# E-Tools: Anyone Sharing Custom Files?



## rook111 (Dec 30, 2003)

I remember when the original Core Rules programs came out that there were loads of custom files shared by the community. I recently got ahold of a copy (i bought it) and like it but it needs a lot of additional content to please me. So I got online and started looking and I can't find any sites with user created files. i found a site which had the E-Tools Helper and associated programes but no Files to use them with.

So is anyone using this programing and does anyone have any files to share. I will be sharing what I make up but I'm slow at that sort of thing and rely on those with more talent than me.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 30, 2003)

Code Monkey Publishing is now updating eTools, both the program and datasets for WotC products.  You can also ask on their forums how to build various items in the database using eTools Helper.


----------



## Davin (Dec 31, 2003)

FYI -- most of the files being shared "in the old days" were of proprietary content.  Such information is illegal to share and so those old files were removed from the net.  Sharing open content or personally-created (not copied/adapted) information is fine though, even though there isn't much out there these days.

For official Wizards data, most people prefer to buy it pre-built from CMP for a very small amount of money relative to the amount of work it would take to create it yourself.


----------



## rook111 (Dec 31, 2003)

Well that sucks. The Core Rules Programs had a great community going. Seems that with E-Tools its just a buisiness. Kinda wish I hadn't bought it now.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 31, 2003)

rook111 said:
			
		

> Well that sucks. The Core Rules Programs had a great community going. Seems that with E-Tools its just a buisiness. Kinda wish I hadn't bought it now.



A couple things.


There is a good community of folks over at CMP's boards
I'm not sure I understand your statement of 'sucks'.  Are you upset because WotC wants their closed IP material to not be distributed freely? As Davin said, OGC files are fine for sharing.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jan 2, 2004)

rook111 said:
			
		

> Well that sucks. The Core Rules Programs had a great community going. Seems that with E-Tools its just a buisiness. Kinda wish I hadn't bought it now.



Well to be honest it is a business... Me personally I wish I didn't by it for all the same elegant reason you used.


----------



## cyderak (Jan 4, 2004)

Try Kazaa dude


i saw some on there


----------



## Mynex (Jan 4, 2004)

So you don't think that our forums at CMP are a community?

Have you been there and read through them?  There's a far nicer community there than when eTools was handled by the previous company and there were massive issues with eTools code wise.

Regardless of that, if our prices for the data sets are too expensive for your tastes, you can always enter the information yourself.  You ensure that you'll only enter the information you need that way and not spend any money doing so, just your time.

We aren't forcing anyone to buy our data sets, we're offering them for sale as a way for people to save their time of entering the information themselves.

So that's up to you.  I know that there are several people working on data sets for their own campaigns, but if you want WotC closed content, you have two choices; Buy them or make them yourself.

To the Person who said look on Kazaa... Thanks for encouraging piracy.  Real nice of you to direct people to take our hard work for free.  I'll save the arguments against piracy, people have hashed them over and over, either people will or they won't steal.  So I guess there is a third option, theft.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 4, 2004)

I'll just say that adding monsters as the need arises is pretty easy in E-Tools.  I added several from the Monsternomicon, it takes five minutes for a simple monster.

Community is fine, but if the community exists solely to avoid spending money on products by engaging in legally questionable acts, then you're not really helping the industry or helping the next great D&D product to get made.  This is a small industry, and everyone's actions are felt by the few people who try to make a living doing this.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 6, 2004)

Mynex said:
			
		

> To the Person who said look on Kazaa... Thanks for encouraging piracy.  Real nice of you to direct people to take our hard work for free.  I'll save the arguments against piracy, people have hashed them over and over, either people will or they won't steal.  So I guess there is a third option, theft.





While, I don't condone piracy, software piracy is not theft.  If I steal your car, that's theft.  Copying your software, while it may cause you to lose a sale, is not theft, as you have not been bereft of your product - you still have it.  Whether or not piracy is WRONG is a different matter altogether, but theft, it is not.


----------



## Mynex (Jan 6, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> While, I don't condone piracy, software piracy is not theft.  If I steal your car, that's theft.  Copying your software, while it may cause you to lose a sale, is not theft, as you have not been bereft of your product - you still have it.  Whether or not piracy is WRONG is a different matter altogether, but theft, it is not.




Really?  So copying software is not theft?

You're denying income to a company.  That company doesn't have that sale.  1 sale, big deal, right?  wrong.  Software companies have employee's to pay, overhead to pay for, some have debts to repay, some have royalties to pay, etc...  So you are removing the money that sale would have generated, you deny the company that profit, and by getting the software without paying for it, it is theft.  Don't believe it?  Ask a lawyer.  People are prosecuted very often for software 'Theft' (piracy).  The state and federal governments define software piracy as theft, you're personal definition of theft, doesn't matter here, what the law says is what matters.

That was in general, an overall approach to software and piracy.  Even 1 'copy' is theft, but in this age of Kazaa and the like, it's never _1_ copy.  It is usually in the hundred for smaller programs, or thousands and tens of thousands for larger companies.

And in our case, there is absolutely no reason for it.  We don't charge several hundred dollars for our software, we don't charge hundreds of dollars for a data set and we're not a large company.  We cater to the community, our prices are reasonable, and even if you don't want to spend the money on the data sets, you can enter the information yourself.  It may not be easy for some things, but our forums are there for people to ask questions and we have a community of people perfectly willing to help someone make their own stuff, we (as in CMP) will even help