality of the design.  Joe's looks like his brother in law made it up on Cute pdf, while CW has a higher production value.  

As for the author not getting it printed, i have no real clue.  If there was no publishing info on the pdf, then just showing his driver license should have been enough.  Once a publisher gets involved, it gets more complicated.

Karlson


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

Try an Office Depot or Office Max. They'd probably do it. At least when I asked the guy at the copy center if they could print pdfs, he said yes. I might try bringing in some gaming pdf to see if the offer still stands. But that was at least a year ago so things might've changed.

You might even try a university's computer lab and print stuff out then take it to Staples or whatever to be bound. I did it with Dragonfist but 10 pages at a time took awhile. Even late at night, some people actually use the computers for *gasp* school work! I think I have 2 printed versions of it - a fancy double sided bound one and a binder full of sheet protecteds since I didn't know how to print double sided pages. Doh. At least I hope I still have them.


----------



## jdrakeh

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> Plus, just because someone wrote something, does not prove that they still control the IP.




True. That said, in my case, the copyright portion of the document very clearly attributed ownership to me, by name. Which means that, for the purposes of that document, I held copyrights (and still do, actually). The store employee sagely assured me that only by providing appropriate documentation from the Library of Congress could I prove to their satisfaction that I actually held said copyrights. Again, as others have said, this kind of thinking borders on clinical paranoia, not responsible business practice.


----------



## Psion

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> The big difference is the quality of the design.  Joe's looks like his brother in law made it up on Cute pdf, while CW has a higher production value.




But quality desktop publishing is becoming more accessible; that's no longer a valid criteria. More and more people are doing fancier and fancier things at a smaller scale, but can't afford to go to a dedicated publishing house to do it.

To me, it's sounding like Staples is strangling a blooming business opportunity in the crib.


----------



## roguerouge

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I applaud staples, and perhaps will take my business to a copy that I know follows the rules that protect the publishers.  'Bout time someone des!  It's kind of like the reason I say that you to the rare person at a check-out stand that actually checks the signature on the back of my credit card.  It's what they're supposed to do.  Good for them.
> 
> Besides, it isn't like getting a receipt and printing it out is all that hard.  As Bento said, it isn't that hard.  If they still refuse, perhaps you should contact the publisher rather than getting mad at Staples who are just doing their job?  I'm sure a publisher would like to know that information so that they can either put in a disclaimer buiolt right into the pdf file about being able to print with receipt, or else send you a note to that effect.
> 
> If only everyone would play within the rules, we wouldn't need so many rules.




Nonsense. Staples wouldn't print articles that I had written in a newspaper as a freelancer when I had my identification papers on me. It made constructing a portfolio a living nightmare.

Ultimately, the maximum restriction of copyright benefits the corporate distributors at the expense of the writer, who often must sell the copyright on the work that they do. Nor does it prevent the minimally competent pirate who will either distribute their wares through file sharing sites, or own a printer if they have to print it out for their business.


----------



## Delta

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> As for the map of Simcity, What was wrong with printing out the Jpg with no copyright?  It does sound like the guy was lazy...




Hi, Karlson. I'm going to gently suggest that it's simply more of the same very confused and murky hand-waving about copyrights that seem to go on in these shops. 

For example, every artistic creation or piece of writing has, upon creation, a copyright. In the example of the Jpeg map, I own the copyright, because it's my creation.

Anyway, I tell you what... I just dug up the complaint letter I wrote back in 2001. I phoned, wrote the store, wrote coporate HQ, and never got any response to the following:



> June 14, 2001
> 
> Kinko's Copies
> 876 Lexington
> Waltham, MA  02154
> attn.: H-- F--
> 
> Mr. F--:
> 
> I'm writing a letter of complaint about my inability to get service in your store on Thursday, June 14. Perhaps I should chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but I drove to your establishment this morning in order to print several poster-sized computer images, and dealt mostly with a gentleman named Dennis. The images I had were on a computer CD, having been generated by a piece of city-design software called "SimCity", and exported to a large graphic format using that program's internal "snapshot" printing facility. Dennis apparently recognized the source of the graphic images, and told me that I would not be allowed to have them printed because it would be a "copyright violation". I was very much taken aback by this assertion.
> 
> First of all, it seems quite clear that a document produced with a piece of proprietary software is copyrighted by the user of the tool, not by the software publisher, just like any document created by Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop, for example. Secondly, the "SimCity" program in particular includes the facility for creating graphic images from its designs, intended specifically for the user to have them printed. Here I quote from the documentation for SimCity Classic:
> 
> _When you select Snapshot from the File Menu, the entire world in the compressed Edit Window is printed to disk as a .PCX file. Load this file into many major paint programs for modification, labeling, personalizing and printing._
> 
> So I do not see how it can be held that I do not have a right to print this document. When I mentioned this to Dennis, he asserted that I had a right to print the image at home but not professionally. When I then pointed out that the graphic file generated is much larger than standard 8.5"x11" paper (which he suggested), he said that "some people" have printers in their homes that can print large-sized images. I find this to be, frankly, ridiculous.
> 
> Additionally, Dennis was apparently consulting with a person he identified as his manager on this matter. When I asked to speak to this person myself, he was unwilling to meet with me "for twenty minutes or a half hour", even though he was standing some fifteen feet away.
> 
> I found my attempt to get service in your store quite frustrating. I would appreciate some response on this matter.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> D--




Finally, what I would recommend for these shops is this -- _have a coherent policy about what they print, that is clearly communicated, and available online_. Pretty simple, really. (Although several minutes of searching the FedEx/Kinko's website today brings up nothing about what they will or will not print, or accepted file formats, or anything. If anyone could link to an actual documented declaration of one these policies, that would be great to see.)

Having an ad-hoc "we don't print stuff that makes us nervous" policy, and wasting people's time when they drive to the store, is extremely rude and unprofessional.


----------



## Aus_Snow

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Does anyone else have these problems? Can I even get something written from Mongoose and Morrigan Press that says its okay to print the PDFs? Do other publishers not intend for PDFs to be printed? What's the dilleo with this? I think its insane and never had problems with this before.
> 
> Anyone else?



Yep. I even started a thread (a bit less calmly  ) here along the same lines. That was a while ago, though.

Anyway, I found another print shop. No worries there. Problem solved. 


I don't have time to play those sorts of games with businesses, where I'm paying them for a simple service. I regularly buy PDFS, do not "share" them, and yeah, sometimes I want them printed and bound. No way I'm even going to get into an argument with some ignorant salesperson over this kind of thing. Me, elsewhere, bye.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I've had problems getting things copied at Kinkos and other professional copy places.

The oddest ones were PC sheets that had "permission to photocopy" language _on_ them.

The next was the FBI Copyright Warning as it appeared in a comic book- I was trying to get it copied for an academic presentation at the University of Dallas.  They wouldn't do it even when I presented my State of Texas Bar card and my Student ID...

I now own a copier in my house.

Unfortunately, it can't handle some of the bigger jobs I'd like to print.

...One of many reasons why WotC is losing my magazine sub money.

Personally, I'm more zealous on copyright protection than most (as some on this very thread may attest)- I'm an entertainment lawyer- but the pendulum has swung so far from companies copying anything without question to society suffering from their copyright paranoia.


----------



## jdrakeh

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The oddest ones were PC sheets that had "permission to photocopy" language _on_ them.




Yep. I've run into that a _lot_ at Kinko's and it goes directly back to the lawsuit I mentioned earlier. Their (Kinko's Corporate) reasoning was that since their employees got sued for copying text books and re-selling them in the store for profit, it must be illegal for _anybody_ to copy _anything_ from _all_ books. Which, of course, is insane. Obviously, the corporate guys at Kinko's aren't the brightest folks. 

_They got sued because they tried to sell xeroxed texts for profit, not simply because they copied the texts._

Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the issue of Kinko's policy painting the rest of the free world as criminals based upon the criminal actions of their own employees. Really. That's simply a mad bit of justification, a flagrant attempt to disown repsponsibility for their employee's own actions. 

All of that said, Kinko's stands behind their policy firmly, no matter how insane those of us with a basic understanding of copyright law know it to be. I've actually had Kinko's staff try to physically oust myself and a friend from one of their stores for attempting to print character sheets with the words "Permission Granted to Photocopy" appearing on said sheets. 

Needless to say, that Kinko's location is no longer open. And, I suspect, that this policy is a big part of what lead to hundreds of their stores being closed nationwide, their subsequent move toward bankruptcy, and their eventual acquisition by FedEx.


----------



## jmucchiello

I'll bet you they will print it if you do this:

http://www.staplescopycenter.com/ASP1/Default.aspx?content=DefaultContent

You will have to register to get to that page. I just uploaded one of my own PDFs. It'll cost me $5.89 to print 6 sheets of paper double-sided with a comb binding. When I added it to the cart but at no time did it warn me that I can't print copyrighted material. I'm not going to check out though since I don't need the print out.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus

Whether folks think it's a stupid policy or not, it's a policy that's being adhered to. If you don't have an explicit permission form granting you the right to print the pdf, and you're not the author of said pdf, they're not going to print it for you. I've already run into this a number of times.

One alternative that people might consider is PrintFu. It's a U.S. only business as far as I know. I haven't had a reason yet to use them, but if I need to get anything printed/bound in the future, it's what I'm going to try out. http://www.printfu.org/  They only print in black and white, but that's not a problem for me. Their cost thingy says that 150 pages would cost $11. Doesn't seem bad to me at all.

Edit: And it looks to be a heck of a lot cheaper than what Joe is paying...


----------



## jdrakeh

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I'll bet you they will print it if you do this:
> 
> http://www.staplescopycenter.com/ASP1/Default.aspx?content=DefaultContent
> 
> You will have to register to get to that page. I just uploaded one of my own PDFs. It'll cost me $5.89 to print 6 sheets of paper double-sided with a comb binding. When I added it to the cart but at no time did it warn me that I can't print copyrighted material. I'm not going to check out though since I don't need the print out.




That's beautiful. What is apparently "official policy" in-store isn't mentioned _once_ on their web submission form. Hmmmm. . .


----------



## jmucchiello

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's beautiful. What is apparently "official policy" in-store isn't mentioned _once_ on their web submission form. Hmmmm. . .



Good luck with that. Can't wait to hear how it turns out.


----------



## Blood Jester

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> It isn't staples "job" to make people happy.  It helps, and that ensures return customers.  It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples...




I don't know where you work, but you are cracking me up with these assertions.

I work for a network design and management company.
By your definitions, it is our job to make a working network, and to troubleshoot failures.
But not to make the customers happy.

You would get stopped in the middle of your sentence in the job interview and be told "Thank you, but we have no positions you would be able to fill." if you whipped that line out.

As a matter of fact, please go interview at *any* private company, and tell them that it is not your job to make their customers happy (whether they be internal or external customers).
Proceed to live your life unemployed for as long as you cleave to that stance.


----------



## jdrakeh

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Good luck with that. Can't wait to hear how it turns out.




Oh, I do't plan on doing _anything_ with Staples (or Kinko's) ever again. I use a local shop that actually understands the fine points of Copyright and, thus, doesn't require me to jump through crazy hoops such as formally registering my own works with the Library of Congress in order to print them or obtain a handwritten letter from the publisher of a book granting me permission to photocopy a character sheet (which says right on the flippin' thing that I've been granted permission to photcopy it). 

To be clear, they don't let me print pirated PDFs, either, but they've proven that being completely paranoid and/or rude in order to uphold the law becomes completely unnecessary when one actually _takes the time to learn about the things that one's job entails_. This business of demanding that consumers jump through whatever hoops that register jockey X deems necessary because management can't be bothered to learn how Copyright actually works (or let their employees know about it) is rediculous.


----------



## JustinA

Delta said:
			
		

> For example, every artistic creation or piece of writing has, upon creation, a copyright. In the example of the Jpeg map, I own the copyright, because it's my creation.




Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. In the case of a SimCity map you've created a derivative work, based on the graphics for SimCity which presumably Maxis holds the copyrights for.

Now, in this specific case, Maxis gave you explicit written permission in their documentation to makes copies of those derivative works.

Now fair use enters in this, of course, but the courts have repeatedly held that screenshots are derivative works whose copyright belongs to the creator of the software/media you're taking the screenshot from.

Similarly, when I create a map using Dundjinni, that's a derivative work using their copyrighted material. They give me permission to make personal copies, but for commercial use they require a separate license.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## waterdhavian

In my experience, copyrights are a tough call.  I worked for Fedex Kinkos as they are called since the merger.  It is a fine line between upholding copyright laws and breaking them entirely.  If you have valid proof that you can copy or print a document you should be in the clear.  However, some stores or districts may come down harder on documentation or proof of replication rights.  My suggestion is if you have a receipt which states you can print the document or if in the document there is a copyright permission, show it to them.  More and more documents are in PDF or similar formats today and copy shops actually prefer a PDF over a hard copy.  Better quality prints and less hassle to duplicate.  While at kinkos I printed many documents which had a waiver to print copyrighted works.  Alot of this came from companies printing out advertisements or brochures or one place which frequented us was a lawn care company and they needed to print out their books from corporate.


----------



## Delta

JustinA said:
			
		

> Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. In the case of a SimCity map you've created a derivative work, based on the graphics for SimCity which presumably Maxis holds the copyrights for.




I'm skeptical. Do you have a citation for that?


----------



## JustinA

Delta said:
			
		

> I'm skeptical. Do you have a citation for that?




Do a Google on "screenshot copyright". Here's one decent result: http://lifehacker.com/software/ask-...is-publishing-screenshots-fair-use-193343.php


----------



## the Jester

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Yep. I've run into that a _lot_ at Kinko's and it goes directly back to the lawsuit I mentioned earlier. Their (Kinko's Corporate) reasoning was that since their employees got sued for copying text books and re-selling them in the store for profit, it must be illegal for _anybody_ to copy _anything_ from _all_ books. Which, of course, is insane. Obviously, the corporate guys at Kinko's aren't the brightest folks.
> 
> _They got sued because they tried to sell xeroxed texts for profit, not simply because they copied the texts._




As someone who works at a FedEx Kinkos, I feel compelled to point out that any time you ask a Kinkos guy to print something under copyright for you, you are asking them to break copyright law and to "sell xeroxed texts for profit".

You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from _stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material_). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that _you_ have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that _they_ don't have permission to reproduce.

You want them to print a newspaper article you wrote? You no longer hold the copyright, the publisher does (almost always); ergo, you are asking them to break the law. 

I totally understand your frustrations, but it doesn't change the fact that, for me to _charge you money to copy or print something,_ I need permission from the holder of the copyright. Otherwise, why couldn't I just make twenty copies of the Monster Manual and sell them to make a few bucks?

I am reading a lot of "oh, they should make their customers happy blah blah blah" in this thread; but companies have to put the law above their customers' wishes. Hell, I have customers come in griping about their wives all the time, but that doesn't mean I can kill their wives for them. Hell no!



> Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the issue of Kinko's policy painting the rest of the free world as criminals based upon the criminal actions of their own employees. Really. That's simply a mad bit of justification, a flagrant attempt to disown repsponsibility for their employee's own actions.




Uh- the policy, essentially, amounts to, "Don't ask us to break the law for you; if you must copy something prohibited, don't do it in front of us."



> All of that said, Kinko's stands behind their policy firmly, no matter how insane those of us with a basic understanding of copyright law know it to be.




Are you an attorney?



> I've actually had Kinko's staff try to physically oust myself and a friend from one of their stores for attempting to print character sheets with the words "Permission Granted to Photocopy" appearing on said sheets.




Now _that_ is ridiculous.



> Needless to say, that Kinko's location is no longer open. And, I suspect, that this policy is a big part of what lead to hundreds of their stores being closed nationwide, their subsequent move toward bankruptcy, and their eventual acquisition by FedEx.




I don't think you have followed the company's business history very closely.  This policy probably saved Kinkos (later FedEx Kinkos) from being sued out of existence at one point or another. I'm sorry that you have to print your pdfs in self-serve, but it's not that hard, and I bet that if you wrote and asked, you could get permission from the publisher to have FXK print your pdfs for you. Hey presto, no problem. 

Jesus, people, just because it inconveniences you personally doesn't mean a company is free to break the law. You want a print shop to print your document? Have permission, in writing, for _someone to print it for profit_ and give it to you. That is exactly what copyright is supposed to prevent. Yeah, it may be a pain in the ass, but copyright law is doing exactly what it is supposed to here.


----------



## bodhi

Psion said:
			
		

> But in the end, their _job_ is to provide the customer with a fair service.



I think the fundamental disconnect is in the definition of "fair service".

As a PDF buyer, it certainly makes sense that I bought it, and I should be able to print out a copy of it for myself. That's certainly seems reasonable.

But that's not how the law is set up. The applicable limitation to copyright is Fair Use. You could certainly argue that printing one copy of a legally purchased PDF for personal use falls within the terms of Fair Use, and I would agree with you. But, from the same page:


			
				U.S. Copyright Office said:
			
		

> The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations.



That's because only a court can decide that.

If you, as an individual, feel that you are within your rights (and again, I would agree with you[0]), then have at it. But you are taking a legal risk. A tiny one, realistically, but a real one nonetheless.

Think of it this way. If you, as a driver, decide to do 60 in a 55 zone, no one's going to care[1]. You _could_ get pulled over by a cop, and you _could_ get a ticket. But realistically, chances of that are tiny. On the other hand, if you're in a cab, and you want your driver to speed, odds are good that the company policy specifically prohibits that.

No, it's not quite the same, but you're still asking _someone else_ to assume the risk on your behalf. But if you jump through the hoops, then you're taking the risk, and the business can at least show a good faith attempt to stay _strictly_ within the law. And any reasonable place shouldn't have too much in the way of hoop jumping. Not that any of the big chains will necessarily (or even often) be reasonable. YMMV hugely.

I, too, like it when authors/publishers place a statement explicitly allowing printing of a PDF for personal use. Of course, you still need to find a place with adequate reading comprehension.

[0] Although I have seen at least one PDF that specifically prohibited printing. Of course, it didn't have the security bit set to prohibit printing. Duh.
[1] So I like the car metaphor. Shut up.


----------



## Morrus

the Jester said:
			
		

> You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from _stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material_). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that _you_ have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that _they_ don't have permission to reproduce.




I don't know about US law, but I find that extremely unlikely.  It's certainly not true elsewhere.  Unless you have a specific cite, I'm going to have a hard time believing this.

The store employee is acting as your agent in this regard.  If you mail something, the post office isn't liable for "distributing" it.


----------



## Psion

bodhi said:
			
		

> That's because only a court can decide that.




Absolutely. That's because Copyright law is crappy law.

But anyways, you are correct, but as has been demonstrated by citations earlier in this thread, Kinkos and Staples are preventing cases that have not (and AFAICT, would NEVER) go to court based on entirely dissimilar court cases.



> Think of it this way. If you, as a driver, decide to do 60 in a 55 zone, no one's going to care[1]. You could get pulled over by a cop, and you could get a ticket. But realistically, chances of that are tiny. On the other hand, if you're in a cab, and you want your driver to speed, odds are good that the company policy specifically prohibits that.
> 
> No, it's not quite the same




No, not "not quite the same". Not the same. Because, you see, traffic law, unlike Copyright law, is not so unamiguous. There is no "fair speeding law." The police officer does not need to take me to court to issue a citation in that instance. It's clear that he can.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> Plus, if you really need it printed out, buy a $50 printer and some ink and have at it...  It would probably work out to nearly the price, depending on the page count.




That is so not the point. I have a printer here. I'm perfectly capable of printing it myself, but I don't want to fork over $50 in ink. All this does is hurt the bottom line of small PDF companies.

I know I make a hell of a better margin on a PDF. Next time I look at a PDF that is 50 or more pages, I'll see if there is a print or POD version. If not, I probably won't bother buying it so I don't have to deal with all of the hassle.

Might not be a widespread problem yet, but if I had customers emailing me and saying they won't buy my PDFs because they can't get them printed, I'd be super pissed.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> The big difference is the quality of the design.  Joe's looks like his brother in law made it up on Cute pdf, while CW has a higher production value.




OK. So if I'm some lame RPG company that uses all clip art, you'll print my stuff. If I do high quality work it doesn't get printed. How is that fair?


----------



## wingsandsword

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> It isn't staples "job" to make people happy.  It helps, and that ensures return customers.  It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples.  Sure, they are preventing themselves from being sued.  But in a way, that is good sound customer service policy.  Who do you think is going to pay for legal suits?  The future customers, that's who!  By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.




It is their job to make me happy, because if they don't make me (and other customers) happy, then we don't shop at Staples, sales drop, profit drops, thus the stock price drops, and eventually Staples is either bought out or closes down.

The job of any business is to make money, not to obey the law.  Obeying the law is something they have to incidentally to do continue to make money, not their objective in and of itself.   Currently their upper management believes that they are making more money with an overconservative copyright policy to avoid even the remotest possibility of a lawsuit than they are losing by alienating paying customers by implying they are violating copyright and treating them like thieves.

Yes, Kinkos was successfully sued for copyright violations, but as it was noted, that was when they copying entire textbooks and selling them for profit to compete with other textbook stores selling the originals.  That's pretty much a textbook case of copyright violation, the kind that the copyright laws were enacted to deal with in the first place.  

Overreaction to this leads to refusing to print any copyrighted work, even when permission to reprint is included on the document, or the copyright holder himself is standing right there.  

I've been told at Kinko's they won't print files, at all.  I had a term paper that needed printing, my own printer was out of ink (and I didn't want to have to buy a $50 ink cartridge for it), and it was quicker to walk to the Kinkos down the street than the campus computer lab the other direction down the street.  The Kinko-drone told me they didn't print files out.  I asked if it was a matter of file format or the media, but he just plain told me that I couldn't come there with a file and have it printed out, which I thought was very odd since I'd seen ads on TV for that very thing, but he just refused.  Don't know if it was copyright paranoia, or he was just too lazy to actually work, but that was my only experience with printing out a file at Kinkos.

It's all about Copyright Paranoia, not Copyright.  Thanks to some high profile lawsuits and a lot of propaganda, it makes life miserable on the consumer as people get it in their heads that "copyright infringement" is "theft" (when they are completely different things) and the idea that copyright is somehow sacred and it's an evil, thieving, dastardly, vile act to do anything that smacks of not being to the letter of copyright law.  Some days it seems like you have to be an IP attorney just to be a geek these days.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld

> Originally Posted by the Jester
> 
> You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that you have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that they don't have permission to reproduce.






> Originally Posted by Morrus
> I don't know about US law, but I find that extremely unlikely. It's certainly not true elsewhere. Unless you have a specific cite, I'm going to have a hard time believing this.
> 
> The store employee is acting as your agent in this regard. If you mail something, the post office isn't liable for "distributing" it.




I don't understand Copyright law completely myself (I don't think _anyone_ does), but I'm with Morrus on this one.  

I tried to have Office Max/Depot copy some Sunday School materials that stated "You have permision to copy this material", and was quoted almost exactly what Jester stated -- "I" had permission, but "They" did not.  So they walked me over to the stand-alone copier, placed the document for me, and pressed the print button.   

Anymore, I just print/scan/copy everything I need at home, and only go to a "Print" shop to have something bound.


----------



## Technomancer

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> Try an Office Depot or Office Max. They'd probably do it.



I doubt Office Depot would do it. I printed out a pdf on my own and brought it in to have them bind it, and they wouldn't even do that because it had a copyright notice.


----------



## Nonlethal Force

Blood Jester said:
			
		

> I don't know where you work, but you are cracking me up with these assertions.
> 
> I work for a network design and management company.
> By your definitions, it is our job to make a working network, and to troubleshoot failures.
> But not to make the customers happy.




If you are going to respond to my posts, please read them for my intent of words rather than misconstruing my point in an attempt to make me look silly.  I've already spoken in this thread that pleasing the customer is *necessary* for return business.  I shouldn't have to repeat it time and time again.

Having said that, I truly believe that there are multiple kinds of people out there.  I still do not believe that making customers "happy" is part of the job.  It is part of being a company-concerned employee, and it certainly can contributes to one's length of employment.  But, let's be honest.

When I drive up to McDonalds, I don't really care if the person made me smile or not.  It's nice, but I'm mostly concerned about the food being appropriately cooked and my order filled accurately.  If they make me smile and apreciate life in the process, that's gravy.

If I go into Lowe's or Home Depot and want to buy something for home improvement, my top concern is that the person who helps me out is competant and can do their job appropriately.  I dont want them to get me to spend more money than I actually need, but I also want them to anticipate my needs and help me to the best of their ability.  If I enjoy my time with them, that's pure gravy.

To use you as an example, if I were to hire your company to make a network ... my primary concern is that you make the best one for the money I give you and in a timely manner.  If you make me smile, that is gravy.  But if you are the best customer service rep you can be but do crappy networking work, I'll be less likely to come back to your business than if you do stellar work and crappy public relations.

In all these cases, if they go out of their way to irritate me, I'll talk with their boss.  But I have never claimed that a customer service rep who is "intentionally irritating people" are doing their job.  That's just silly.

In any job, I as a customer am far more concerned with competance than "chipperness."  I've worked with customer service reps who were very friendly but had nothing upstairs.  They didn't last very long.  I've worked with customer service reps who were brilliant, got results, but we just ornary people.  Those people usually last longer than the ones with nothing upstairs, but they got promoted off the customer service line to keep their brains around and get them out of the public's way.  Then, I've worked with people who do both reasonably well.  These are the kind of people that you want working customer service.

Same thing here.  The problem isn't the customer service rep.  The problem is the policy.  If the guy smiled and spoke in a warm loving voice, "No sir, we cannot copy that," the person is still going to be irritated.  And that is the heart of this issue.

I have learned something about people through life in general.  Everyone laughs now because everything you buy has warning labels on it.  Ever laugh at the fact that your Wal-mart bag has "Warning: Choking Hazard" printed right on it?  Ever laugh when you get a cup of coffee and you look down and usually in multiple places there is a warning to the effect of "Warning: Contents could be hot and burn your skin."  The reason that these warnings are there is because there are idiots out there who will look for any loophole to sue and make easy money.  I can't blame any company for taking the law seriously.  If they don't, they might just find themselves at the hands of an idiot sawsuit!

Specifically for the printing business, I think it would be very easy for a company like Staples and Kinkos to be in the middle of a legitimate lawsuit, not even an "idiot lawsuit."  But I maintain that the solution is simple.  Find out the stores policies and meet them.  It isn't really that hard.


----------



## wingsandsword

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But I maintain that the solution is simple.  Find out the stores policies and meet them.  It isn't really that hard.



What about when the policy of the store is nigh impossible to meet?  Reasonable copyright policies to ensure that they aren't condoning piracy is, well, reasonable.  Not printing a document that appears to be a commercial document protected by copyright (like a pirated .pdf) is one thing, proving you have a receipt for the legal download of it and the file includes print permissions on it (especially when in the text it includes print permissions) is a little less reasonable.  

"We don't print any copyrighted materials, even if you have permission or own the copyright yourself" as some people have run across at Kinkos is pretty unreasonable.  Requiring documented proof of copyright ownership from the Library of Congress (as has also been run across) is also unreasonable.

As for making customers happy, I'm not talking about walking around with a fake smile plastered on your face and being sappy and saying "Have a nice day", I'm talking about making the customer pleased with their experience at your business and wanting to return.  Dealing with overly cumbersome and awkward policies makes customers unhappy and want to take their business to a competitor.

Requiring a written form signed by the copyright owner, for a document that included permission to print right on it (like say the D&D character sheet) is going to be pretty hard to meet.  Is somebody at Hasbro Legal Department really going to fill out a copyright permission form for Staples and send it in for each person who wants to print out character sheets there?  Isn't somebody going to say "that's why we put that little disclaimer on there in the first place?"


----------



## lukelightning

Another alignment debate! "Lawful vs. Chaotic."

Staples is obviously being Lawful Neutral. They have a rule, and they are following it.


----------



## jgbrowning

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But I maintain that the solution is simple.




And it's the one that most people are doing: going to another copy shop.

joe b.


----------



## s.j. bagley

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But I maintain that the solution is simple.  Find out the stores policies and meet them.  It isn't really that hard.




it's not really that simple though, especially since at the nearest staples, not a single employee seems to be aware of the same set of policies.
hell, i once had a kinko's employee tell me i couldn't photocopy something i created in the store, while they were watching me, because it was somehow against some policy that they couldn't actually quote or even find on paper in the store.
more often than not, when i've had these sorts of problems, it's because the folks there simply don't know anything about their own policies, let alone the monolithically one-sided and soul destroying details of copyright law (let alone things like copyleft and creative commons.)
.
(also, i'm sure as hell not going to bother getting that angry with some person at a minimum wage job who isn't educated on the subject.  after all, minimum wage is hardly an incentive to become educated on copyright law, or even company policy.)


----------



## The Merciful

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Staples is obviously being Lawful Neutral. They have a rule, and they are following it.



More like Lawful Stupid.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Yes, but I equally loathe the assumption that anyone couldn't be an abuser. Certainly not all users are abusers. But certainly there are more abusers out there than who get caught.




So?

Prove me guilty or give me my copy and take your $5.95. You're a Staples. You're not here to judge innocence or guilt.



> But I maintain that the solution is simple. Find out the stores policies and meet them. It isn't really that hard.




But there's no excuse for it to even have to be done in the first place.

You're scared about book pirates? Compete with them. Show us a good product at a fair price from a company we want to support. Legitimate sales will always trump pirated copies, and pirated copies will mostly be downloaded and printed off by those who wouldn't buy the original in the first place. It's been shown that internet piracy has no measurable effect on sales (the music industry has certainly done these studies). 

You can't stop it. You can't even make it significantly harder. All you can do is irk legitimate customers by treating them like criminals.


----------



## Delta

JustinA said:
			
		

> Do a Google on "screenshot copyright". Here's one decent result: http://lifehacker.com/software/ask-...is-publishing-screenshots-fair-use-193343.php




A map designed with SimCity is not a "screenshot" -- I'm afraid that article doesn't say anything about your prior "derivative work" claim. So I'm quite unconvinced about that claim.

(What it does say, as I'm sure you're well aware, is that publishing a screenshot of someone else's work is held as _permitted_ in at least 3 different examples -- screenshots of a website, copyrighted games, and thumbnail images of artistic works.)


----------



## Rykion

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In my mind, it's an insult.
> 
> "You're a thief unless you can prove you're not. You're not a customer, you're a criminal. We don't serve you, we serve our suspicious superiors who treat IP and copyright law like a bludgeon against consumers."
> 
> It's a pet peeve with me, I get angry out of proportion with it, but I loathe the assumption that all users are abusers.



Do the magnetic theft detection scanners at the exits of most major stores also make you angry?  Every store with these is treating its customers as assumed thieves.  I seem to be jinxed to frequently set them off with tagged items I've purchased.  I've not once got an apology from a store employee.  They must think its fun to have everyone in the area look up at you as the alarm goes off.  It's definitely annoying, but in the end a person has to learn to live with it, or choose to do business elsewhere.


----------



## rgard

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I have pretty much the exact opposite feelings, Staples is acting very poorly.  If they place paranoia over not getting sued as a higher priority than good customer service, I'll take my business elsewhere.
> 
> Now, it looks clear that purchasing .pdf's to download and have commercially printed isn't what they had in mind with this policy.  Companies that sell .pdf downloads need to contact Staples and let them know how their policy is interfering with their sales, and how a form like they are asking for isn't practical to be faxed around for every customer that wants to take their product to be printed (and since that's the whole idea of the product, that means all of their customers are going to need printing, and a lot are going to be looking at commercial printing).




I'd be paranoid if I was the store manager and my district manager told me I'd be fired if my staff printed something they shouldn't.

Sorry, but job preservation trumps in this situation.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Graybeard

Okay, to answer a few questions/concerns posted here about what Staples will or will not print.
Every store may have an individual who sees the policy as black and white. A yes or no policy. As I stated previously, we will make copies of newspaper articles and photos from newspapers. We get permission from the newspaper publishers very easily. A simple phone call is all it takes. The major local newspaper has even given our store blanket permission to make copies of its articles for customers as long as it is only one or two articles from the newspaper.

Printing a map made with SimCity that has the permission to print clearly identified would be no problem at my store either.

Printing a pdf with the permission to copy for personal use would also not present a problem at my store.

Printing copies of anything the customer authored (pdf, thesis, etc) would also not present a problem provided the customer showed us proper identification.

Some things we will not copy for anyone include:

Identification, artwork not produced by the customer, photographs unlless they are very old (75+yrs), magazines, postcards, stamps, money, etc. We have a pamphlet available in our copy center that states what can and cannot be copied/prinited. However, if a customer comes in and makes their own copies at the self serve machines without our knowledge, we cannot stop them. If we see them doing it, we are instructed to politely inform the customer that they are violating the copyright law. Every customer I have dealt with has told me in several ways (some not very nicely) to mind my own business and that they are not hurting anyone.  I have had customers ask for our assistance in making copies of photgraphs (usually wedding or school photos), passports, drivers licences, etc. We always tell them we cannot assist them and that they can't copy those items. The exceptions include B&W copies of IDs/passports which can be done. One time we asked a customer to leave because he wanted us to make double sided copies of money so he could "give them to his kid to play with". After we explained nicely that we could not do that nor could we allow him to do it he got angry and started cursing at my staff and myself.

Your local Staples may vary but as I said earlier, the one I manage is more understanding.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Do the magnetic theft detection scanners at the exits of most major stores also make you angry? Every store with these is treating its customers as assumed thieves. I seem to be jinxed to frequently set them off with tagged items I've purchased. I've not once got an apology from a store employee. They must think its fun to have everyone in the area look up at you as the alarm goes off. It's definitely annoying, but in the end a person has to learn to live with it, or choose to do business elsewhere.




Heck  yeah, they do. They're unreliable and pointless. While everyone's distracted by the alarm, the thief stuffs something without a magnet strip in a side pocket that he's not asked to open, and the theft goes on. 

Bag checks grind my gears, too. It's like the fourth amendment is only there to make red tape for law enforcement, not to actually guarantee my privacy.


----------



## the Jester

Regarding store policies on copying stuff:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But there's no excuse for it to even have to be done in the first place.... (snip) You can't stop it. You can't even make it significantly harder. All you can do is irk legitimate customers by treating them like criminals.




The policies are there to make sure store employees aren't breaking copyright laws left and right. It's not to treat customers like criminals. Generally, such policies are there to prevent employees from getting the business in trouble. The store doesn't have the option to just shine the law. 

Given how easy it should be to get the ok to print one copy of these kinds of things, it should be a non-issue. Again, though, some companies will not allow a third party (i.e. Staples, Kinkos) to charge you money to print their work. Don't blame the copy guy- that's like saying, "Aw, man, I really wanted to eat some dog today, but it's against the law for my favorite restaurant to serve it in my city. DAMN YOUSE, FAVORITE RESTAURANT!!! HOW COULD YOU FAIL TO SERVE ME DOG?! I'M A LEGITIMATE CUSTOMER!!!1!!"


----------



## Morrus

the Jester said:
			
		

> Don't blame the copy guy- that's like saying, "Aw, man, I really wanted to eat some dog today, but it's against the law for my favorite restaurant to serve it in my city. DAMN YOUSE, FAVORITE RESTAURANT!!! HOW COULD YOU FAIL TO SERVE ME DOG?! I'M A LEGITIMATE CUSTOMER!!!1!!"




Nobody is complaining that the store won't print things that are illegal to print.

They're ocmplaining that the store won't print things that are _legal _ to print.


----------



## roguerouge

*Writers: There's more options than just copyright and piracy*

I find it interesting that our society has now moved to the assumption that any form of information sharing is theft until proven otherwise. What people are reacting to here is the erosion of the presumption of innocence in social and economic interactions. 

Interested in protecting the rights of the author while still refusing to support the tyranny of the distributor? Check this out: http://creativecommons.org/

"Share, reuse, and remix — legally.
Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. You can use CC to change your copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved."

We're a nonprofit organization. Everything we do — including the software we create — is free."

And, of course, for other types of creation, there's: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL


----------



## roguerouge

rgard said:
			
		

> I'd be paranoid if I was the store manager and my district manager told me I'd be fired if my staff printed something they shouldn't.
> 
> Sorry, but job preservation trumps in this situation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich




Interesting. I had much the same reaction from my school's copy center manager, despite the fact that I had documentation from my school's copyright coordinator that my requested copying was fair use. She wouldn't print it because of exactly this kind of corporate bullying of both the customer and the employees.


----------



## Graybeard

I agree that the sensormatic gates at the front doors at retail stores are unreliable. They can be set off by any number of things since they work on a specific frequency. They are not magnetic. Sometimes cell phones will set them off. At every store I have worked for the staff are instructed to apologize to the customer saying something like "We're sorry, sometimes these go off for no reason. Do you have anything you may have purchased at another store that might have set it off?" I have had customers come in with DVDs they rented that didn't set it off on the way in but did on the way out. Also, the distance from the sides will affect whether they go off or not. Generally, the closer to the center, the less likley the alarm will sound. Also, sometimes the cashiers get lazy and don't deactivate the security strips. Manufacturers are also seeding merchandise with them hidden in the box. The cashiers often forget about that and if they don't see a security tag, assume there isn't one thus resulting in setting off the alarm on the way out the door.

If you do set off the alarm at a store and they do not attempt to troubleshoot the situation and apologize, then they are not trained right.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Rykion said:
			
		

> Do the magnetic theft detection scanners at the exits of most major stores also make you angry?  Every store with these is treating its customers as assumed thieves.  I seem to be jinxed to frequently set them off with tagged items I've purchased.  I've not once got an apology from a store employee.  They must think its fun to have everyone in the area look up at you as the alarm goes off.  It's definitely annoying, but in the end a person has to learn to live with it, or choose to do business elsewhere.




I ignore their beeping and keep walking.  I know I did nothing wrong and as soon as they attempt to unlawfully detain or search me, I will protest or put them to the ground if they were to touch me or my family.  The local China-mart has quit even attempting their receipt check with me.  The only place I submit to the Receipt Check is the BJ's because that is part of their Membership Policy, which I signed up for.

Now back to the subject at hand, I would just go to another store.  Arguing their Corporate/Store Policy does nothing but give ya a headache.  Your best luck will be with as mentioned the local store, not a corporate chain.  I've never had an issue printing anything I wanted at the local Staples though.  And if it is their policy to never print copywrited material than they break it regularly.  And a Professional/Unprofessional look doesn't matter either.  I get flyers printed for my wife's business regularly, they are created by a professional graphic artist and put the PDF for her to print.  And like he!! will I bother with registering them with the Libary of Congress.

Also, if they want to start quoting all the copyright laws as reasoning, they should be aware of the fact of 'Returning Said Violation' back to the customer would in fact be a violation in itself.  When in reality they are suppose to call the cops due to an attempt to break the law.   

And the policy of do it at 'Self-Serve' is an open and shut case of 'Enablement of a Crime'.  So what exactly can you copy under those policies.   

I have a B&W Laser Printer at home, several local copy shops (some are chains), so it's not a huge issue to me.  I understand their corporate policies are their to protect them, and if ever they have to refuse my business then I shall go right across the street and wave bye to them as I enter the other store.   

That being said my 40 or so gig of PDF would be crazy to print it all out.  And since I never need more than a few pages of something at any given time, the old B&W laser works just fine.

==========================
O' and Mark (CMG), I wanted to say Kudos to you for now incorporating that into your PDF's as suggested.  One of the best things about forums like this and the community we have here is the fact that the small publishers (and now even a few WOTC folk) take heed to the needs of their consumers quite readily. Though I would make a suggestion of in that permission adding only the need of a receipt as required proof, that could help provide some safety margin verus the Pirates.

Yeti


----------



## jdrakeh

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Interesting. I had much the same reaction from my school's copy center manager, despite the fact that I had documentation from my school's copyright coordinator that my requested copying was fair use. She wouldn't print it because of exactly this kind of corporate bullying of both the customer and the employees.




This is what I was getting at earlier. The problem is symptomatic of bad management. Managers (and corporations) should make certain that their employees are aware of policy, understand it, and apply it in accordance with the law. This, apparently, isn't happening very often.


----------



## Mark Chance

Morrus said:
			
		

> Nobody is complaining that the store won't print things that are illegal to print.
> 
> They're ocmplaining that the store won't print things that are _legal_ to print.




Exactly. Here's the hypothetical exchange:

*Me:* I'd like to print the PDF document on this disk. I purchased it from an on-line vendor.

*Them:* Sorry, we can't do that. It's against store policy.

*Me:* Why?

*Them:* The policy is to prevent people from making illegal copies of copyrighted works.

*Me:* But that's not what I'm doing. I want to make a legal copy of a copyrighted work.

*Them:* Sorry, but that's against store policy.

*Me:* But that doesn't make any sense. You just told me the policy was to prevent illegal copies, not legal ones. The only assumption I can make now is that you're calling me a liar. You calling me a liar?


----------



## Rykion

I can understand checking to make sure someone has a receipt or other proof of ownership for a PDF, but to make it impossible to print anything with a copyright is going overboard.  It hurts the customer who can't use the PDF as they legally intended.  It costs the company that refuses to print it lost sales.  Finally, it will cause the companies that sell PDFs to sell less.  A lose, lose, lose scenario.


			
				Graybeard said:
			
		

> If you do set off the alarm at a store and they do not attempt to troubleshoot the situation and apologize, then they are not trained right.



In the dozen or so times it's happened to me I have gotten zero apologies.  That is from quite a few major retailers.  The scanners themselves are not magnetic, but the labels they detect have an RF signal or a magnetic field.


----------



## S'mon

I would certainly advocate boycotting this Staples chain and any other company with similar policies.  And buy a printer, even though the ink is a rip-off.

Edit: If you write (not email) to them to let them know you're boycotting them, and why, they may pay some attention.


----------



## bodhi

Psion said:
			
		

> No, not "not quite the same". Not the same. Because, you see, traffic law, unlike Copyright law, is not so unamiguous. There is no "fair speeding law." The police officer does not need to take me to court to issue a citation in that instance. It's clear that he can.



In the case of speeding, it is clear that the driver is guilty. However, because the copyright law is ambiguous, is is _not_ clear when the business is _not_ guilty, barring explicit permission (signed consent, explicit disclaimer, copyright ownership).

Now, there are certainly poor policies and poorly trained (and poorly motivated) employees. And any place that refuses to make copies when you have the right paperwork is just being stupid or ignorant. But the store is not in a position to decide what is or is not Fair Use.


----------



## Belen

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> One of the stores I used to work at in NC, was sued because someone at the copy center made color copies of wedding pictures without the photographers permission.  They may be pictures of your wedding, but the person who took them, owns them.




Not true.  He only owns them if you refuse to purchase them from him.  The second you purchase those photos, then you buy the rights to them.  Unless someone was dumb enough to sign a contract that allowed the photographer to keep the rights.


----------



## Mark CMG

TheYeti1775 said:
			
		

> O' and Mark (CMG), I wanted to say Kudos to you for now incorporating that into your PDF's as suggested.  One of the best things about forums like this and the community we have here is the fact that the small publishers (and now even a few WOTC folk) take heed to the needs of their consumers quite readily. Though I would make a suggestion of in that permission adding only the need of a receipt as required proof, that could help provide some safety margin verus the Pirates.
> 
> Yeti





Thanks and noted on the suggestion.  It is important that companies only take steps against piracy that ensure regular consumers are not harmed in the process.


----------



## bodhi

Rykion said:
			
		

> It hurts the customer who can't use the PDF as they legally intended.



I've looked through some of the gaming PDFs I have. A couple explicitly allow printing for personal use. By far, though, they have standard boilerplate copyright notices, along the lines of "all rights reserved" and "any duplication, electronic or otherwise, is prohibited". So while it may be what the publisher intended (and I think it is, too, generally), it's not what they actually said.


----------



## carmachu

Karlson_the_red said:
			
		

> As it stands, the copyright laws are still way behind the digital age...
> 
> I am sorry you had such an issue, but as it stands, its the law and Staples is just protecting itself.
> 
> Karlson





I have to say this doesnt bode well for WotC's digital initative. Making it harder to have a hard copy isnt going to make folks happy.


----------



## bodhi

Belen said:
			
		

> Not true.  He only owns them if you refuse to purchase them from him.  The second you purchase those photos, then you buy the rights to them.  Unless someone was dumb enough to sign a contract that allowed the photographer to keep the rights.



It depends on your contract. So *read your contract*. A Google search turned up a couple wedding photo contracts that assigned reproduction rights upon final payment, but also a couple that explicitly kept copyright, and one that didn't mention copyright at all (but that was just  a "sample" contract).

Thing is, by default, the photographer/studio holds copyright. If you have photos and a contract assigning you the rights, you shouldn't have any problems. Not that you _won't_, just that you _shouldn't_. This thread has demonstrated that there are lots of places that will give you problems regardless. But any professional photographer that is selling you the rights should have no problem providing documentation, whether that be a contract stating such, or an explicit assignment of rights.


----------



## bodhi

carmachu said:
			
		

> I have to say this doesnt bode well for WotC's digital initative. Making it harder to have a hard copy isnt going to make folks happy.



Well, they could always do print compilations. Quarterly or annual softcover books, maybe?


----------



## robberbaron

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> If I heard about customers that wanted to print our products and couldn't, I'd be annoyed. I mean that's pretty much the point of PDFs, isn't it?




Silly me, I thought the whole point of PDFs was that you didn't have to print them out, not that you'd save a few bucks over the hardback price.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Morrus said:
			
		

> Nobody is complaining that the store won't print things that are illegal to print.
> 
> They're ocmplaining that the store won't print things that are _legal _ to print.




Thank you! My point exactly.


----------



## Rykion

bodhi said:
			
		

> I've looked through some of the gaming PDFs I have. A couple explicitly allow printing for personal use. By far, though, they have standard boilerplate copyright notices, along the lines of "all rights reserved" and "any duplication, electronic or otherwise, is prohibited". So while it may be what the publisher intended (and I think it is, too, generally), it's not what they actually said.



Both RPGNow and Drivethru RPG's FAQ indicate that it is OK to print the PDF's for personal use.  I would hope a resonable business would accept a printed receipt plus a print out with the FAQ info as proof that the customer has permission to have a copy made of the PDF.


----------



## the Jester

Belen said:
			
		

> Not true.  He only owns them if you refuse to purchase them from him.  The second you purchase those photos, then you buy the rights to them.




No, you don't... that is why the photographer can charge an arm and a leg for reprints.

However, you're right that you _can_ buy the rights, if they are willing to sell them to you. But that is _not_ the default. Hell, professional photographer associations will sometimes send out 'spies' to try to get copy shops to break copyright by making copies of wedding photos or the like and then spring a 'gotcha!!!' on them. I've seen it happen.



			
				Moruss said:
			
		

> Nobody is complaining that the store won't print things that are illegal to print.
> 
> They're ocmplaining that the store won't print things that are legal to print.




Any time that pdf has a copyright notice that includes verbage to the effect of "no reproduction except for personal use", if I make a copy of it and sell it to you I am breaking copyright, because _I_ am printing it for profit.

Again, most copy centers have self serve areas for exactly this kind of issue. Often, problems arise when someone doesn't want to do it themselves. "No, I want you to do it for me." Well, this note on the front page of your pdf tells me, _in writing,_ that I would be breaking the law to do so. Gimme a written permission, and you're fine.

Frankly, if companies that produce pdfs would include verbage that made allowances for a print shop to make a single print for the purchaser, there wouldn't be a problem. And (at least at my store) we are always happy to help people try to get the permission. Heck, I'll make the phone call myself sometimes. But without the publisher's OK, we are legally obligated to say "Sorry, no can do."

Granted, some of the stories people are relating in this thread are almost sublimely ridiculous- things like, "We don't print pdfs, even if you made it yourself" are just plain stupid. These stories sound to me like the stores in question either have serious training issues, serious lazy employee issues, serious failures in communicating with their customers or seriously anal policy issues. But I certainly can't blame a company for wanting to make sure that they're legally in the clear before they start printing something, especially if you're asking for multiple copies.


----------



## S'mon

bodhi said:
			
		

> It depends on your contract. So *read your contract*. A Google search turned up a couple wedding photo contracts that assigned reproduction rights upon final payment, but also a couple that explicitly kept copyright, and one that didn't mention copyright at all (but that was just  a "sample" contract).




There's no reason the contract couldn't grant a non-exclusive license to reproduce the photos, without assigning copyright.  This whole MUST KEEP/MUST GET COPYRIGHT!!! meme that's so common nowadays seems really strange to me (I teach copyright law).


----------



## Delta

Graybeard said:
			
		

> Okay, to answer a few questions/concerns posted here about what Staples will or will not print...




Do you have a link to your store or company policy published someplace? 
Or do we just have to take your word for it?


----------



## dshai527

Not quite pdf's but my wife does digital scrapbooking and digital photography and she has had problems trying to get prints made of her work. She has even taken her camera and original photos (photos before Photoshop or touchup) and they refused to print her stuff. We had to end up buying a near professional printer just for her to get her work done. Very irratating.


----------



## rowport

Rykion said:
			
		

> Do the magnetic theft detection scanners at the exits of most major stores also make you angry?  Every store with these is treating its customers as assumed thieves.  I seem to be jinxed to frequently set them off with tagged items I've purchased.  I've not once got an apology from a store employee.  They must think its fun to have everyone in the area look up at you as the alarm goes off.  It's definitely annoying, but in the end a person has to learn to live with it, or choose to do business elsewhere.



Actually, yes-- I freakin' hate paying full retail price for books that I could almost certainly have bought cheaper online, only to find one of those d---- sticker tags permanently clamped onto a page or endpaper.  That crap drives me crazy.

And, for that matter, your post confuses me; it sounds like you are building a convincing case for why it is obtrusive and annoying that you are treated like a thief by default, only to conclude that "a person has to live with it"?  Or, are you saying to buy your books online to avoid the stupid things?

On a related note, the only consistent recommendation about commerical printing of pdfs is to use an online service.

So, I guess my takeaway from this thread is to never buy from brick & mortar stores anymore.  I guess I can live with that...


----------



## roguerouge

*Call Your Publisher*

Again, most of the solutions that this thread has provided for this problem involve a "some rights reserved" copyright which is definitively a part of the creative commons license.

If this matters to you, and it clearly does for many of you, write/email/call your favored pdf publishers and ask for them to start using creative commons. (I don't teach copyright law incidentally; I teach media studies. You'd be amazed at how severely this law impacts documentary, experimental, and hip hop artists.)


----------



## JVisgaitis

robberbaron said:
			
		

> Silly me, I thought the whole point of PDFs was that you didn't have to print them out, not that you'd save a few bucks over the hardback price.




Silly you.

If a PDF publisher didn't want to allow a PDF to be printed you can lock the file and prevent it from being printed. As a publisher, I expect my customers to be able to print our PDFs. It has nothing to do with "saving a few bucks" but everything to do with the fact that it costs A LOT of money to produce and distribute a full color RPG product.

Add to that how insane it would be for a new company to even think of attempting to release a product through the distribution chain. You might as well just burn your own money.


----------



## madelf

Rykion said:
			
		

> Both RPGNow and Drivethru RPG's FAQ indicate that it is OK to print the PDF's for personal use.



Actually... that is not for RPGnow or DrivethruRPG to decide.
That would be up to the individual publisher (and though I'm sure most of them would allow it, it's a little disturbing that the retailer is making the assumption that they all will).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Do the magnetic theft detection scanners at the exits of most major stores also make you angry? <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignore their beeping and keep walking. I know I did nothing wrong and as soon as they attempt to unlawfully detain or search me, I will protest or put them to the ground if they were to touch me or my family.
Click to expand...



Wow.

Asking to ascertain that you're not walking out of the store with merchandise you may not have paid for (intentionally or by some kind of mistake) is not unlawful detention in any state I know of.  Even if they physically detain and search you.

Heck, depending upon the jurisdiction, refusing them the right to check your reciept against your purchases when asked may even constitute probable cause and could negate even a _valid _claim of unlawful imprisonment.

For it to be unlawful, they would have to take you into custody _knowing _you're not guilty or keep you in custody _after_ determining that you're not guilty.

And if by "put them to the ground" you mean use physical force to resist the security personnel or other store employee (or cop, if one is around)- that act is likely to open you to civil and criminal penalties (depending upon just how much force you use and other facts).

I _definitely_ wouldn't try that down here in Texas.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I'd be paranoid if I was the store manager and my district manager told me I'd be fired if my staff printed something they shouldn't.
> 
> Sorry, but job preservation trumps in this situation.




Yeah, I can see that from a store manager position. It's definitely the dunderheads at the top that get my ire. Screaming at the copy kid doesn't do much.



> The policies are there to make sure store employees aren't breaking copyright laws left and right. It's not to treat customers like criminals. Generally, such policies are there to prevent employees from getting the business in trouble. The store doesn't have the option to just shine the law.




Right, but like Morrus said, the problem is that they're not printing legal pdfs without a signed permission slip from Mommie Publisher.

Personally, I'd extend my principle to be "if the law is dumb people have an obligation to make enforcement difficult and to change the law itself," but, again, that's probably because I blow up out of all rational proportion when companies act like the customer is a thief unless proven otherwise.


----------



## S'mon

madelf said:
			
		

> Actually... that is not for RPGnow or DrivethruRPG to decide.
> That would be up to the individual publisher (and though I'm sure most of them would allow it, it's a little disturbing that the retailer is making the assumption that they all will).




US fair use law lets you photocopy books you own for personal use, whatever the copyright owner says.  Is it really different for e-books?


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I _definitely_ wouldn't try that down here in Texas.




Heh, for once I agree with Danny!    But maybe the OP is so scary-looking they just don't want to mess with him.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That's why they have tasers, capsaicin spray, rubber bullets & beanbag shotguns...in addition to their nightsticks and guns.


----------



## jujutsunerd

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Anyone else?




To avoid the issue, I recommend a Samsung 510N (or later) color laser printer. Decent quality at a (for a color laser) cheap price. According to pricerunner the current model (600N) costs $399.98 at <irony>Staples</irony> (Though I've seen it cheaper elsewhere.)

So, if you want to toss them a few last dollars, buy a printer that means you won't have to return again. 

I have the previous model (510N) and am quite happy with it. It prints pdf's beautifully, and printed color encounter maps look real nice. (Even though, lately, we've experimented with project the maps using a ceiling-mounted projector.)

/Jonas


----------



## TheYeti1775

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> Asking to ascertain that you're not walking out of the store with merchandise you may not have paid for (intentionally or by some kind of mistake) is not unlawful detention in any state I know of.  Even if they physically detain and search you.
> 
> Heck, depending upon the jurisdiction, refusing them the right to check your reciept against your purchases when asked may even constitute probable cause and could negate even a _valid _claim of unlawful imprisonment.
> 
> For it to be unlawful, they would have to take you into custody _knowing _you're not guilty or keep you in custody _after_ determining that you're not guilty.
> 
> And if by "put them to the ground" you mean use physical force to resist the security personnel or other store employee (or cop, if one is around)- that act is likely to open you to civil and criminal penalties (depending upon just how much force you use and other facts).
> 
> I _definitely_ wouldn't try that down here in Texas.




Actually Texas is more a friendly state to that then you think.    

I don't easily sign my rights away by shoping in a store, if your willing to by all means let them.
And yes, if they try to physically impede me I will use what force is necessary.  And please show me where a private citzen has the right to search you?  You have citzen arrest laws for sure, but an alarm that goes off if the wind ain't right, isn't a justification for it.

Just the same if pulled over or speeding and the cop asks to search the vehicle I tell them no.  I'll take my ticket and scoot on along.

Those who willingly give up their rights the best word to describe them is Sheple.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
Benjamin Franklin


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.




I'm also fond of "Live Free or Die."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Actually Texas is more a friendly state to that then you think.
> 
> I don't easily sign my rights away by shoping in a store, if your willing to by all means let them.
> And yes, if they try to physically impede me I will use what force is necessary. And please show me where a private citzen has the right to search you? You have citzen arrest laws for sure, but an alarm that goes off if the wind ain't right, isn't a justification for it.
> 
> Just the same if pulled over or speeding and the cop asks to search the vehicle I tell them no. I'll take my ticket and scoot on along.




Check my sig- and I live & am licensed in Texas.

While most stores discourage using (non-deadly) force to deal with suspected shoplifters, it is _100% legal_.

There are generally two different scenarios that are involved when we consider using force with regard to property, i.e., (1) using force to protect property or (2) using force to regain or recapture property of which one has been dispossessed.

Common Law Defense of Property - Under the common law, force, but not deadly force (DF), could be used to defend property. To repeat, DF cannot be used solely to defend property. Unlike Texas and to a much lesser extent the MPC, the common law treats human life as more valuable than mere property. At common law, one could use non-deadly force to protect real or personal property from imminent taking, damage, destruction, trespass, or dispossession. D could also use non-deadly force to re-enter real property to recover personal property immediately after it had been taken. Notice that if P, a property owner, used deadly force against D, a simple thief, in the absence of any actual or apparent threat of deadly force (or force) by D, D would have the right to use deadly force against P in response because P's use of deadly force to protect his property was unlawful.

MPC Defense of Property -  Section 3.06 MPC deals with the use of force for the protection of property. Deadly force is permitted in a couple of very limited circumstances under 3.06(3)(d), i.e., (1) when D uses the deadly force he believes he is being dispossessed of his dwelling by V other than be a claim of right or (2) when V is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery, felonious theft or property destruction and either has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of D or where the use of non-deadly force to prevent consummation or commission of the crime would expose D or another in D's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

Texas Defense of Property - Section 9.41 TPC authorizes use of force in defense of property; Section 9.42 TPC contains a very liberal law authorizing the use of DF to protect property. [Remember the hypo involving use of deadly force by D from his third floor condo at 2 a.m.against the bicycle thief who is fleeing from the parking lot.]

As for searching you, they really should just ask you for proof that you didn't steal anything (i.e. ask to match your receipt to your merchandise) and if you refuse and they still think you're a shoplifter, detain you until the police arrive- not because they can't do it, but because they're more likely to search you in a way that violates your rights.  When a private citizen searches someone, they are held to the same standards as the police.

Rather than send you a book on Tx Crim law, I'll just give you these 2 reasonably accurate sites:

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_citizens_arrest.htm

http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/ils/Outlines/outlines_texas_crim_pro_bubany.htm


----------



## Jim Hague

_EDIT: Danny said it better than I did, since he *is* a lawyer._

In any case, back on topic.  I, like Mark at CMG, am going to be adding that little statement to my own products, so _my_ customers don't get hassled.  If all else fails, I'll print them a copy myself and mail it, if I have to.


----------



## Plane Sailing

The thread is tip-toeing towards outright 'political discussion'; please stick with constructive comments for the original poster.

Thanks


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Self-Publishers should- if I may be so bold- make the copy permission notice either part of the filename or in BIG letters on the 1st or second page.


----------



## madelf

S'mon said:
			
		

> US fair use law lets you photocopy books you own for personal use, whatever the copyright owner says.  Is it really different for e-books?



Seems to be for DVDs.  

I'd say no, it's not different. And I'd say anyone who purchased a PDF from me could print it. But it's not for me to say that about someone else's PDF, and it's not for RPGnow/DtRPG to say either (legal under fair use or not).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

AFAIK, no difference.

The problem is mainly because of paranoia and (as has been pointed out) past bad acts by the companies themselves.

Having been burned once, the entire industry has overreacted terribly.


----------



## Mark CMG

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Self-Publishers should- if I may be so bold- make the copy permission notice either part of the filename or in BIG letters on the 1st or second page.





Would right on the same page with the rest of the copyright information be good enough?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Legally speaking- yes, and in fact, it could be anywhere in the product, since, after all, its just a reminder of the existence of certain laws and that you're aware of them.

Practically speaking?  You want it where the poor schmoe working the copier can't possibly miss it.

When they teach you legal technical writing, one of the most often cited rules of thumb is "Tell them what you're going to say, then say it, then tell them what you just said."

What you're trying to do is protect your copyright while ensuring that your end users get the kind of full utility out of it they expect, all while operating in a slightly paranoid environment.

By putting that permission in as much of an up-front position as possible, you make it easy.


----------



## jdrakeh

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Practically speaking?  You want it where the poor schmoe working the copier can't possibly miss it.




Perhaps prefacing it with "Dear Copy Center Employee" would be an option


----------



## madelf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As for searching you, they really should just ask you for proof that you didn't steal anything (i.e. ask to match your receipt to your merchandise) and if you refuse and they still think you're a shoplifter, detain you until the police arrive- not because they can't do it, but because they're more likely to search you in a way that violates your rights.  When a private citizen searches someone, they are held to the same standards as the police.



Don't even the police have to have probable cause (or a warrant) to search someone, or their property (which I'd say a bag of stuff I just purchased is my property)? I wouldn't think it would be all that hard for a lawyer to shoot holes in the idea that an alarm from some electric scanner which is wrong more often than it's right constituted probable cause. I certainly don't believe a (probably) malfunctioning scanner is sufficient cause to use any kind of force on someone (though I'll grant the law might disagree).

I'd really like to know what responsibilty the store has to back up their "suspicion" with something halfway convincing before they decide to lay a hand on somebody, and what responsibility they have to the victim of their actions if they're wrong.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I know the alarms are not exactly dependable- I set them off walking into stores because of some of my electronics...and supposedly, because of my jewelry with certain systems.

However, that alarm going off is sufficient probable cause to stop you in any jurisdiction of which I'm aware.  Once they have that, they can do all kinds of things.  If you refuse a search, for instance, they (usually) will contact the police, who will arrest you if you don't consent to a search...and then they can search you incident to the arrest.

I know of no case in which a laywer has successfully argued otherwise, except in those cases when management knew that the alarm was malfunctioning, and that doesn't mean giving the occasional false alarm, I mean going off for all kinds of reasons (like birds, a stiff wind, funky jewelry, etc.) and still depending on it.

The justified use of force comes in not when the alarm goes off, but when you refuse to be cooperative with a simple request of proof of your purchases and attempt to leave the premises, and is limited to that which is reasonably required to detain you.  It cannot escalate to deadly force unless and until you escalate the situation to that level or present an obvious threat to use deadly force yourself (for instance, if what you were suspected of stealing was the gun that now resides in your jacket pocket).

There are other anti-shoplifting measures out there- for a while, exploding security tags, expecially those with dyes, were popular.  They made the merchandise unusable and often marked the shoplifter.

Unfortunately, they were quite bulky, and if some clerk forgets to take it off...POW!  And that happened enough times to make some retailers quite leery of them (something about honest people getting burns, dye, and plastic shrapnel being bad for the public image).

Visual monitors are quite effective- just ask someone working security in Las Vegas.  But they are only as effective as the people doing the monitoring, and that costs money.  And really, visual monitor systems only provide descriptions to police as opposed to prevention.

Ultimately, the cheap, non-explosive, easily concealed beeper tags won out.

If they are wrong, their responsibility depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

If you showed them your merch and receipt, then released you, its kind of no harm, no foul.  Depending on the timeline, you may still have to talk to the police, but that is highly unlikely.

If you showed them your merch and receipt and they still detain you; if you were stopped because of profiling; if its revealed that they had no probable cause (they knew the alarm was defective) and so forth- you have a civil case at least, and possibly a criminal one.


----------



## kensanata

S'mon said:
			
		

> US fair use law lets you photocopy books you own for personal use, whatever the copyright owner says.  Is it really different for e-books?




Well, in Switzerland there's an article in our copyright law that allows you to make copies for private use, but the copyright owners still deserve compensation for your copies. The law provides for copyright collectives. Thus, a copying machine will count the number of copies it made, and the print shop will pay a certain amount of money for each copy made to the copyright collective, and they will then redistribute the money to copyright holders.

Similar solutions exist for tapes (VHS, audio): Somewhere along the chain, payment is made to a copyright collective. Things changed when software came along (and Swiss copyright law has an extra article for software), and when CDs were being used for data instead of music. Suddenly there were two kinds of CDs: They were exactly the same, but some were licensed to be used to copy music, and some where not. Needless to say, the raw audio CDs are no longer sold, and the data CDs are used to copy music, and thus copyright owners are not getting their money. Similarly, people put music on the MP3 player without paying money to copyright collectives. Actually they are trying to change this right now here in Switzerland.

My point being: Probably *printing* a PDF document is different from copying a printed book because the copyright collective doesn't get any money, and thus copyright holders are not being compensated for the copying you are allowed to make for your own personal use.


----------



## madelf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I know of no case in which a laywer has successfully argued otherwise, except in those cases when management knew that the alarm was malfunctioning, and that doesn't mean giving the occasional false alarm, I mean going off for all kinds of reasons (like birds, a stiff wind, funky jewelry, etc.) and still depending on it.



I'm not talking about "the occasional false alarm" either. The things don't malfunction occasionally, they malfunction _all the time_. 

It's been my experience that the things are mistaken far more often than they are correct. I've never seen one of them actually catch someone, but the local Walmart (on busy days) has had to have more than one "greeter" checking bags of people leaving the store because the alarm goes off _that often_. It's not unusual to hear it go off once or twice while waiting at the checkout, and I avoid busy periods as much as possible. Going by comments of the folks working there, this is business as usual. And its far from the only store I've seen having such problems, only the one I'm most exposed to. So, going by my experience, those systems malfunction more often than not and I just find it personally hard to swallow as reasonable cause. 

I've never refused to go along with a bag check over it yet (though I have just kept walking a couple times when there was no one actively flagging me down), and probably wouldn't as long as the request was polite and apologetic, but if someone decided to pull an attitude with me over one of those things going off, I'd be just the sort of stubborn jerk to make them call the cops out before I'd let them look at a thing.


----------



## bodhi

madelf said:
			
		

> Actually... that is not for RPGnow or DrivethruRPG to decide.
> That would be up to the individual publisher (and though I'm sure most of them would allow it, it's a little disturbing that the retailer is making the assumption that they all will).



DriveThruRPG's FAQ says:  As long as the eBook in question allows you to print from it, then you may print it at a printing store.

RPG Now's says: Print unlimited copies (for your own use): write on them, draw on them, make notes in the margins.
But that's listed as a benefit of PDF. It don't think it mentions copyright issues directly at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The things don't malfunction occasionally, they malfunction all the time.




I understand your complaint- frequently it seems that their sensitivity is set too high or there is a short...

But that, as they say, is a question of fact, and would be decided upon by a jury of your peers.

After you had been arrested.

And searched.

Possibly beaten up by some guy in holding.

Its just friendly advice- don't get physical with someone who thinks you're a shoplifter.

Talk is cheaper.  So is showing your reciept.


----------



## madelf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Its just friendly advice- don't get physical with someone who thinks you're a shoplifter.



Nah. Even if they really pissed me off I wouldn't get physical. Initiating violence seldom helps anything. I'd just demand that they either call the police to perform the search or let me go. 

If they refused to call the police and tried to physically force a search themselves, I suspect I'd end up with some extra spending money.


----------



## dshai527

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I understand your complaint- frequently it seems that their sensitivity is set too high or there is a short...
> 
> But that, as they say, is a question of fact, and would be decided upon by a jury of your peers.
> 
> After you had been arrested.
> 
> And searched.
> 
> Possibly beaten up by some guy in holding.
> 
> Its just friendly advice- don't get physical with someone who thinks you're a shoplifter.
> 
> Talk is cheaper.  So is showing your reciept.




I have always thought that the store must have absolute proof before detaining a suspected shoplifter, but I am not a lawyer. Texas may have more lenient laws, but a quick google check came up with this. http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting2.htm Now it says should follow these guidelines, so I guess they still do have some detention rights. 

"Before detaining anyone, you must establish Shoplifting Probable Cause. To establish a solid base for probable cause and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should follow before deciding to stop someone suspected of shoplifting:

   1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
   2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
   3. You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away or convert your merchandise
   4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
   5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
   6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store"


Are Door Bag Searches Legal?

Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search


----------



## madelf

bodhi said:
			
		

> DriveThruRPG's FAQ says:  As long as the eBook in question allows you to print from it, then you may print it at a printing store.
> 
> RPG Now's says: Print unlimited copies (for your own use): write on them, draw on them, make notes in the margins.
> But that's listed as a benefit of PDF. It don't think it mentions copyright issues directly at all.



That's a bit more reassuring.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Note that key word "should."

It isn't the same as "has to."

Those are guidelines to protect the retailers from claims of false imprisonment and the like.

Technically speaking, the crime of shoplifting is complete when the item is grasped with the intent to steal it.  If you actually had "thought police" they could arrest you then, even if you put the item back.

Once someone sees you (or really, thinks they see you) pocket merchandise, they can detain you.  The reason they tell merchants to wait until the person is outside is to have clear evidence of the intent not to pay for the goods in your possession.

As for bag checks and the like- I'm starting to see more of them, as well as signs asking people to check their bags and similar large recepticles at the counter.

I went to 2 trade/hobby shows this month- one for guitars, one for gems.  Bags were searched on entry.  Strollers were not allowed.  Some large items of clothing were also searched- could they have been more obvious- a trenchcoat in Dallas in May?


----------



## madelf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I went to 2 trade/hobby shows this month- one for guitars, one for gems.  Bags were searched on entry.  Strollers were not allowed.  Some large items of clothing were also searched- could they have been more obvious- a trenchcoat in Dallas in May?



Thank you. I now have the very amusing image ingrained in my brain of some clown trying to shoplift a guitar by hiding it under his trenchcoat, or wrapping it in a baby blanket sticking out of a stroller.


----------



## Morrus

the Jester said:
			
		

> Any time that pdf has a copyright notice that includes verbage to the effect of "no reproduction except for personal use", if I make a copy of it and sell it to you I am breaking copyright, because _I_ am printing it for profit.




Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand!  We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use.  Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher.  I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.


----------



## jdrakeh

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand!  We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use.  Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher.  I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.




I think that he is under the impression that a copy shop is selling the printed product itself when somebody comes in with a document and asks them to print it, which isn't the case. They charge for the _service_ (and materials needed to perform the service). They are not actually re-selling the product itself. This is a common misconception among consumers (sadly, amongst many copy shop employees, as well).


----------



## madelf

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand!  We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use.  Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher.  I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.



Agreed.
The copy center isn't selling a printed product (in the situation under discussion here), they're selling a printing _service_. If that service provides the purchaser of the PDF with a print copy they're legally entitled to have, I can't see how there's any resemblance to a copyright violation involved.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

This is the reason that I think both copyright and patent law simply needs to be done away with completely.  As far as either is concerned the original creator should get a share of profit from use of their material, but not necessarily have any ability at all to control how others use that material so long as they aren't making a profit.  If they are making a profit the limit of the law should be a share of the profit made off their idea, no more.


----------



## Jim Hague

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> This is the reason that I think both copyright and patent law simply needs to be done away with completely.  As far as either is concerned the original creator should get a share of profit from use of their material, but not necessarily have any ability at all to control how others use that material so long as they aren't making a profit.  If they are making a profit the limit of the law should be a share of the profit made off their idea, no more.




So a content creator should have no control over how their intellectual property is used by others?  Ridiculous.  Ludicrous, even.  And how, exactly would you determine the extent others are using it, if there's no laws regulating it.  In an ideal, utopian society, where everyone is honest, this idea might work.  In the real world, it's hogwash.  Or perhaps you'd expect content producers to just take it when, under your idea, someone took their IP and used it for, say, kiddie porn?  Or even something as relatively mundane as advertising?  No thanks - beyond enjoyment of a product, one person should benefit from the creation of intellectual property, and that is the creator of that property.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> This is the reason that I think both copyright and patent law simply needs to be done away with completely. <snip>




Some of my associates in the music biz who have had pirated copies of their albums outsell their legit ones- to the point that they never recouped their _studio time_ costs, let alone pressing costs- would beg to differ.

Strongly.


> As far as either is concerned the original creator should get a share of profit from use of their material, but not necessarily have any ability at all to control how others use that material so long as they aren't making a profit.




If someone takes my Microsoft Word file for a novel and distributes it online to half a million people for free without my permission, I'm going to have problems selling it.

Again, no go.


----------



## Mark CMG

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> What you're trying to do is protect your copyright while ensuring that your end users get the kind of full utility out of it they expect, all while operating in a slightly paranoid environment.
> 
> By putting that permission in as much of an up-front position as possible, you make it easy.





Great.  And by putting my copyright notice and the permission for a personal copy in the same place I make it largely difficult for someone to remove one or the other, or to miss one or the other, unless they go to some particular lengths to do so.  Thanks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

My law school profs always said you serve your clients best by keeping them out of court- they felt that if you're in court, you've probably done something wrong.

The next best thing you can do is make their journey through the court system as easy as possible.

And if Page 1 of your PDF is all your legal stuff (oh yeah, and your title!), it will be tough for someone to argue they didn't see it.

Easy street.


----------



## Cergorach

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> You might as well just burn your own money.



KLF is gonna rock you! ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_K_Foundation_burn_a_million_quid

btw. Have you tried to fill out the form yourself? Don't know if that's illegal or anything, you'll probably know better then I do...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So a content creator should have no control over how their *intellectual property* is used by others?  Ridiculous.  Ludicrous, even.




It's those two little words Intellectual Property.  I find the concept that anyone can own an *idea* heinous.  The problem is that the _idea_ is being tangled up with the _product_ which is a result of the idea.  Hell I've got a considerable amount of written material floating around the net, which has been copied twisted, mangled and abused.  Most of it isn't suitable for these boards I'll admit but the point stands.  If someone else made money off a _product_ which was mine(the text itself) and didn't send me a share I'd be somewhat aggravated.  But even looking at my own work I can't reasonably say how I own the *idea* because of the nature of ideas.  No idea could exist without the ideas already present and is almost guaranteed to have been independently oringinated somewhere else sometime.  That universality means the ideas can't truly be owned by anyone, the particular _product_(a specific written work) yes but not the idea.  The only question should be if they're misusing a _product_ you created.  Not the idea, but the thing itself which should be explicitly separated.

To be perfectly honest I'm willing to compromise on copyright law because we're dealing with written works and there should be some form of law to ensure equity.  My major problem is patent rather than copyright law.

And we are probably getting too close to the politics of the issue.  So I'll pull back and deal with the OPs concern more.  Unfortunately corporations aren't really responsive at that size and there's probably nothing a person can do.  I just print it out myself because I have a duplexing printer and can always get decent bindings.  

My problem is with the cost of printer ink, which is really way off the chart.  If you extrapolate out the cost of printer ink you're paying in the range of $1000US per gallon of printer ink.  There's no possible way they can justify that sort of unit price on a commodity so easily produced.


----------



## the Lorax

As someone who works in a "copy shop", and has for well over 10 years, I'll try to shed a little light on this.  I appologize in advance for those subscribed to this thread and are getting all this again in an email, but here goes...



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples and they refused to print them. They said they need a written document from the publisher which states that they can be printed.
> 
> Does anyone else have these problems? Can I even get something written from Mongoose and Morrigan Press that says its okay to print the PDFs? Do other publishers not intend for PDFs to be printed? What's the dilleo with this? I think its insane and never had problems with this before.
> 
> Anyone else?




Copyright protection does indeed apply to .pdf (or any other file types), in exactly the same way as they would to a printed book.  Without some indication, along with the copyright notice that prints can be made for personal use, the permission of the copyright holder (or their agent) would be required to make reproductions of their work.  This would even include burning a copy of the file onto another disk for you.



			
				bento said:
			
		

> Were these free downloads or purchased pdfs?
> 
> If they were purchased you can always print out the receipt.  I know for RPGNow and Paizo.com they have a page where all your purchases are listed.
> 
> If it was free, then Staples are being nimnulls.
> Maybe for free downloads you can print out the link page to show where the file came from?




Just like a book, a receipt for the purchase of the .pdf does not mean you own the reproduction rights to the material.



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Perhaps they do not like to print PDFs for someone who tells them someone else sent them in with someone else's PDFs?  Have you been back personally and spoken to someone who you have dealt with before?




That actually would make no difference.  Typically there would be some type of form to fill out, a copyright release or permission form of some sort, if the copyright holder of a .pdf sent in someone to get work done, that person would in fact be an authorized agent of the copyright holder



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> By "they" you mean that several people confirmed this policy?  I've been in situations where a single individual goofed up a customer service situation and when the establishment was phoned, this same person happened to also be the person to catch the phone call.  You should ask for a printed copy of the policy to send to the publishers when you request their permissions.  Anyone should know a publisher isn't going to send out a an official permission slip that could be abused in countless ways.  If there were a real written policy, I suspect it would only require a receipt of some sort as suggested above.




A reciept of purchase does not give you the right to make copies of copyright material.  A professional photographer owns the right to reproduce any of his works in the same way - just because you purchased your wedding photos and have a reciept does not automatically give you the right to make reproductions of those photos, however you provide them, even as scanned images that you made.  And if you purchased the rights to the photos from the photographer, the photos would STILL be protected by copyright, but now YOU would be the copyright holder and could grant yourself permission to make reproductions of them.



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> My gf called me on her cell from the store. A couple of clerks who were behind the counter said that was the policy and she asked to speak to the store manager and got the same thing. If the manager doesn't know, then they have a lot more problems on their hands then not printing a couple PDFs for me. I work in Customer Service, so yeah I've seen some people at Network Solutions relay some pretty ridiculous information to our customers.
> 
> Got one. Their brochure actually has a permission form on it that I would need to fax to the copyright holder. Funny thing is it seems like the brochure was written for the photocopying of physical documents and doesn't say anything about PDFs. I usually don't get mad and vent my frustrations on a forum, but this has me uber annoyed.
> 
> Anything you write is copyrighted the minute you write it down. So if someone wanted to take a copy of this post to Staples and get it printed, they would need permission from all of us. I hope they do that with kids high school reports too.
> 
> I'm a publisher and if I knew people were having problems I'd certainly include a statement in the PDF that states a single copy of the product could be made for personal use. They don't want a simple receipt, they want a form filled out. It sucks for all of the small PDF companies out there. I only buy larger PDFs with the intention of printing them out. I won't waste my money anymore as there is just no way I can read a 224 page PDF on my computer. Staring at a computer screen 8 hours a day is bad enough...




Yep, it is indeed an inconvenience to customers, and that sucks.  If .pdf publishers would simply include some text in the copyright notice that included the right to make one copy for personal use, the issue with copy shops would be resolved.



			
				the Jester said:
			
		

> Regarding store policies on copying stuff:
> 
> The policies are there to make sure store employees aren't breaking copyright laws left and right. It's not to treat customers like criminals. Generally, such policies are there to prevent employees from getting the business in trouble. The store doesn't have the option to just shine the law.
> 
> Given how easy it should be to get the ok to print one copy of these kinds of things, it should be a non-issue. Again, though, some companies will not allow a third party (i.e. Staples, Kinkos) to charge you money to print their work. Don't blame the copy guy- that's like saying, "Aw, man, I really wanted to eat some dog today, but it's against the law for my favorite restaurant to serve it in my city. DAMN YOUSE, FAVORITE RESTAURANT!!! HOW COULD YOU FAIL TO SERVE ME DOG?! I'M A LEGITIMATE CUSTOMER!!!1!!"




The policies on reproducing protected material is also to protect the staff of the copy shop from any potential legal action.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Nobody is complaining that the store won't print things that are illegal to print.
> 
> They're ocmplaining that the store won't print things that are _legal _ to print.




The main problem here is that you are asking a worker at the copy shop, who probably has no background in the legal profession to make a judgement on Fair Use and Copyright ownership, something, that has already been pointed out, that can only be done by the courts.  

REALLY it is absolutely in the .pdf publishers best interest to include an authorization to copy the material in the copyright notice.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Yeeeees..... completely true, yet somehow competely nothing to do with the subject at hand!  We're talking about printing a copy of a PDF for personal use.  Anyone who prints copies and starts selling 'em - well, I'm a PDF publisher.  I'm sure you can guess my opinion on that.




Part of the problem here is:

_ [Title 17, Sect. 108f]:
NOTICE: The U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The person using this equipment is liable for any infringement. _

This happens to put the copy shop in a bit of a bind - as you can no doubt tell.  The copy shop worker is not printing the material for personal use, they are printing it for sale.  

How many copies of the material would you be comfortable with being printed out?  1?  2?  17?  153?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Staples (nor anyone else) shouldn't be playing detective.  Their job is to print what you bring them.  Period.  Not printing it without proof of purchase is just calling you a thief until you prove otherwise.  In the USA, it is supposed to be the other way around.


----------



## Glyfair

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Staples (nor anyone else) shouldn't be playing detective.




I'll agree with the Staples part of that statement.  They shouldn't have to assume that they aren't opening themselves up to a lawsuit from printing infringing material.



> Their job is to print what you bring them.  Period.



No.  Staples provides the service, they determine the job.  Their policies state they won't print copyrighting material without permission from the copyright holder.  Their job is to follow the policies of the company, and communicate that with the customer.



> Not printing it without proof of purchase is just calling you a thief until you prove otherwise.



I don't buy that argument.  It's merely admitting that their are "thieves" (probably not the right word) out there and they need to protect themselves from them.  That's like saying that airport security is calling you a hijacker because they run you through a metal detector before you are ready to board a plane.


----------



## danzig138

the Lorax said:
			
		

> If .pdf publishers would simply include some text in the copyright notice that included the right to make one copy for personal use, the issue with copy shops would be resolved.




I doubt it. The SO has also been working in a copy shop for 10 years or so, and from everything I've heard, seen, and dealt with, it really depends on which wage slave happens to be running the counter at the time. You're going to run across employess who won't print it even if it has a huge disclaimer stating they can print and will, in fact, receive free sex or tickets to a ball game or something for doing so. Of course, in my experience, most of them also don't give a rat's behind about store policy or copyright law - they frequently just don't want to do it - like that far too accurate Dave Chapelle skit. 

Some stores frown on it because they prefer big jobs, and think that little dinky jobs like printing your pdf aren't worth their time - that's why the self-serve machines are there. 

My recommendation is to hit the store up during the graveyard shift - those guys will, again in my experience, print just about anything, assuming you can get them to get off the computers long enough.


----------



## dcas

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> It's those two little words Intellectual Property.  I find the concept that anyone can own an *idea* heinous.



Ideas are not copyrightable. The expression of ideas is. I suppose an idea might be patented, but patents are pretty limited in duration compared to copyrights.


----------



## Psion

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So a content creator should have no control over how their intellectual property is used by others?  Ridiculous.  Ludicrous, even.  And how, exactly would you determine the extent others are using it, if there's no laws regulating it.  In an ideal, utopian society, where everyone is honest, this idea might work.  In the real world, it's hogwash.




Indeed. There are many worthwhile human endeavors that nobody would do simply because they would starve doing them.


----------



## tylerthehobo

The problem is that many of the older books that are available as PDFs predate digital piracy concerns.  Since there's nothing explicit protecting Staples when they go to copy this stuff, they can't risk having some attorney at a publisher decide to interpret the "Do not photocopy" clause as "do not print PDFs" just because there is not clear, delineated permission to do so.  Gotta say, I can't blame 'em.

Buy a printer and paper.  Decent ones are cheap enough now, and as long as you don't print the whole dern book, you probably won't blast too much toner.  

Part of the deal is that PDFs sure can be printed out, but part of their benefit is that you can have a hard drive full of PDFs, and not have to worry about all of these taking up space in your apartment/house.


----------



## Morrus

Glyfair said:
			
		

> That's like saying that airport security is calling you a hijacker because they run you through a metal detector before you are ready to board a plane.




No, it's like saying they're calling you a hijacker when they refuse to let you on the plane.  Big difference.


----------



## Biohazard

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So I had my girlfriend take a couple of PDFs that I bought to Staples and they refused to print them. They said they need a written document from the publisher which states that they can be printed.
> 
> Does anyone else have these problems? Can I even get something written from Mongoose and Morrigan Press that says its okay to print the PDFs? Do other publishers not intend for PDFs to be printed? What's the dilleo with this? I think its insane and never had problems with this before.
> 
> Anyone else?





Welcome to the Brave New World of the Digital Initiative, folks . . . these kinds of posts are a harbinger of things to come, I fear.


----------



## Jim Hague

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> It's those two little words Intellectual Property.  I find the concept that anyone can own an *idea* heinous.  The problem is that the _idea_ is being tangled up with the _product_ which is a result of the idea.  Hell I've got a considerable amount of written material floating around the net, which has been copied twisted, mangled and abused.  Most of it isn't suitable for these boards I'll admit but the point stands.  If someone else made money off a _product_ which was mine(the text itself) and didn't send me a share I'd be somewhat aggravated.  But even looking at my own work I can't reasonably say how I own the *idea* because of the nature of ideas.  No idea could exist without the ideas already present and is almost guaranteed to have been independently oringinated somewhere else sometime.  That universality means the ideas can't truly be owned by anyone, the particular _product_(a specific written work) yes but not the idea.  The only question should be if they're misusing a _product_ you created.  Not the idea, but the thing itself which should be explicitly separated.




I'm not speaking on the idea, but the end product, to be perfectly clear.  Here's an example - Chad Underkoffler is out there working on a very cool swashbuckling pirate game right now.  I've been following its progress, primarily because I dig on pirates but also because I am _also_ writing a swashbuckling game set in a weird world.  Lo and behold, some things I've thought up and taken notes on in development look strikingly similar to Chad's own ideas.  Am I going to scream that he used mind rays to steal my ideas?  Heck no!  We happen to have had similar ideas, that's all.  In the end, he'll write his product (which everyone should go buy), and I'll write mine (which you should _also_ buy, because you can never have enough swashbuckling goodness), and everything's copacetic.

However, if I or he went out and used each others' trade dress, or directly copied concepts specific to our games whole cloth, that'd be another matter entirely.  So to be clear - when I speak of IP, I'm talking things like trade dress, direct concepts and the like linked to specific creators and works.



> To be perfectly honest I'm willing to compromise on copyright law because we're dealing with written works and there should be some form of law to ensure equity.  My major problem is patent rather than copyright law.




I'll agree that patent law is way, way out of whack right now, especially here in the U.S.



> My problem is with the cost of printer ink, which is really way off the chart.  If you extrapolate out the cost of printer ink you're paying in the range of $1000US per gallon of printer ink.  There's no possible way they can justify that sort of unit price on a commodity so easily produced.




Dude, go laser.  The initial investment has dropped to former inkjet prices, and even my own $100 Samsung has cranked out over 5000 pages on a $30 toner cartridge.

On a semi-related note - who out there knows about good, inexpensive home binding techniques or materials?  I know thermal is hideously expensive, and comb binding tends to shred the paper eventually.  Why not cut the problems entirely out of the loop and take a cottage industry approach?  Sell the PDFs, and folks can self-bind.  Hmm...


----------



## the Lorax

Biohazard said:
			
		

> Welcome to the Brave New World of the Digital Initiative, folks . . . these kinds of posts are a harbinger of things to come, I fear.



This is an unfortunate side effect as well, here is the Copyright Notice from the bottom of a (fairly recent) .pdf intended print, provided for free by WoTC, the Revised White Plume Mountain.



> This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United
> States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the
> material or artwork contained herein is prohibited
> without the express written permission of
> Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
> ©2005 Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc.
> All rights reserved.
> Made in the U.S.A.
> This product is a work of fiction.
> Any similarity to actual people, organizations, places,
> or events is purely coincidental.
> This Wizards of the Coast game product contains no Open Game Content.
> No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without
> written permission. To learn more about the Open Gaming License
> and the d20 System License,
> please visit www.wizards.com/d20.



Printing out a .pdf is a reproductive process, and it is not purely a "service" (for those of you who brought that up earlier).  
The "Any reproduction..." portion of that copyright notice includes printing it out.  Yes, copyright restrictions are a HUGE consideration whe talking about Wizards new Digital Initiative.  That copyright notice includes no authorization to make any reproductions of the material, in fact it expressly forbids it.


----------



## Jim Hague

However, we're not talking the Digital Initiative.  We're talking about PDFs in general.  Whatever form the DI takes, it's irrelevant to the thread right now.


----------



## jdrakeh

the Lorax said:
			
		

> Printing out a .pdf is a reproductive process, and it is not purely a "service" (for those of you who brought that up earlier).




In this case, the reproductive process _is_ a service. _The_ service. Its the whole reason that the copy center exists. They aren't selling books, they're providing the _service_ of reproducing or printing documents. It's still _only_ a service under both legal and dictionary definitions. In this instance, the text that you've cited simply forbids the service. This is not always the case, as mentioned earlier.

[Edit: Also, note that forbidding the pratice of reproduction is not the same things forbidding the resale of reproduced product. One closely follows the other, but they are not at all the same thing in the eyes of the law. Hence why an author/rights holder can grant permission to copy/print something, but this doesn't necessarily make it okay to sell that thing for profit.]


----------



## the Lorax

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> In this case, the reproductive process _is_ a service. _The_ service. Its the whole reason that the copy center exists. They aren't selling books. Check your receipt sometime. You're billed for the process (i.e., the service) and the individual material used to facilitate the process. You aren't charged for "Book X by Author Y". In this instance, the text that you've cited simply forbids the service. It's still _only_ a service under both legal and dictionary definitions.




They are selling a printed work which they have made.  You are charged a sales tax on the copies.


----------



## jgbrowning

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Dude, go laser.  The initial investment has dropped to former inkjet prices, and even my own $100 Samsung has cranked out over 5000 pages on a $30 toner cartridge.




Just got a laser myself and am very happy about it. My toner is a bit more expensive (it's a $400 printer/scanner/copier/fax), but even then it's much, much cheaper than ink.

joe b.


----------



## jdrakeh

the Lorax said:
			
		

> They are selling a printed work which they have made.  You are charged a sales tax on the copies.




You're incorrect. The sales tax is (again) levied on the service and the materials used in the performing of the service (check your itemized receipt sometime), not "Book X by Author Y". It's the difference between a book store receipt and a copy service receipt. One lists one lists a single product, the other breaks down costs by individual services and materials (e.g., copies, binding, paper, etc). You're free to believe what you like, of course.


----------



## Jim Hague

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Just got a laser myself and am very happy about it. My toner is a bit more expensive (it's a $400 printer/scanner/copier/fax), but even then it's much, much cheaper than ink.
> 
> joe b.




Absolutely.  I was forced to get a laser when my multifunction inkjet blew its print head and about $50 worth of color ink, and I've never looked back.

For those that're interested, a good, solid, no frills laser runs about $100-$150 at places like NewEgg, and comes with a decent toner cart.  You've probably got something like Cartridge World in your area, so the toner can be refilled professionally for about 50-75% of a new cart's price.  FYI.


----------



## jdrakeh

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> For those that're interested, a good, solid, no frills laser runs about $100-$150 at places like NewEgg, and comes with a decent toner cart.  You've probably got something like Cartridge World in your area, so the toner can be refilled professionally for about 50-75% of a new cart's price.  FYI.




Before I'd give up the local copy shop that I use, I'd have to buy a laser that does double-sided prints. . . and I suspect that would run me a great deal more than $150. Also, page-protected and binders are a very inefficient way to store printed documents of any size (more than 80 pages). I did this for years, but it took up too much space and ended up costing me more than printed books did (heavy duty page protectors aren't cheap).


----------



## Jim Hague

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Before I'd give up the local copy shop that I use, I'd have to buy a laser that does double-sided prints. . . and I suspect that would run me a great deal more than $150. Also, page-protected and binders are a very inefficient way to store printed documents of any size (more than 80 pages). I did this for years, but it took up too much space and ended up costing me more than printed books did (heavy duty page protectors aren't cheap).




Ayuh, and entirely understandable - hence my wondering on what binding options (aside from the ol' three-ring or comb binding) are out there.  As for double-sided, my cheapie laser has a duplexer, though it's manual insert.  I don't think one that does it as a matter of course would jack the price up too badly.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Mine is also able to do double sided copies, if you do a manual insert. No harder than putting the paper in to the tray in the first place. I am also just on my second cartridge - laser printers get a heck of a lot more out of a toner cartridge than an inkjet does out of an ink cartridge.

The only downside is that I keep kicking myself for not getting one sooner - mine was $70 at Best Buy, on sale, and with an open box. 

For binding I tend to use three ring binders and a three hole punch or page protectors.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I still dislike anything that shifts the costs of printing from a company that has economies of scale to me.

I could have bought several game books or bound several pdfs for the price of my current copier...and the results I get are not up to Kinko's/Staples etc. standards, either.

That may just be me...but c'est la vie.  The more stuff that goes to pdf or similar format the less stuff I'll buy.

Its not like I don't have other hobbies to suck up my cash!


----------



## Thurbane

the Lorax said:
			
		

> A reciept of purchase does not give you the right to make copies of copyright material.



That depends on what part of the world you are in. Many countries allow you to make a copy for archival purposes, in case your original is lost or damaged.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That should read:


> A reciept of purchase does not give you the right to make _unlimited_ copies of copyright material.




There are exceptions- like archiving/working copies.

But even with those exceptions, you generally have to give up the copy if you also permanently divest yourself of the original.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> However, if I or he went out and used each others' trade dress, or directly copied concepts specific to our games whole cloth, that'd be another matter entirely.  So to be clear - when I speak of IP, I'm talking things like trade dress, direct concepts and the like linked to specific creators and works.




Yeah I see that we're really closer than I first thought.  I've always felt that _trade dress_ was a very nebulous thing for a legal concept and should probably be eliminated.  Really I think it should be more closely connected to plagiarism, unless you can actually show that one individuals actual work, not something "similar" the work itself, was used it shouldn't be grounds for a copyright argument between producers.  And in this day and age there needs to be a simple and sane law regarding digital material and copies.





> I'll agree that patent law is way, way out of whack right now, especially here in the U.S.




Thanks, I see I'm not alone at least.  There's a lot of truly questionable stuff built into patent law and it probably needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt to work again.



> Dude, go laser.  The initial investment has dropped to former inkjet prices, and even my own $100 Samsung has cranked out over 5000 pages on a $30 toner cartridge.




That's the thing, beginning of the year I got a high end cannon inkjet for printing very high resolution art.  As a result it will be a while until I can afford a second printer, though I intend to maybe sometime in the fall.  Given that I occasionally need to print out a nearly 1000 page long document I'll be looking at automatic duplexers which drives the price up a bit.



> On a semi-related note - who out there knows about good, inexpensive home binding techniques or materials?  I know thermal is hideously expensive, and comb binding tends to shred the paper eventually.  Why not cut the problems entirely out of the loop and take a cottage industry approach?  Sell the PDFs, and folks can self-bind.  Hmm...




I don't know anything cheap that's got decent quality and lasts.  Somewhere I found a binding system that looked very attractive but it was out of my price range if I can relocate the link I'll send it for you to look at.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There's a lot of truly questionable stuff built into patent law and it probably needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt to work again.




Really?  What?
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent

Or did you actually mean to refer to Copyright?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/copyright/copyrightrefresher.htm

I'm not saying its perfect, mind you, but I'm more of the mentality that the framework is sound and just needs some tweeks, rather than wholesale demolition & reconstruction.

And, just for the record, a little info on changes they're considering.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/presentation/focuspp.html


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm not saying its perfect, mind you, but I'm more of the mentality that the framework is sound and just needs some tweeks, rather than wholesale demolition & reconstruction.




I think the Statute of Anne framework with its registrable copyright and 14 year term (renewable to 28) was sound.  Unfortunately, along came the Continentals and we got the Berne convention, automatic copyright and near-infinite duration.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Personally, I prefer automatic copyright because of the combination of there being simply too many people who are not aware of how simple it is to copyright something and the improvements in the technologies that facilitate many forms of copyright infringement.

OTOH, while I understand the desire of entities like Disney wanting to protect the value of their IP as long as possible, current copyright laws are bumping up against a ceiling similar to those found in other rules of law, like the Rule against Perpetuities (a rule regarding real property- IOW, Land).

Of course, as we all know, politicians listen to money, and right now IP is one of the major moneymakers in the Western world...I'm not sure the protectionist trend won't continue.

And really, I'm not sure who is being hurt by long periods of protection.  While its true that under current law it means that an IP holder can spread out their exploitation over a long period of time, shortening that time (from the current regime) would lead to a compression effect.  IOW, with less time to exclusively exploit their IP, they will try to set a higher price.

How that would work out would, of course, be determined by the market.  I'm not going to prognosticate, but one possible outcome is that the short-run costs of using someone's IP might actually be higher under a shorter protection regime, if for no other reason than you're paying in today's dollars rather than tomorrow's (a time-value of money consideration).


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How that would work out would, of course, be determined by the market.  I'm not going to prognosticate, but one possible outcome is that the short-run costs of using someone's IP might actually be higher under a shorter protection regime, if for no other reason than you're paying in today's dollars rather than tomorrow's (a time-value of money consideration).




That wouldn't bother me.  Paying more for a new-release DVD would be a small price for not having our cultural heritage from ca 1922 onwards locked up in perpetual IP.


----------



## Rykion

rowport said:
			
		

> Actually, yes-- I freakin' hate paying full retail price for books that I could almost certainly have bought cheaper online, only to find one of those d---- sticker tags permanently clamped onto a page or endpaper.  That crap drives me crazy.
> 
> And, for that matter, your post confuses me; it sounds like you are building a convincing case for why it is obtrusive and annoying that you are treated like a thief by default, only to conclude that "a person has to live with it"?  Or, are you saying to buy your books online to avoid the stupid things?



I say that a person has to live with it because at least 90% of stores I go to have them.  Even most small boutique style stores have them.  I can't even buy groceries without walking through scanners.  Living with it doesn't mean liking it.  :\


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And really, I'm not sure who is being hurt by long periods of protection.  While its true that under current law it means that an IP holder can spread out their exploitation over a long period of time, shortening that time (from the current regime) would lead to a compression effect.  IOW, with less time to exclusively exploit their IP, they will try to set a higher price.




Wow, I would highly, highly doubt that. At least if we're talking entertainment media, I really think the price is simply set at whatever customers are willing to pay, irrespective of costs one way or the other.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> That wouldn't bother me. Paying more for a new-release DVD would be a small price for not having our cultural heritage from ca 1922 onwards locked up in perpetual IP.




Depending, of course, on whether that "small price" is actually small.

And I'm not sure calling someone else's creation "our cultural heritage" is really helpful.  Just because something becomes immensely popular (Disney films) or literarily important (like a Faulkner novel) doens't mean its ownership should be transferred into the public domain more quickly.

Arguably, the _less_ popular a piece of IP proves to be, the more quickly it should fall into the commons- that way, someone else has a chance of taking it and reshaping it into something more useful.  Immensely valuable IP is probably already being utilized to its fullest potential.

Would we as a society be better off if people were able to use Mickey Mouse as they saw fit?  Personally, I don't think so- that IP has a certian set of connotations that have accrued to it over the years all centered around clean family entertainment- and respected in that context virtually around the world (but for a particular Pakistani propaganda film seen on CNN lately).  Were someone able to take MM and make a slasher flick with it, that image would be tarnished, to say the least.

And in all honesty, the countries that have protected and respected IP the most have prospered because of it.  Just this past winter, Chinese officials mused that they were having problems in their country because the same pirates they've protected while they cannibalize the IP of citizens in other countries are now targeting Chinese creators.

Is the current protection regime too long?  Maybe- I haven't decided yet.  But 28 years?  I'm fairly sure that that is too short.



> Wow, I would highly, highly doubt that. At least if we're talking entertainment media, I really think the price is simply set at whatever customers are willing to pay, irrespective of costs one way or the other.




Like I said, "try"- whether they would succeed would be determined by the market.

However, if they felt they really had to do so, there are several steps the big companies could take to strengthen their hands in the market, each of which has the benefits of decreasing manufacture & security costs while increasing the "security" of their product.

1) Limit the total number of releases in a year.

2) Limit the number of formats in the market.

3) Limit the number of legitimate outlets for their product.

4) Take copy protection more seriously...and roll that cost into the base costs of the product.  Some of the proposed protection schemes have been quite radical, including the release of viruses that would detect and destroy pirated IP.

And so forth.

And costs are always part of the equation.  Any product whose costs exceed the price the public is willing to pay for it will soon be pulled from the market.


----------



## wingsandsword

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And I'm not sure calling someone else's creation "our cultural heritage" is really helpful.  Just because something becomes immensely popular (Disney films) or literarily important (like a Faulkner novel) doens't mean its ownership should be transferred into the public domain more quickly.



Of course, with that mentality, Shakespeare would still be copyrighted.  Classical works of literature become even more classic when they pass into the public domain and can be reinterpreted, reproduced, used, remixed, and changed by everybody.


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And in all honesty, the countries that have protected and respected IP the most have prospered because of it.




The current New Yorker  (May 14) Financial Page has an article on copyright expansion making a compelling argument for exactly the opposite. 



> The great irony is that the U.S. economy in its early years was built in large part on a lax attitude toward intellectual property rights and enforcement. As the historian Doron Ben-Atar shows in his book "Trade Secrets," the Founders believed that a strict attitude toward patents and copyright would limit domestic innovation and make it harder for the U.S. to expand its industrial base. American law did not protect the rights of foreign inventors or writers, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, in his famous "Report on Manufactures," of 1791, actively advocated the theft of technology and the luring of skilled workers from foreign countries. Among the beneficiaries of this was the American textile industry, which flourished thanks to pirated technology.




In other words, strong IP laws are good for a dominant economy to secure its existing position, not so much for promoting innovation or getting there in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Of course, with that mentality, Shakespeare would still be copyrighted. Classical works of literature become even more classic when they pass into the public domain and can be reinterpreted, reproduced, used, remixed, and changed by everybody.




You're misinterpreting my statement- I said that I wasn't convinced that valuable IP- that which captures the imaginations of large numbers of people- should slip into the public domain more quickly because of its popularity.  I'm not arguing for indefinite/infinite IP protection- the commons must be fed.  Its just a question of what, how much and at what rate.

As for reinterpretation etc.- that is already allowed within the period of copyright as long as the reinterpretation falls within certain perameters, like parody, critique, or education.

Other loopholes exist as well.  For instance, in music, you need only do 2 things- give credit and pay small royalty fee to the songwriter- no songwiter can actually _ban_ you from recording their song unless he simply refuses to let_ anyone _do so (by not releasing it to the public).  Otherwise, our culture would not have been enriched by Hendrix's versions of "All along the Watchtower" and "Hey, Joe"; Elton John couldn't have done his cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; the 900 different versions of "Louie, Louie"; and Rap.

Similarly, other copyrighted works have been reinterpreted within the span of their enforcement- _Gone with the Wind_ and _Wizard of Oz_, for instance.

You really want to make me happy?  Make copyright have a sliding scale- the number of times your IP can have its protection renewed depends upon its market value (the more valuable, the stronger the protection)- but give it a ceiling- say...life of the creator + 50 years.



> The current New Yorker (May 14) Financial Page has an article on copyright expansion making a compelling argument for exactly the opposite. <edit>
> 
> In other words, strong IP laws are good for a dominant economy to secure its existing position, not so much for promoting innovation or getting there in the first place.




The Founders were definitely quite the brain trust, but they weren't perfect.  After all, they definitely lagged on the human rights front.

As time has passed since the foundation of this country, the stronger the IP enforcement, the faster the rate of our technological improvements- a pattern repeated in country after country.  And, as I pointed out, the countries that are not protecting the IP of others are now having their own IP poached- sometimes by their own citizens- causing a lag in development in their own countries, as China and Russia are finding out.

Just because theft- your own quote called it piracy- of someone else's ideas lets you get out of the gate faster doesn't mean its a good idea.  Theft definitely drops the costs of entry into a market, making it easier for the thief to turn a profit.  However, it definitely fails the test of Kant's Universality principle, and economically speaking, the easier IP is to steal without repercussions, the less likely it is someone will want to invest in producing & marketing it.


----------



## S'mon

I'll just point out that the connotations of Mickey Mouse is something that is, and should be, protected by Trade Mark law, not copyright.

I don't think valuable works should fall out of copyright protection quicker; I think registration to get protection plus maximum 28 years, as in the original law, is fine for all works.  'Life of the creator+50/70' is a Europeanism happily seized on by Anglo-American corporations, but far too long on any cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The Founders were definitely quite the brain trust, but they weren't perfect.  After all, they definitely lagged on the human rights front.




Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - sounds good to me.


----------



## Delta

Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue and the history behind it. I see the majority of current IP laws as an infringement against freedom of ideas. 

(On the one hand -- B.A. in Philosophy '93 -- I've always rejected Kant's Universality Principle as self-contradictory. Nontheless, it seems like a commitment to constant innovation, competition, and expansion of ideas by every inventor would be consistent for someone who subscribed to Kantian philosophy. If not, like I say, Kant's thinking really seemed coherent to me.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - sounds good to me.




Unless you weren't white or male.

Sure, forward thinking _for their time_, but not perfect.

Their decision to ignore the IP rights of others in order to jump start the American economy, while seeming to be a good idea at the time, was not ultimately good.

Great thinkers from St. Bernard of Clairveaux to Samuel Johnson have recognized that good intentions often lead to Hell.  The Founders were trying to do what they thought was good for their country, but by ignoring the rights of others to the just fruits of their labors, they took an ethical shortcut.



> On the one hand -- B.A. in Philosophy '93 -- I've always rejected Kant's Universality Principle as self-contradictory.




(B.A. Philosophy '90 & Phi Sigma Tau Philosophy National Honor Society.)  How is the principle "Before you act, ask whether you would want everyone else to act in substantially the same fashion." self-contradictory?  Its just a reformulation of the Golden Rule- a cornerstone of most moral framworks and a driving force behind human rights.

There is no single philosophy (or theology, for that matter) that has all of the answers, but that's a pretty solid one.

Within Kant's framework, each inventor would ask "Before I use X's work without reimbursing/crediting them, would I want others to use my work without reimbursing/crediting me?"  This question looms hugely each time an innovator realizes that his idea may not be a viable product unless he sinks millions of dollars into refining it.  Even if he seeks outside investors, they're going to be asking essentially the same question- why invest with this guy if anyone can simply use his findings without recovery of our investment?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

the Lorax said:
			
		

> This is an unfortunate side effect as well, here is the Copyright Notice from the bottom of a (fairly recent) .pdf intended print, provided for free by WoTC, the Revised White Plume Mountain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United
> States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the
> material or artwork contained herein is prohibited
> without the express written permission of
> Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
> ©2005 Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc.
> All rights reserved.
> Made in the U.S.A.
> This product is a work of fiction.
> Any similarity to actual people, organizations, places,
> or events is purely coincidental.
> This Wizards of the Coast game product contains no Open Game Content.
> No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without
> written permission. To learn more about the Open Gaming License
> and the d20 System License,
> please visit www.wizards.com/d20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Printing out a .pdf is a reproductive process, and it is not purely a "service" (for those of you who brought that up earlier).
> The "Any reproduction..." portion of that copyright notice includes printing it out.  Yes, copyright restrictions are a HUGE consideration whe talking about Wizards new Digital Initiative.  That copyright notice includes no authorization to make any reproductions of the material, in fact it expressly forbids it.
Click to expand...



Reading that it would seem to prohibit moving the pdf from the original download computer to any other computer you own even if you are just doing a regular upgrade (as is neccesary every 3 years or so) without express written permission from Wizards of the Coast. Technically moving a file from one computer to another even if the original is erased is reproducing the material and in violation of the copyright as epressed in the copyright notice. This to me is why copyright law needs fixing given the new didgital age. If the new DI has anything resembling this kind of copyright statement on the materials they offer they could be making criminals of a majority of thier customers who are not actually intending to break the law.


----------



## dcas

S'mon said:
			
		

> 'Life of the creator+50/70' is a Europeanism happily seized on by Anglo-American corporations, but far too long on any cost-benefit analysis.



The heirs of the creator might disagree.


----------



## prosfilaes

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And really, I'm not sure who is being hurt by long periods of protection.




Anyone who wants to be the next Disney. While a long copyright term benefits Disney now, I'm sure that it would have hurt Disney back in the day if they'd actually had to pay for Alice in Wonderland or Pinocchio or the Jungle Book.



> IOW, with less time to exclusively exploit their IP, they will try to set a higher price.




Everything I've read says that the vast majority of books fall out of print in five years, which I suspect holds true for music and movies too. The difference between 28 and 40 years isn't going to make a difference for them, much less the difference between 28 and 95 years. And the time-value of money means that selling DVDs 75 years down the road is worth nothing in today's dollars.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Simply stand there, throw the disk or whatever media on the counter defiantly and say, "No, *I* refuse to print _your_ PDF!  There, what do you think of *THAT*?"

Then while they're standing there doing the whole "NORMAN 23 - COORDINATE - COORDINATE BOOP BOOP BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo" thing, leap the counter and print that sucker.

's'always worked for *me*...


----------



## jgbrowning

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Reading that it would seem to prohibit moving the pdf from the original download computer to any other computer you own even if you are just doing a regular upgrade (as is neccesary every 3 years or so) without express written permission from Wizards of the Coast. Technically moving a file from one computer to another even if the original is erased is reproducing the material and in violation of the copyright as epressed in the copyright notice. This to me is why copyright law needs fixing given the new didgital age. If the new DI has anything resembling this kind of copyright statement on the materials they offer they could be making criminals of a majority of thier customers who are not actually intending to break the law.




Even better: When you open the file you've purchased you've just actually made a copy from one memory medium to another. 

joe b.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Creator +50 is even worse than what we have now.


As was mentioned if I take a PDF I purchased from WOTC with that copyright, and I had downloaded it to my harddrive into My Documents section and then copied it to my D&D directory after downloading when I'm doing my drive cleanup, I just committed a violation.
If I copy it to my flash drive, I committed a violation.

And if you want to be literal in your translation of copywrite law and all that jazz, only (hand) written things are copyrightable.   How's that for a strict interperation?   


In this day and age, let it be Time of Last Printing + 10 years with an option to renew one additonal 10 year period.  Cause really how do you identify the past culturally anymore, by what decade it occurred in.  So realistically using this someone could take the old OD&D/1E and renew interest in it as the last printing was 20 years ago.  But would have to wait on 2E stuff.  So if it is culturally significant to a person they could build on it, if it wasn't it falls by the wayside like a Pet Rock.  By using the Last Printing, a company such as WOTC could keep printing OD&D/1E and have the copyright indefinitely, at least if it was profitable for them.  If not, it allows someone else to pick it up.  Also you have to include that it has to be printed every year, you can't just print once a decade to maintain it indefinitely.

Digital IP/Copywrite would have to be written seperately as a whole.


----------



## TheYeti1775

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Even better: When you open the file you've purchased you've just actually made a copy from one memory medium to another.
> 
> joe b.



Yup you have it on the Physical Drive and in the RAM.  Those d@mn pirates.


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How is the principle "Before you act, ask whether you would want everyone else to act in substantially the same fashion." self-contradictory?




I want to eat a duck --> If everyone did that, ducks would be extinct and no one would eat duck again.
I want to write a song about chemistry --> If everyone did that, we'd be sick of songs on chemistry.
I want to marry a certain woman --> If everyone did that, she'd have no time for me.

The Golden Rule is generally stated as "treat others as you would like to be treated". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity). That's _not_ "expect others to treat everything as you treat everything", which is an untenable inflammation of the idea.



> Within Kant's framework, each inventor would ask "Before I use X's work without reimbursing/crediting them, would I want others to use my work without reimbursing/crediting me?"




I can't see why that would be the requirement, more so than "I want my ideas and their ideas to be freely usable."


Let me ask this. Today in Washington the Attorney General is pushing for the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which increases protections for IP beyond where they even are today. This includes:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright.
* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software.
* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations.
* Allow computers to be seized more readily.
* Increase penalties for violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention regulations. (Currently criminal violations are punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties too.)
* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes.
* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html

Are you in favor of all these increased penalties, as well? Is there any limit you would be in favor of?


----------



## prosfilaes

dcas said:
			
		

> The heirs of the creator might disagree.




However much they disagree, that doesn't change the facts. 0.1% of heirs see anything, and it's hard to argue that providing money for most of those heirs, especially ones covered by the last extension from life+50 to life+70, is actually a good social goal.


----------



## Morrus

OK, folks, what we're NOT going to do here is get into that age-old argument of the pros and cons of copyright law.

We all know how it goes.  we've all seen the argument a million times; nobody says anything new, and somebody always gets angry.

So, like every time this subject comes up, please drop the issue.  There are plenty of places on the web to discuss such things.  Thanks.


----------



## paradox42

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> It isn't staples "job" to make people happy.  It helps, and that ensures return customers.  It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples.



Not to thread hijack, but I must quibble with this statement- it is *not* in fact their "job" to follow laws. As a business, the "job" of Staples is to make a profit, period. The only reason they're being paranoid about the law here is because the government will come after them, if they don't and it finds out. Having a legal case brought against them by another company also falls under this, since without the court such an argument is just between the companies and the law is still irrelevant.



			
				Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.



This is what explains the company paranoia. Go ahead and watch that scene in _Fight Club_ again where the main character explains how his company decides when to initiate a recall. No corporation of any size in the modern world will treat the law as anything other than a potential cost in its planning; obediance is simply one possible way of avoiding such a penalty.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Staples refusing to print a product just on the odd chance that I stole it, is no different than Wal-Mart refusing to sell me groceries on the odd chance that I counterfeited the money I give them without any other evidence to back it up.


----------



## Ourph

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Staples refusing to print a product just on the odd chance that I stole it, is no different than Wal-Mart refusing to sell me groceries on the odd chance that I counterfeited the money I give them without any other evidence to back it up.




That's not technically true.  Staples could be held liable for printing a copyrighted document without permission.  They're not saying you stole it, they're saying they won't make copies until you prove your ownership entitles you to make copies.  Also, accepting counterfeit money isn't a crime (only printing and passing it is a crime) so Wal-mart isn't facing any legal ramifications if they accept your counterfeit money.

A better analogy is that Wal-mart will only exchange opened DVDs and CDs for the exact same item, because you may have illegally copied the DVD/CD before returning it.


----------



## wingsandsword

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Even better: When you open the file you've purchased you've just actually made a copy from one memory medium to another.



I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).


----------



## TheYeti1775

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).



DMCA isn't a legistlative body I recognize.


----------



## Banshee16

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Well, if a company likes to be in business it should be their job. Whatever happened to good ole customer service and the customer is always right?




The correct statement is "the customer is always right....unless they're wrong".

Banshee


----------



## S'mon

dcas said:
			
		

> The heirs of the creator might disagree.




If they're the only people you include in your cost/benefit analysis, then sure.  Make it eternal.  In fact, make the government pay them a pension in case it ever goes out of print.  *shrug*   :\


----------



## jgbrowning

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).




I wasn't really talking about computer programs, but I didn't know that so thanks for the link.

joe b.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I was going respond & post something "newish" but in deference to Morrus' post, I'll let the issue fade with the following:

Yes, there are limits I would find acceptible, and some of the proposed changes to current law you listed I'm already on record (elsewhere) as opposing.


----------



## the Lorax

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Reading that <WOTC's Copyright Notice> it would seem to prohibit moving the pdf from the original download computer to any other computer you own even if you are just doing a regular upgrade (as is neccesary every 3 years or so) without express written permission from Wizards of the Coast. Technically moving a file from one computer to another even if the original is erased is reproducing the material and in violation of the copyright as epressed in the copyright notice. This to me is why copyright law needs fixing given the new didgital age. If the new DI has anything resembling this kind of copyright statement on the materials they offer they could be making criminals of a majority of thier customers who are not actually intending to break the law.




Not only that, but for a business, some extra things come in to play.



> 1991: Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp.
> 
> A Federal District Court in New York ruled that Kinko's Graphic Corporation infringed copyrights, and did not exercise fair use, when it photocopied coursepacks that included book chapters, and then sold them to students for classwork. The court found that most of the fair use factors worked against Kinko's in this case, especially given Kinko's profit motive in making the copies. Additionally, the court found that the classroom guidelines did not apply to Kinko's. The court did not rule that coursepacks cannot constitute fair use in other circumstances.




Things which may fall well within the limitations of "Fair Use" for an individual become something else entirely when produced by a company who makes money in the reproduction business.


----------



## Delta

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I was going respond & post something "newish" but in deference to Morrus' post, I'll let the issue fade with the following:
> 
> Yes, there are limits I would find acceptible, and some of the proposed changes to current law you listed I'm already on record (elsewhere) as opposing.




Thanks for your respectful follow-up. I appreciate it.


----------



## JustinA

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Other loopholes exist as well.  For instance, in music, you need only do 2 things- give credit and pay small royalty fee to the songwriter- no songwiter can actually _ban_ you from recording their song unless he simply refuses to let_ anyone _do so (by not releasing it to the public).  Otherwise, our culture would not have been enriched by Hendrix's versions of "All along the Watchtower" and "Hey, Joe"; Elton John couldn't have done his cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; the 900 different versions of "Louie, Louie"; and Rap.




It's tempting to say that extending this type of thing to other media would be appropriate. But then I think of authors watching Hollywood producers making hundreds of millions of dollars off of their creative work while they don't earn any more than a pittance.

A revenue-based (rather than profit-based) royalty might be a way around this. I'd almost be willing to accept perpetual copyright if it meant that anyone could access it by paying a standard fee.



> You really want to make me happy?  Make copyright have a sliding scale- the number of times your IP can have its protection renewed depends upon its market value (the more valuable, the stronger the protection)- but give it a ceiling- say...life of the creator + 50 years.




Life + 50 seems more than reasonable. It not only allows the original creator of the work to benefit from the creation for their entire lives, it also allows enough time that their immediate heirs to profit.

Here's the thing: The only reason for copyright to exist is to incentivize the creation of new work and investment in the same. Without copyright creators would not be able to profit form their work, particularly in a modern era where duplication of existing content is trivial in the extreme. On a large scale this means that movies with any meaningful budget would no longer be created. On a small scale it means that your favorite author would not be able to write for a living, which would mean that they would have less time to write new books for you to enjoy.

(Actually, this is not strictly true: But it would mean that creators would need to shift back to a sponsor-based structure -- you'll need to pay me to get me to create the product instead of paying me for a copy of the completed product. This can work for writers and other solitary creators; it probably won't work for a $100 million movie.)

But this means that there is absolutely no reason for copyright to outlast not only the creator but anyone the creator would know: There is no way that copyright protection which lasts for three generations could possibly incentivize the original creator of the work any more than copyright protection which lasts for only a single generation.


----------



## dcas

S'mon said:
			
		

> If they're the only people you include in your cost/benefit analysis, then sure.  Make it eternal.



As a point of fact, I think that common law or perpetual copyright is a good thing. Why shouldn't one have the right to pass one's intellectual property down to one's heirs, and so on, to profit from it as they see fit?


----------



## S'mon

dcas said:
			
		

> As a point of fact, I think that common law or perpetual copyright is a good thing. Why shouldn't one have the right to pass one's intellectual property down to one's heirs, and so on, to profit from it as they see fit?




In deference to Morrus, I shall not endeavour to explain why not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

OK- we've knocked the entertainment lawyer and the IP lecturer out of the copyright discussion...

anyone else care to follow suit?


----------



## Glyfair

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The correct statement is "the customer is always right....unless they're wrong".




Actually, the modern principle is "The customer isn't always right, but they are always the customer."  (i.e. you might not be able to do what the customer wants, but always treat them with respect).


----------



## prosfilaes

the Lorax said:
			
		

> Things which may fall well within the limitations of "Fair Use" for an individual become something else entirely when produced by a company who makes money in the reproduction business.




But if you read the case, it's not just printing one copy for one person; it was printing out copies for a whole class, copies of material they knew they didn't have permission to copy. I'm not sure anything would have come out differently if it had been the professor making the copies for free.


----------



## jdrakeh

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But if you read the case, it's not just printing one copy for one person; it was printing out copies for a whole class, copies of material they knew they didn't have permission to copy. I'm not sure anything would have come out differently if it had been the professor making the copies for free.




Actually, Kinko's didn't make copies for a class, either. They took it upon themselves to copy portions of textbooks, shrinkwrap them, and sell them off the rack as "course packets" to anybody who wanted to buy them. 

As I mention far earlier in this thread, this was the crux of the case, not the fact that they made copies of the material in question (although that was certainly _part_ of issue). That is, it was the re-selling of reproductions that got them hauled into court. Simply making copies of the material in question for a professor or student wouldn't have raised so much as a blip on the IP holder's radar. 

For the record, a professor making such copies (or having somebody else make them for him) would be covered under Fair Use, provided that the professor doesn't distribute the material for profit (as Kinko's did).


----------



## dcas

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Actually, Kinko's didn't make copies for a class, either. They took it upon themselves to copy portions of textbooks, shrinkwrap them, and sell them off the rack as "course packets" to anybody who wanted to buy them.



I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago.  ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.


----------



## Rykion

The whole *Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp* case doesn't have much to do with someone going into a copy store with a PDF and receipt for the purchase of said PDF and asking to get a single copy made.  Kinko's was actively seeking business from Colleges by sending brochures that implied that they would put together course packets, and get the proper copyright permissions for the packets.  The following are some of the court's findings.  Kinko's did not try to get the copyright holders' permission.  They did not credit the copyright holders in the packets.  They published entire chapters, and sometimes multiple chapters from the same book, which constituted substantial and important parts of the works.  They were selling the packets directly to the students rather than the instructors.  There are education related copyright rules that specifically prohibit using copying to create anthologies such as the packets Kinko's was selling.  In a nutshell, there were a ton of things Kinko's was doing that are completely unrelated to printing out a PDF.  That is not a professional opinion as I am not a lawyer.

Ironically, Kinko's could create D20 and OGC anthology style packets and market them to roleplayers for profit as long as they followed all the rules.


----------



## jdrakeh

dcas said:
			
		

> I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago.  ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.




Even so, they were re-selling the packets for personal profit to anybody who requested one (which is significantly different than making copies _for_ a professor and charging the professor for the duplication service). The latter, assuming that the professor was distributing the packets free of charge, wouldn't have been illegal. Again, it was selling the packets for store profit that got them in trouble. They couldn't genuinely claim that they were simply providing students a service, as they were charging for the end product, as a retail item, not merely the cost of materials and the service of duplication. There are numerous allusions in the Fair Use Act that dicusses disingenuine claims.

Selling something for profit while claiming no direct gain is one such claim


----------



## the Lorax

dcas said:
			
		

> I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago.  ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.




That is correct - they were made at the request of, and with masters provided by, professors.


----------



## the Lorax

Rykion said:
			
		

> Ironically, Kinko's could create D20 and OGC anthology style packets and market them to roleplayers for profit as long as they followed all the rules.




And those rules would include written permission from the copyright holders to make reproductions of their material.


----------



## Rykion

the Lorax said:
			
		

> And those rules would include written permission from the copyright holders to make reproductions of their material.



Nope.  As long as they are reproducing OGC only, and they include the OGL and give credit to the original sources in Section 15.  They probably have to type it out rather than directly copying the original sources' pages.  The whole point of the OGL is to allow use of the work without requiring permission.


----------



## jdrakeh

Rykion said:
			
		

> Nope.  As long as they are reproducing OGC only, and they include the OGL and give credit to the original sources in Section 15.  They probably have to type it out rather than directly copying the original sources' pages.  The whole point of the OGL is to allow use of the work without requiring permission.




I think [he] meant to infer that the OGL itself constitutes written permission, as all individuals who utilize the license are bound by its stipulations (one of which is that at least 10% of the product content must be designated OGC).


----------



## Rykion

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I think [he] meant to infer that the OGL itself constitutes written permission, as all individuals who utilize the license are bound by its stipulations (one of which is that at least 10% of the product content must be designated OGC).



  I guess that might have been what the Lorax meant, but then I don't understand [his] response as I mentioned they would have to follow the rules, meaning the comparatively simple OGL.  I was just pointing out the irony that now the D20/OGL market has provided an easy way for them to legally publish compilations of other people's material by following the OGL.  I wonder if they will ever think to start a partnership with PDF publishers themselves to allow customers to just walk into a copy center, buy the PDF and get it printed out at the same time.

Edit: clarified my meaning.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

On the one hand, its clear that Kinkos screwed up all those years ago, and now the pendulum has swung well into paranoia.

OTOH, Copyright law is complex enough that you can have a variety of views on it, even between lawyers.  We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.

What may have to happen is that there is some kind of way that Kinko's can reliably ascertain that they are permitted to copy something- perhaps some kind of master file or directory their computers can check against or possibly some kind of PDF with self-contained computer code that either permits or denies copying.


----------



## jdrakeh

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.




That's probably the best bit of reason to come out of this thread, actually. 



> . . . or possibly some kind of PDF with self-contained computer code that either permits or denies copying.




Like DRM, maybe?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not quite- I'm talking about something a bit more sophisticated.

The code I'm envisioning lets you copy the PDF.  Just how many times is determined by the PDF's creator- one only, one a month, whatever up to an unlimited number or.  Once that number is reached, the PDFf can no longer be copied...unless you purchase a renewal code.

The code might _also_ include a virus that destroys unauthorized electronic copies of itself- kind of like the exploding dye packets you used to see in clothing retailers.  As a security feature for the purchaser, each PDF would have a purchase code delivered as a seperate file- if your PDF was incorrectly destroyed, you call the PDF issuer, tell them what happened and give them your code to recieve a new PDF (and security code).

Or some such- I'm no programmer, but I know several.  Such things _are_ possible.

Of course, such measures would only be a skirmish in the battle of IP protection vs IP infringement...other measures would eventually replace the above.


----------



## JustinA

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The code might _also_ include a virus that destroys unauthorized electronic copies of itself- kind of like the exploding dye packets you used to see in clothing retailers.  As a security feature for the purchaser, each PDF would have a purchase code delivered as a seperate file- if your PDF was incorrectly destroyed, you call the PDF issuer, tell them what happened and give them your code to recieve a new PDF (and security code).




That's still DRM, it's just even _more_ obnoxious. (But only slightly. Sony, after all, managed to release a DRM method for its CDs that opened your computer up for hackers.)

Here are the facts about DRM:

(1) If the goal is to actually prevent pirating, it doesn't work. Period. End of story. The most draconian of DRM methods have not deterred the pirates in the slightest. They have scarcely slowed them down.

(2) If the goal is to piss off your legitimate customers, it works just fine. Not only does DRM strip away the consumer's legal rights, it frequently debilitates the utility of the product the consumer has purchased; opens the consumers equipment to exploits and hacks; and degrades performance of the consumer's equipment.

(3) DRM's biggest sin is that it makes your ability to continue using the product that you paid money for completely dependent on the continued existence of the company your purchased it from. This is absurd. This is saying that Shakespeare's plays should no longer be read once the Lord Chamberlain's Men ceased to exit. More pertinently, look around the RPG industry: How many companies have ceased to exist?

Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## jdrakeh

JustinA said:
			
		

> Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.




That's not a very spiritual way to present your view, though I am forced to agree with the sentiment. DRM sounds great, but in practice all it does is drive consumers away in droves (I recall seeing some seriously scary number comparions between an e-book retailer that required DRM and one that didn't) and, thus, drive publishers who use it into the poor house. Nobody likes paying for crippled software. 

Asking somebody to pay for a DRM PDF is like asking somebody to pay full retail price for a piece of demo software that quits working after 30 days. There's a reason that Drive-Thru RPG dropped their DRM-only model (and seriously, whoever thought of that ought to have been fired). You should have seen the forums _here_ when that format was announced. Pay near full cover price for a crippled e-book? 

Yeah, that was _real_ attractive


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> (1) If the goal is to actually prevent pirating, it doesn't work. Period. End of story. The most draconian of DRM methods have not deterred the pirates in the slightest. They have scarcely slowed them down.




Not entirely true.  I have owned several programs that, if copied illegally, self destruct- either completely or lose significant functionality.

Such protection schemes are rare, however.



> Not only does DRM strip away the consumer's legal rights, it frequently debilitates the utility of the product the consumer has purchased; opens the consumers equipment to exploits and hacks; and degrades performance of the consumer's equipment.




How does the method I described strip away a consumer's rights?  It actively permits copying, but not in amounts or at rates that would devalue the IP.  The only person adversely affected is someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not legitimate consumers.

My understanding of DRM is that the problems you describe here were the result of some truly shoddy programming- not an inherent flaw in the theory of this style of protection.



> (3) DRM's biggest sin is that it makes your ability to continue using the product that you paid money for completely dependent on the continued existence of the company your purchased it from.<snip>




What I described doesn't.  What I described has no effect on your ability to _use_ the product, only on your ability to copy it.


> Publishers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or nefarious. Consumers who advocate the use of DRM are clueless or suicidal.




I most respectfully disagree with the statement on its face and its tone.


----------



## JustinA

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not entirely true.  I have owned several programs that, if copied illegally, self destruct- either completely or lose significant functionality.




Really? Name them. I can virtually guarantee you that pirated editions can be trivially found online.



> How does the method I described strip away a consumer's rights?  It actively permits copying, but not in amounts or at rates that would devalue the IP.




Let me translate what you just said: "How does the method I describe strip away a consumer's rights? It actively permits copying, but then it strips away their rights."

You do understand that copyright law gives the consumer an unlimited right to make copies for personal use, right? And that when you limit that right you are, by definition, limiting that right?



> The only person adversely affected is someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not legitimate consumers.




Or anyone who likes to regularly perform backups. Or anyone who uses a particular book frequently and copies out portions of it as needed.



> My understanding of DRM is that the problems you describe here were the result of some truly shoddy programming- not an inherent flaw in the theory of this style of protection.




Fundamentally DRM requires that the material be authorized by the publisher. That problem can't be worked around in any way, shape, or form and still have it be DRM. By definition.

In addition, DRM when applied to computer programs BY DEFINITION degrades performance. (Unless you've managed to perform the miraculous task of designing a program which doesn't reside in memory and never uses the CPU.)



> What I described doesn't.  What I described has no effect on your ability to _use_ the product, only on your ability to copy it.




You described it as a virus. (And you were not wrong to do so.) Anyone attempting to defend a program which installs a VIRUS on my computer is either clueless or malicious. Which are you?



> I most respectfully disagree with the statement on its face and its tone.




That's nice. Nonetheless, you are seriously supporting WotC's right to send armed goons to your house on a periodic basis to verify your receipts for the books you've purchased from them and, if you're unable to produce those receipts, to burn the books to make sure you weren't devaluing their IP.

If a goons make a mistake, of course, you can call WotC and explain the situation to them and WotC would provide you with a new copy of any books accidentally destroyed. Of course, you _would_ have to verify that you hadn't made one too many copies of the character sheet in the back of the book.

I mean, the only person who would be adversely affected by that would be someone who violates the IP producer's rights, not a legitimate consumer. So you'd be perfectly okay with it, right?

...

There's really no way to describe someone who suggests such a thing except as clueless, malicious, or suicidal.

And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about physical books or electronic data. The principle is the same.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## S'mon

JustinA said:
			
		

> There's really no way to describe someone who suggests such a thing except as clueless, malicious, or suicidal.




Please leave out the ad hominem attacks.

Even on Danny.


----------



## D.Shaffer

JustinA said:
			
		

> You do understand that copyright law gives the consumer an unlimited right to make copies for personal use, right? And that when you limit that right you are, by definition, limiting that right?



You do understand you're trying to argue law with an actual lawyer, right?


----------



## werk

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I'd love to. I live in a pretty rural area and Staples is the only thing I got. Closest is Office Max at 25 miles away. I don't even know of a Kinko's closer then Philly...




http://www.pricewatch.com/printers/

$200 or less for a color laser printer, 17 pages per minute.


----------



## SteveC

Here we go again. Let's just get out the usual platitudes:

DRM is still bad, mkay? Put DRM in your product and I'm not going to buy it. Period. And I'm not alone.

Piracy is still bad, mkay? Pirating PDFs hurts the very people in our industry we want to keep producing cool stuff.

Now onto the new topic: printing. I suggest that PDF publishers and sellers should get on this right away and solve the problem for their customers. Not being able to print a product I've purchased reduces the value of that product considerably.  Less value to me means it is less likely (far less likely in some cases) that I'll pick up your product

So fix the issue.

For the record, though, I've never had a problem printing a PDF, since the Office Max near where I work actually has an extremely knowledgeable  and friendly staff, and are actually gamer friendly.

EDIT
Oh, and on the posts talking about how cheap a color laser printer is, be VERY careful. Many of those printers cost more to refill the cartridges than the printer itself. Oh, and the cartridges they ship with the printer might be less than half full.

--Steve


----------



## darthkilmor

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The code I'm envisioning lets you copy the PDF.  Just how many times is determined by the PDF's creator- one only, one a month, whatever up to an unlimited number or.  Once that number is reached, the PDFf can no longer be copied...unless you purchase a renewal code.
> 
> Or some such- I'm no programmer, but I know several.  Such things _are_ possible.




Such a thing is already well implemented. Example: I needed to buy the EIA-608 closed caption specifications for work. 160$$ pdf. Required a specific plugin for adobe acrobat from the company that sells these standards. Authorizes the one(1) computer that you open the file on. Thats it. Cannot be opened on any other computer. Authorizes the file to be printed Once. This was well over a year ago.


----------



## Jim Hague

SteveC said:
			
		

> Now onto the new topic: printing. I suggest that PDF publishers and sellers should get on this right away and solve the problem for their customers. Not being able to print a product I've purchased reduces the value of that product considerably.  Less value to me means it is less likely (far less likely in some cases) that I'll pick up your product
> 
> So fix the issue.




PrintFu and Lulu.com are just a couple of the POD services that do just that.  And no cruddy comb binding either.



> EDIT
> Oh, and on the posts talking about how cheap a color laser printer is, be VERY careful. Many of those printers cost more to refill the cartridges than the printer itself. Oh, and the cartridges they ship with the printer might be less than half full.




Ahhh...no.  A new color set runs about $120-150 for something expensive like HPs, and a refill is 50-75% of that.  Given that a set prints 3000-5000 pages, not a bad deal at all.  And most PDFs aren't in color, so you can get away with the monochrome printers on the cheap.

So the answer here is...avoid HP.


----------



## Rel

JustinA, do not post in this thread any further.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *snip*
> Not entirely true.  I have owned several programs that, if copied illegally, self destruct- either completely or lose significant functionality.



Then you don't own them do you.   

Really, I think we are all in agreement many of the copyright laws need a complete re-write.


> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.



One of the few times you'll hear me vehemently agreeing with a lawyer.      This is another reason for re-writing a lot of laws.  They should be written so the average person doesn't need a law degree to correctly interpet.  But I begin to digress into some political tirade around this point. So I'll behave.

I do have to agree with some of JustinA's stances, and as was mentioned the DRM factors you mentioned as possible implementation are quite the draconic ones.  And would be the equilivent of buying a brand new Corvette but only getting a 1.8L 4 cylinder engine with it.

All of us have a line in the sand for this sort of thing, most of us is DRM.  From what I've seen most DRM tends to drive sales down vice stopping piracy.

Now one possible solution, is the Print On Demand as was mentioned.  Perhaps the PDF publishers can open their own Lulu etc... accounts and have that as part of their offerings on their websites.  They can easily verify within their records if you were a 'legitmate' purchaser or not of the product to be printed.  Sure you might have to wait a little time for it to get to you, but it does elminate the 'hassle' of a store clerk saying no.  And before you say what about us ones that only want a couple pages, well those can easily be done on the personal use copiers at those stores, or on your own at home.

Well there's my two coppers.
Yeti


----------



## Jim Hague

TheYeti1775 said:
			
		

> Now one possible solution, is the Print On Demand as was mentioned.  Perhaps the PDF publishers can open their own Lulu etc... accounts and have that as part of their offerings on their websites.  They can easily verify within their records if you were a 'legitmate' purchaser or not of the product to be printed.  Sure you might have to wait a little time for it to get to you, but it does elminate the 'hassle' of a store clerk saying no.  And before you say what about us ones that only want a couple pages, well those can easily be done on the personal use copiers at those stores, or on your own at home.
> 
> Well there's my two coppers.
> Yeti




Most of the PDF sellers I'm aware of offer at least Lulu printing for their books.  One thing I'm looking into for PZP is (once our portfolio is larger) offering omnibus volumes, _a la_ Adamant's or Ronin Arts' collections of various sorts.


----------



## jmucchiello

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not quite- I'm talking about something a bit more sophisticated.
> 
> The code I'm envisioning lets you copy the PDF.  Just how many times is determined by the PDF's creator- one only, one a month, whatever up to an unlimited number or.  Once that number is reached, the PDFf can no longer be copied...unless you purchase a renewal code.
> 
> The code might _also_ include a virus that destroys unauthorized electronic copies of itself- kind of like the exploding dye packets you used to see in clothing retailers.  As a security feature for the purchaser, each PDF would have a purchase code delivered as a seperate file- if your PDF was incorrectly destroyed, you call the PDF issuer, tell them what happened and give them your code to recieve a new PDF (and security code).
> 
> Or some such- I'm no programmer, but I know several.  Such things _are_ possible.
> 
> Of course, such measures would only be a skirmish in the battle of IP protection vs IP infringement...other measures would eventually replace the above.



Danny, when you are reading a forum and you see someone say, "I'm not a lawyer, but...." and then make a most outlandish statement, do you shake your head in amusement or sadness? You know several simple ways to explain why they are wrong but those simple explanations assume the other listener is an attorney. For a layman the explanation actually isn't simple and you just can't take the time to explain it.

Well, I'm a programmer and I'm shaking my head in amusement and contrary to my prior paragraph, I'm gonna go for it. Tell me, if I take this magic PDF you describe and burn it onto a CD before I ever open it, will it be able to delete itself if I abuse it? Nope. What stops me from burning 100 copies of the CD? 1000? Nothing. Suppose I do a complete format and reinstall of Windows (on a machine not connected to a network) every time before inserting the CD into the machine and access the PDF, copying the contents out once, will the copy on the CD know I've copied the data more than once? More than zero times? Nope. There is no place for the PDF to store this data, as it is written on readonly media.

Now, before you say that's a lot of trouble to go through just to copy a PDF, let me introduce you to virtual machine programs. Programs running on you computer can emulate entire systems with different operating system running on them. Multiple copies of an OS or machine setup can be created/destroyed in minutes. So, I could install the PDF into a virtual installation of Windows, set the session to no network access and make the hard drive read only. Now whenever I need that PDF, I can access it fully getting around the DRM whenever I want and it just takes a minute or two to setup.

Even in a normal setup, if the PDF let's me copy the entire contents to the clipboard, what stops me from posting it to another file and sending out onto the Internet for all the world to see? Heck, if I have a big enough screen/monitor setup, I can view the page on screen, do a screen capture and post pictures of the PDF to the web so I don't lose the pretty pictures. I can even OCR the image to get the text back.

In the end, the only people limited by DRM are the honest customers. It is trivially easy to get around most DRM methods. Anyone with sufficient will to break into the PDF will do so if they can google and have half a brain.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Well, I'm a programmer and I'm shaking my head in amusement and contrary to my prior paragraph, I'm gonna go for it.<snip>




The idea wasn't mine, it was a programmer's- just like lawyers can disagree over a law, I'm guessing programmers can differ on whether something is possible to program.

Perhaps he was blowing smoke.  Perhaps he knows something you don't.  Perhaps he's simply dead wrong.

I simply have no freakin' idea.

Personally, the best thing I've seen implemented lately is getting the credit card companies to stop serving the sites that carry pirated material.

If they can't process the cards to sell their ill-gotten gain, they have no income, and abandon the site.  Ditto if the card the site is connected to gets shut down.  It works even if the country in which the pirates are located are located in a foreign nation that doesn't respect IP laws (Russia & China, for example).  Unfortunately, it does require constant vigilance- the pirates usually set up another site within a very short period of time.

Of course, it has zero effect on people who distribute pirated IP the stuff for free.

That's why those people get sued.


----------



## SteveC

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Ahhh...no.  A new color set runs about $120-150 for something expensive like HPs, and a refill is 50-75% of that.  Given that a set prints 3000-5000 pages, not a bad deal at all.  And most PDFs aren't in color, so you can get away with the monochrome printers on the cheap.
> 
> So the answer here is...avoid HP.



Uh, no, actually. I do this sort of thing for a living, and just did a quick check on CompUSA as well as NewEgg, and used a Samsung color laser as my example. The printer was $300, and the four toner cartridges you need to replace on it totaled $310. Cheap color laser printers are an expensive proposition if you intend to print any significant amount of materials. To paraphrase Han Solo, buying a laser printer ain't like dustin' crops.

Check out Tom's Hardware page for more info on price comparisons for color lasers (start here ).

I would SERIOUSLY recommend that people check out the price of consumables for their printers before buying them...if you intend to buy them local, you can see the prices for toner right next to it on the shelf.

Now on the issue of Lulu, I can agree with you...as I recommend that more game companies do their printing through them (or a comparable service) and give the consumer that option. That's VALUE to me as a consumer.

--Steve


----------



## the Lorax

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> On the one hand, its clear that Kinkos screwed up all those years ago, and now the pendulum has swung well into paranoia.
> 
> OTOH, Copyright law is complex enough that you can have a variety of views on it, even between lawyers.  We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.





You cannot expect a copy shop clerk, or even manager to interpret copyright law, period.  You can expect a company who publishes a .pdf to correctly indicate how someone can use the material in the Copyright Notice.

Only the courts can determine Fair Use.


----------



## jdrakeh

SteveC said:
			
		

> UI recommend that more game companies do their printing through them (or a comparable service) and give the consumer that option. That's VALUE to me as a consumer.
> 
> --Steve




Word. 

I just bought a stack of books from Lulu -- one perfect bound copy of _vs. Monsters_, one hardcover copy of _vs. Monsters_, two perfect bound copies of the _Basic Fantasy RPG_, one hardcover copy of the _Basic Fantasy RPG_, and one perfect bound copy of the new _Senzar_ challenger, _Empire of Satanis_ (a negative review that I read actually sold me on it) -- with much higher quality binding than any print shop can provide (e.g., comb, coil, or tape), for _much_ less money. 

And, shipping aside, that stack of brand new books is also quite a bit fatter than what I could have walked away with at most retail outlets (online or otherwise) for the same amount of cash. Heck, that's _six_ games for less than what _three_ mass produced RPGs will run me at the typical retail outlet. Lulu _rocks_. It's my new favorite online store


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You cannot expect a copy shop clerk, or even manager to interpret copyright law, period.




Actually, I expect anyone who deals with _any _kind of law to interpret it- I just don't neccessarily expect them to do so properly.


> You can expect a company who publishes a .pdf to correctly indicate how someone can use the material in the Copyright Notice




And despite notices even on pre-printed materials- like the aforementioned character sheets- some copy shops ignore the express intent of the IP holder, thus violating the rights of the customer.

Its in solving problems like _that _that the proposed coding I described (if possible) would be effective, not true mass piracy.  If the Kinkos employee loads the PDF onto his equipment for copy and gets a "green light," its copied.  If not, Kinko's can't copy the PDF.

No decision making process by someone ill-equipped for the task involved.

Even if the coding solution is not possible, it should be possible for the companies' legal departments to draft a simple decision tree that most people could follow with relative ease...

Perhaps their best overall course would be to chart some kind of middle ground.

For instance, when in doubt, they could make a single copy and note it (and the customer's ID) in a company database.  The person in question could then not make another copy of the same IP at any store in their system for X amount of time.  The physical copy of the questionable IP could be watermarked.

In the interim, it would be the company's duty to ascertain whether copying the IP again was permissible.  If it is, then they clear that data from their records and give the customer a non-watermarked copy.

Would this cause a delay?  Sure.  OTOH, it does protect IP rights and a legit customer would evenutally get full use of his purchase.

Is this delay a horrible imposition?  I don't think so.  I have to deal with similar issues when I deposit large checks ($10K+)- the bank has the check, but doesn't let me use all of the money at once.  Instead, it releases the funds to my use over time (usually 1-2 weeks).

In comparison, not being able to make multiple copies of a PDF _immediately_ seems trivial.

If it works for banking, a similar system _could_ work for IP protection in the realm of consumer copying.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> For instance, when in doubt, they could make a single copy and note it (and the customer's ID) in a company database.  The person in question could then not make another copy of the same IP at any store in their system for X amount of time.  The physical copy of the questionable IP could be watermarked.



So the Company get to persume guilt until innocence.     This one doesn't pass the smell test either of viability.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Would this cause a delay?  Sure.  OTOH, it does protect IP rights and a legit customer would evenutally get full use of his purchase.



Again back to the assumption of guilt first.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Is this delay a horrible imposition?  I don't think so.  I have to deal with similar issues when I deposit large checks ($10K+)- the bank has the check, but doesn't let me use all of the money at once.  Instead, it releases the funds to my use over time (usually 1-2 weeks).



Yes it is an imposition, and why is it he Government's business how much I put into or take out of a bank on any given day?  O that's right cause of the 'War on Drugs', it's for the children.  Personally I think it's another law that is a crock of roach dung (doesn't rate for bull).  And how many know the bank is now required to report over $6k transactions to the IRS, you only have to fill the paperwork when you reach $10.
Sorry I don't give up my rights to anyone, at least the ones I'm still allowed to have.  I'll be long dead before tatooed and sent off.




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In comparison, not being able to make multiple copies of a PDF _immediately_ seems trivial.



How is eroding rights trival?  Here I'll give you an example of a time when it does matter.
Your a Self-Publisher, at a con, and your planning on running a game.  You need 6 copies of the adventure as you are rewarding the players with copies.  Your mail shipment (a lot of companies will ship heavy handouts ahead of time) does not arrive you have 2 hours before game kick off.  You goto your Local Copy Shop and they say no only one copy until we check your copyrght info.  O we are going to watermark it too as such.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If it works for banking, a similar system _could_ work for IP protection in the realm of consumer copying.



Ah but it doesn't work for banking, criminals simply stay away from banks.  All the laws in the world will not stop a criminal.  If you are breaking one law what's one more law.  Much like the old death row saying.  "The first one is the one being punished for all the rest are for free."

Danny don't take this the wrong way, it's just I find lawyers think laws can fix everything, just like us programmers think coding can fix everything.  It can't.  But one thing I can't stand is when people willingly give up their rights.

Alright, enough ranting time to go feed Henry Bowman's hogs.


----------



## prosfilaes

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> Such a thing is already well implemented. Example: I needed to buy the EIA-608 closed caption specifications for work. 160$$ pdf. Required a specific plugin for adobe acrobat from the company that sells these standards. Authorizes the one(1) computer that you open the file on. Thats it. Cannot be opened on any other computer. Authorizes the file to be printed Once. This was well over a year ago.




Which is a serious annoyance, which I wouldn't put up with if I had an option, like for roleplaying material. And once you've printed the file, you can make as many copies as you want without much problem.


----------



## Psion

SteveC said:
			
		

> I would SERIOUSLY recommend that people check out the price of consumables for their printers before buying them...if you intend to buy them local, you can see the prices for toner right next to it on the shelf.




That's really only tells half of the story. The price tag doesn't tell me how long it lasts.

I got an epson because my last 2 HP printers were so stinkin' unreliable (both printers had significant paper feed issues, and the last, like HP computers I have owned, suffered problems with power and comm jacks). But I am finding that the epson ink cartridges don't last near as long as the HP cartridges.


----------



## Jim Hague

Just as an FYI, typical laser cartridges last 3000-5000 pages, depending on print density and whether you use the toner saver.  Even the half-size ones typically go 2000-3000 pages.  And again, most printing at home is monochrome anyway, so a good $100-150 laser will do you just fine.

For everything else, there's LuLu and PrintFu.    

Of course, there may be a cottage-sized growth market for savvy printers willing to do small runs; witness the fellow here that prints game maps.  Has anyone gotten maps from them?


----------



## SteveC

Psion said:
			
		

> That's really only tells half of the story. The price tag doesn't tell me how long it lasts.
> 
> I got an epson because my last 2 HP printers were so stinkin' unreliable (both printers had significant paper feed issues, and the last, like HP computers I have owned, suffered problems with power and comm jacks). But I am finding that the epson ink cartridges don't last near as long as the HP cartridges.



I completely agree. Before you make a purchase like this it really pays to research all aspects of it, and check out objective third party reviews online. I have been involved with buying a lot of printers where I work, and we pretty much exclusively buy HP, because that's what our corporate offices expect. At home I'm using the same Samsung printer  I've had for...oh...five years. And I print a lot.

Research is key, as a lot of the time the big companies can make junk. 

Okay, now back to our discussion of "Staples Copyboy, Attorney at Law..."

--Steve


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So the Company get to persume guilt until innocence.




Every security system in the world- locks, guards, surveillance- could be described the same way.

You could always minimize security protocols and simply roll the costs of theft into the product.

I know- people hate that when discussing recording media- but the truth is, costs of theft are rolled into the prices of every commercial product.


> How is eroding rights trival?




Every "right" has a corresponding "duty," and often "rights" are in conflict.

Where you're seeing the rights of the consumer eroding, an IP holder may see his rights being defended from eroding.

Fact of the matter, just as every security measure can be described as "presuming guilt," they can equally be framed as a discussion of the erosions of rights.

The trick is to find the balance point between security measures and people's rights, which also determines what, in Economics, is sometimes called the optimal amount of crime in a society.


> Here I'll give you an example of a time when it does matter.
> Your a Self-Publisher, at a con, and your planning on running a game.<snipped a good example>




That's a bummer, but much less of one than my not being able to access all of my bank account the day I deposited a big check so my office rent check bounces.

Its also less likely.  Remember, the restricted copying/watermarking only occurs when the printer is suspicious of your right to have multiple copies of something.

In your example, it should be fairly easy for you to prove your ID as the publisher or agent of your company in order to get those copies made- assuming you have some kind of Con pass describing you as an exhibitor/salesman/organizer, a business card, company letterhead etc.  In that case, you have all the hallmarks of someone who has a legitimate reason to make multiple copies of the product in your hand.  If the print shop is an outlet of the one you use back home, they may even have record of your past business or their own way to prove your ID, thus, the legitimacy of your abilty to ask that the IP in question be printed.

Failing that, get their addresses and mail it to them after the Con, with your apologies & a personal message & autograph.

At best, you've described an inconvenience.



> Ah but it doesn't work for banking, criminals simply stay away from banks.




Not every criminal stays away from banks...just the ones on the blue-collar side, those on the run.  White collar criminals_ love _banks.

But again, the aim of something like this is not to stop the pirate who is trying to run off 50K copies of something for personal gain- as you suspect, those guys operate in ways that wouldn't be touched by this (like the Chinese manufacturing plants that make legitimate products during regular hours, and pirated products during "off-shift" periods..._using the same machines and material_), its to stop the IP equivalent of the petty thief or shoplifter.

Trivial?  Not even.  Petty IP infringement is a costly drain, and it is a trend on the upswing.



> Danny don't take this the wrong way, it's just I find lawyers think laws can fix everything,




Nah- they just provide a framework for society.  Not everything can be fixed.

Sometimes, for the good of society, people have to get ripped off.  Sometimes, for the good of society, people have to be inconvenienced.  Sometimes, for the good of society, people get fined or sent to jail (or both).


> But one thing I can't stand is when people willingly give up their rights.




Which people?

Which rights?


----------



## darthkilmor

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Which is a serious annoyance, which I wouldn't put up with if I had an option, like for roleplaying material. And once you've printed the file, you can make as many copies as you want without much problem.




I agree, had I any other place to get the document I would have. Half a day of internet searching was fruitless so...We bought it, printed it, and immediately made another copy. 

Of course once we're all running on Trusted Computing(or some variant), and can only print and copy with Trusted Devices, it would probably get printed with an invisible to the human eye watermark that the copier would then see and say "Hey, you can't copy this!".

But to address the original point, from Staples to Joe's Copy Hut, they should not be preventing people from printing pdf's. They only thing they should do is not copy an entire book, imho.  If publishers were Really Serious about printing rights, they'd do what I mentioned above(probably an expensive option though, it was a 160$$ pdf). And then if Staples prints it, it counts against whatever server has to auth them to print it, and you've got N-1 prints left.

QED.


----------



## darthkilmor

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That's a bummer, but much less of one than my not being able to access all of my bank account the day I deposited a big check so my office rent check bounces.




Isn't that more of a "You dont have enough of a balance to cover the amount of this check in case it bounces, so we have to wait for it to clear."

Except that nowadays dont checks clear pretty insta-matically? Of course banks would/are? still do the "up to a week to clear" which is really a "thanks for the 3-7 day interest-free loan".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Isn't that more of a "You dont have enough of a balance to cover the amount of this check in case it bounces, so we have to wait for it to clear."




Nope.  I generally don't have that problem, and I still have to wait for big checks to clear completely.



> Except that nowadays dont checks clear pretty insta-matically? Of course banks would/are? still do the "up to a week to clear" which is really a "thanks for the 3-7 day interest-free loan".




Most checks clear within 24 hours, so yes, they are basically still applying the old rules in the era of new tech in order to get a few days of enjoying your cash.


----------



## werk

SteveC said:
			
		

> I would SERIOUSLY recommend that people check out the price of consumables for their printers before buying them...




This is very good, very heartfelt advice that I agree with 100%.  It's is very similar to considering the cost of insurance or maintenance when buying a vehicle.

BUT expensive consumables do not make a bad value!

I got one of Dell's first laser printers, a personal B&W, and was actually made for Dell by Lexmark.  OMG, I'm only on my second toner cartridge (after the cartridge that came in it) in 4 years and reem after reem of paper and would never consider going back to inkjet or printing service.  Just got a color, same result.

All I'm saying is that if you don't like a (printing) service provider, either switch providers or provide for yourself.  I have found that providing for myself tends to be the best solution in most cases.

YMMV


----------



## jgbrowning

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> Isn't that more of a "You dont have enough of a balance to cover the amount of this check in case it bounces, so we have to wait for it to clear."
> 
> Except that nowadays dont checks clear pretty insta-matically? Of course banks would/are? still do the "up to a week to clear" which is really a "thanks for the 3-7 day interest-free loan".




I just wrote a check to start up a new bank account for a largish sum and it was held for 7 days. However, I did earn interest in the account even before the check cleared, so it looks like Chase at least doesn't do that.

joe b.


----------



## Dragon-Slayer

Reading through this thread made me curious so I went to my local Staples with a cd of fan made Warhammer rpg material (all legal to copy/print for personal use) and asked if I could have the .pdfs printed out. The girl asked me what it was, I told her exactly what the .pdfs were and she told me it was no problem and that they print .pdfs of this nature all the time. No "permission slip" was necessary. It was almost too easy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Obviously, she didn't get the "screw gamers" memo!

Seriously, though, its just illustrative that the people in the copy centers of these businesses have no universal company policy.  At least_ she_ made the right call, but I'd bet that if you tried it at 3 other Staples in your area, you'd get stopped at least once.


----------



## thedungeondelver

Lease some storefront, fill it with PCs and laser printers, advertise that you'll print _any_ gamer's PDFs and sit back and watch the millions thousands hundreds tens of dollars roll in!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lol!


----------



## Geof

*Copyright enforcement costs exceed benefits*

Dannyalcatraz, you have mentioned the concept of an "optimal" level of crime in society - the level at which the cost of preventing crime exceeds the benefit.  My impression is that the cost of the schemes you are proposing or support (from DRM to permission forms to legal education and court evaluations of fair use) exceed the financial gain to publishers and authors.  In fact, the cost seems to me to be so high that it would be cheaper and easier to drop enforcement and simply tax instead.

Of course, the benefits of copyright enforcement virtually all acrue to publishers and authors, while the costs are borne by everyone.  It simply isn't in their interest to be practical, or to support contentious taxes when they can instead push an ideological claim (which I believe to be dubious) for authorial originality and the right of creators to control their work.

I should say that I don't particularly wish to defend or engage in piracy.  My concerns with copyright are moral, and lie chiefly with the threat it poses to speech and derivative works, its imposition of a distinction between author and audience, and, in the case of noncommercial copying in the digital era, the negative social consequences of attempting to enforce the unenforceable.

I want a society awash in culture and creativity in which all take part, and I see that the potential to achieve this is the greatest that it has been for a very long time.  Role playing games are one realm in which participation is the rule, where the distinction between author and audience is so clearly artificial.  I doubt this is your intent, but I find that the complex and burdensome legal and technological measures you appear to support are anethema to that realm, that culture and that society.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> My impression is that the cost of the schemes you are proposing or support <snip> exceed the financial gain to publishers and authors.



Quite possibly- but that's for the market to decide.


> My concerns with copyright are moral, and lie chiefly with the threat it poses to speech and derivative works, its imposition of a distinction between author and audience, and, in the case of noncommercial copying in the digital era, the negative social consequences of attempting to enforce the unenforceable.




My concerns lie in the moral as well.

Name another form of property that features full ownership (not leases, licenses, life estates, etc) rights that can be taken away by the mere operation of time, potentially without compensation.

There are very, very few- at this time, only adverse possession springs to mind- and that is not a universally accepted rule of law.

Before copyright, the only rights in IP a person had was what he (or his agents, or his successors in interest) could enforce by himself personally- but if he could do so, he could enforce them ad infinitum.

Under a copyright regime, in exchange for a system of laws through which an IP holder can enforce his rights, he gives up the right to eternal personal exploitation of his creation.

Do you think a landholder would like that kind of setup?

Would you like it if someone could take your Grandmother's wedding ring from you because they liked it and you had had it "long enough?"



> I want a society awash in culture and creativity in which all take part, and I see that the potential to achieve this is the greatest that it has been for a very long time.




A great deal of that is due to copyright and other forms of IP protection.  Between manditory licensing regimes in music and the operation of the free market allowing the creation of other licenses, the world has experienced an explosion in creative ideas reaching the masses.



> Role playing games are one realm in which participation is the rule, where the distinction between author and audience is so clearly artificial. I doubt this is your intent, but I find that the complex and burdensome legal and technological measures you appear to support are anethema to that realm, that culture and that society.




The distinction between author and audience is not artificial, just fluid.  Gaming is a form of collaborative fiction.  Similar forms, such as shared world fictions like the Thieves' World books, have historically required that authors using the work of others get clearance.  In RPGs, one person creates the mass framework, others move and act within it.  The GM has a copyright in his campaign world, his players in their PCs.

Nor is it my intent to burden the games.  My intent is:

1) to make it difficult for those who abuse the goodwill of game designers to do so, even if they are "fans."

and

2) to provide a quick and universal way for printers to ascertain that the copy they are making is legal so that you could walk into _any_ Staples or Kinko's _anywhere_ and be assured that you won't get *wrongfully* refused service someplace- not to prevent gamers from getting legal hard copies of PDFs.


----------



## darthkilmor

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> My concerns lie in the moral as well.
> 
> Name another form of property that features full ownership (not leases, licenses, life estates, etc) rights that can be taken away by the mere operation of time, potentially without compensation.




Patents.

And there is plenty of compensation.  Basically the Govt is saying "You can have exclusive rights for X years, then its free for all." That copyright protection for X years is the compensation. If you fail to do anything with it then, tough cookie.  Personally I think copyright lasts way way way too long anyway, but we have the mouse to thank for that.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Name another form of property that features full ownership (not leases, licenses, life estates, etc) rights that can be taken away by the mere operation of time, potentially without compensation.




The difference here is that IP is an idea not a physical thing. A physical thing can be controled or owned. An idea has no such tangible way of possesion. The government can use its power to try and regulate how those ideas spread but there is no real property that can be returned to its owner, all it can do is punish people for spreading ideas without government permission.


----------



## Rhun

Just to chime in way late in this discussion...I talked to a couple of friends of mine (one has been working at Kinkos for nearly ten years, the other is a city manager at Copy Max) and they both said that neither of their companies have a policy that precludes printing PDFs for personal use.


----------



## mearlus

We've had similar problems but with photo's we've taken with -our- digital camera.  The photo stores told us they looked too professional and that they must be copyrighted so we could not print the photo's out without a release form from the original photographer.  I was pretty pissed at first but then we got the release form, took it home and filled it out ourselves with our name.  We took it back and then they printed them out.  Pretty messed up, I guess it's just to cover there butts incase someone does come barking.


----------



## Geof

*Ideas are not property*



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Geof said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My impression is that the cost of the schemes you are proposing or support <snip> exceed the financial gain to publishers and authors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite possibly- but that's for the market to decide.
Click to expand...



You ignored the part where I explained how the costs of copyright are externalized.  They are paid not only by copyright owners and consumers, but also by society at large.  The market cannot operate efficiently in this context.  In fact, according to economic theory copyright is guaranteed to create inefficiency.  Copyright is a monopoly;  it breaks the market.  You cannot resort to the market to "decide" whether a monopoly is efficient.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Name another form of property that features full ownership (not leases, licenses, life estates, etc) rights that can be taken away by the mere operation of time, potentially without compensation.




The answer to your question is that ideas are not property, either in nature or in law.  Copyright simply does not feature "full ownership" (whatever that means).  When you own a copyright, you own that legal set of rights.  You do not own the idea itself.

Property is a human construct, created and enforced by law and custom.  We can redefine property and change our ideas (encouraging some and discouraging others) and put them in the category of "property".  It is very difficult to exclude others from using ideas, so the cost of maintaining this artificial state of affairs is very high.

Even for land, property is artificial.  When settlers moved West into the prairie of North America, the land was not owned.  Indeed, it was not even property.  People created laws and they built fences and they enforced exclusivity.  What before had been only Land was divided and parcelled into Property.  The transformation created intense conflict - between ranchers and farmers, between natives and Europeans;  that conflict continues to this day.

The question of copyright is one of what we as a society choose to do.  Many proponents conceal this by presenting ideas as property the natural state of affairs.  Say it loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.  If you want moral outrage, however, you will have to reach back beyond simple assertions and make a genuine argument about why that should be.  Otherwise, you are stuck making (often legitimate) economic arguments about the relative benefits of enforcing the ownership of ideas.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A great deal of that is due to copyright and other forms of IP protection.  Between manditory licensing regimes in music and the operation of the free market allowing the creation of other licenses, the world has experienced an explosion in creative ideas reaching the masses.




Can we attribute that to copyright?  To technology?  To an increase in wealth allowing the majority of people to divert their resources from the necessities of life toward other pursuits?

Your reference to "the masses" is telling, for it reveals the tragedy of copyright today.  The masses are a subordinate group, constructed as the passive audience of a relatively small number of publishers and authors.  We can eliminate that distinction;  in fact we are finding it is very difficult to maintain.  People are demonstrating every day that they want to create and they want to share - and these are good things.  One would have to have a very good reason indeed to prevent that from happening.

There is a very good reason to allow it.  Participation and speech are the foundation of democracy.  Cultural speech is no less important than political, journalistic, or factual speech.  As it stands, copyright stands in the way.  That is why I say this is a moral concern.

You talk about seizing someone's grandmother's wedding ring.  Copyright does something similar.  You say:



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Gaming is a form of collaborative fiction.  Similar forms, such as shared world fictions like the Thieves' World books, have historically required that authors using the work of others get clearance.  In RPGs, one person creates the mass framework, others move and act within it.  The GM has a copyright in his campaign world, his players in their PCs.




So we have a situation in which either a) a creator or author (the GM, say) must obtain prior permission before creating or b) is able to create in private but is unable to share.  The freedom of the author to share his or her creation is effectively expropriated by the holders of copyrights.  This might be tenable in the market, where parties can negotiate for mutual financial gain, but it is disastrous in the case of non-commercial creativity.

Earlier I mentioned why and how this happened.  Before something becomes property, it must be transformed.  In this case, ideas must be separated from each other.  We must isolate the contributions of various authors.  Does it even make sense to say the GM owns certain parts of a story while the players own others and the game or setting designer still others?  Can the PCs be separated from their world?  I say no, but this is exactly what copyright requires.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Patents.
> 
> And there is plenty of compensation.




Actually, I was referring to IP in general.

And as for compensation, like I said, it is _potentially_ without compensation.  One of the bundle of rights in (most) IP is the right to control who uses it- including not allowing anyone to use it.

Regardless of the IP holder's wishes, after a certain amount of time, IP passes into the public domain.



> The difference here is that IP is an idea not a physical thing. A physical thing can be controled or owned. An idea has no such tangible way of possesion. The government can use its power to try and regulate how those ideas spread but there is no real property that can be returned to its owner, all it can do is punish people for spreading ideas without government permission.




That IP is largely immaterial is...immaterial.

Even an idea may be controlled if you're willing to take steps to do so.  That was the idea behind trade secrets being guarded- sometimes violently- by guilds in the pre-IP law days.

And remember, its not strictly government action here- its government action on the behalf of IP holders.  There is a mix of civil and criminal liability.

At any rate, part of the requirement for legal protection of most forms of IP is being affixed to a physical medium in some form.  That can be sheet music for a song, a script for a movie, copies of notes for a chemical formula, or a "working" model for a patent.  Even strings of computer code may qualify once saved to some kind of storage medium.



> You ignored the part where I explained how the costs of copyright are externalized. They are paid not only by copyright owners and consumers, but also by society at large. The market cannot operate efficiently in this context. The market cannot operate efficiently in this context. In fact, according to economic theory copyright is guaranteed to create inefficiency. Copyright is a monopoly; it breaks the market. You cannot resort to the market to "decide" whether a monopoly is efficient.




Dead wrong.

1)  The sunk costs of IP development belong to the IP creator alone.  Unless there is a reasonable chance of a particular piece of IP recovering those sunk costs, that IP will never come to market.

2)  The market operates efficiently in that context every day.  _Every product ever developed_, physical or ephemeral, has development costs.  Those costs, along with overhead (personnel, shipping, security, etc.) are factored into the per-unit prices.

3) IP only creates a short term "monopoly" in a single product- and technically, its not even a true monopoly.  Monopoly only exists in the absence of a reasonable substitute.  Unless you're talking about something _completely_ new, or something that has very high costs of market entry (traditionally, things like utilities- power, water, etc.) there is always a substitute- even though it may be older and less efficient.  You want to use the latest hyperefficient engine but can't afford the price the IP holder has set to do so?  Use someone else's engine.  You want to use a kid-friendly cartoon of some kind of anthropomorphic vermin to advertise your new armor piercing ammo but Disney won't let you?  Design your own talking rat.


> Copyright simply does not feature "full ownership" (whatever that means).




Full ownership would be a bundle of rights that will not revert to someone with a superior interest in the property.  A license, a lease, a life estate, etc. are all forms of limited ownership.



> The answer to your question is that ideas are not property, either in nature or in law.




Which is why ideas must be affixed to a physical form to recieve full protection under the law.

I may have the idea for a new form of X, but until I submit it in physical form to the right IP office, anyone else can claim to be its inventor and gain the attendent rights.


> Gaming is a form of collaborative fiction. Similar forms, such as shared world fictions like the Thieves' World books, have historically required that authors using the work of others get clearance. In RPGs, one person creates the mass framework, others move and act within it. The GM has a copyright in his campaign world, his players in their PCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have a situation in which either a) a creator or author (the GM, say) must obtain prior permission before creating or b) is able to create in private but is unable to share. The freedom of the author to share his or her creation is effectively expropriated by the holders of copyrights. This might be tenable in the market, where parties can negotiate for mutual financial gain, but it is disastrous in the case of non-commercial creativity.
Click to expand...



What we have is a situation where a) a creator or author must obtain prior permission before creating something _using someone else's work_ or b) someone has never heard of fan fiction.

In the case of non-commercial creativity, all the IP holder has to do is abandon his rights.  No negotiation needed.  No market involved.

Anyone can share if they want to- that is not limited by any form of IP.  In fact, there was a commercial a few years ago in which a major car manufacturer noted that they had invented a certain safety system...and had given it away (yes, for free!) for all to use in the spirit of being a good corporate citizen.



> Can we attribute that to copyright?




We sure can- the countries that enforce and respect IP rights have an increasingly rich body of IP to work with.  Russia & China, notorious for not respecting IP rights, are falling behind.  So many Chinese inventors are going broke as Chinese pirates steal _their_ IP that the Chinese government is actually cracking down.



> If you want moral outrage, however, you will have to reach back beyond simple assertions and make a genuine argument about why that should be. Otherwise, you are stuck making (often legitimate) economic arguments about the relative benefits of enforcing the ownership of ideas.




If you want to see what ownership of IP and other property forms means, look no further than Hong Kong.  There is a reason why the most populace communist nation on Earth has allowed Hong Kong to retain much of its economic freedom after it reverted from British rule to Chinese rule- it is an economic powerhouse.  Every brake put on Hong Kong by the Chinese gov't has resulted in costly slowdowns.

Simply put, humans react favorably to being able to profit from the fruits of their labor.  The more those fruits are culled by others, be they the gov't or just petty thieves, the less effort they're going to put into using their resources to bring that fruit to the market, and more into trying other avenues of making a living.



> Your reference to "the masses" is telling, for it reveals the tragedy of copyright today. The masses are a subordinate group, constructed as the passive audience of a relatively small number of publishers and authors.




"The masses" was not in any way used as a pejorative, dismissive, or diminuation of humanity- if you wish, substitute "the market" or "the populace" as you like.

When I do a painting, create a piece of jewelry or write a song, everyone else in the world is "the masses."  When I'm buying someone else's music or art, I'm "the masses."

No subordination.


----------



## Geof

*Copyright is a monopoly*

I argued that the specific costs and benefits of current copyright law and enforcement are such that the costs exceed the benefits.  You replied that this might be so, but that the market would sort it out.  Yet this is no argument at all, because copyright itself structures the market!



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IP only creates a short term "monopoly" in a single product



Furthermore, you suggest that copyright (whose 50+ to 95 year term you call "short term" right) is not a "true monopoly" because "Monopoly only exists in the absence of a reasonable substitute."  This is splitting hairs.  What is the "reasonable substitute" for _Gone With the Wind_ for Alice Randall, author of _The Wind Done Gone_?  For Marion Zimmer Bradley, who allowed fans to use her Darkover world only to be threatened with a lawsuit should she write something remotely similar to the work of one of those "fans"?  For Carol Shloss, the scholar blocked from quoting James Joyce's documents by Joyce's descendants?  Fortunately Shloss won her case - yet going to court is an extremely high cost, which only goes to support my argument about relative costs and benefits.  If you have invested in Windows software then what, I ask, is the reasonable substitute for Microsoft Windows?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The market operates efficiently . . . _Every product ever developed_, physical or ephemeral, has development costs.  Those costs, along with overhead . . . are factored into the per-unit prices.



Monopoly rents are not efficient.  In this particular case, once the sunk costs of development are recovered, subsequent profits above the marginal cost of production are inefficient.  The per-unit price of, say, an Elvis recording today is completely disconnected from the sunk costs of development.  True, the record company may use some of the excess profits from Elvis to fund other music - or they may not.  At this point, the use of those profits is up to the wisdom of the holder of the monopoly right;  the market isn't "deciding" anything at all.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Full ownership would be a bundle of rights that will not revert to someone with a superior interest in the property.



There, you've answered your question:  the party with superior interest is the public, hence the reversion to the public domain.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I may have the idea for a new form of X, but until I submit it in physical form to the right IP office, anyone else can claim to be its inventor and gain the attendent rights.



Of course this applies to patents and trademarks, but not to copyright.  Mixing up different forms of "IP" as though they were equivalent is misleading.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> What we have is a situation where a) a creator or author must obtain prior permission before creating something _using someone else's work_
> 
> In the case of non-commercial creativity, all the IP holder has to do is abandon his rights.  No negotiation needed.  No market involved.




I hate to recite what we both know, but every author uses the work of others.  For successful work, much or most of the value of that work is the product of the audience.  What we really have is a situation in which certain authors are granted special privileges, while others are denied the freedom to speak.

In the absence of a license, a copyright holder can always shut down any derivative works - assuming he's willing to bear the court costs and enforcement is practical (again see my point about costs and benefits above).  Is there any incentive for the copyright holder to do so?  How often to large corporations - who hold most copyrights - grant such permission?  IP holders have repeatedly shut down non-commercial works.

And guess what - if the copyright is intended to place works in the market so that authors can get paid and the work can be distributed to the public, it is now doing the exact opposite.  We have _excluded creative work from the market_.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> the countries that enforce and respect IP rights have an increasingly rich body of IP to work with.  Russia & China, notorious for not respecting IP rights, are falling behind.



I propose wealth and technology as explanations for the richness of culture, and you provide Russia and China as counter examples?  Countries that have been in upheaval for a century?  That lack freedom of the press, functioning court systems, sanitary food?  And you say *weak copyright* is the reason they're falling behind?

Let me give you a different counter example.  The United States had shorter copyright terms and stricter provisions than Europe for a century, until they signed the Berne Convention in 1988.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Simply put, humans react favorably to being able to profit from the fruits of their labor.  The more those fruits are culled by others, be they the gov't or just petty thieves, the less effort they're going to put into using their resources to bring that fruit to the market, and more into trying other avenues of making a living.



If you give one half of an argument, you can't get more than one half of the answer.  Copyright as it exists today does this.  It also prevents authorship, incurs high economic costs, results in qualitatively different works being produced, criminalizes the young while delegitimizing the law, and most importantly of all, it censors speech.  It must be shortened, but most of all it must be narrowed.  Until then, we will end up with costly and silly situations like the one at Staples that started this whole discussion.


----------



## el-remmen

No more good can come from this thread.

The political nature of the issue was tolerated until it was clear that the original relevance of the thread to RPGs and gaming had been abandoned for political debate no longer in the realm of what belongs on these boards.

Thread closed.


----------

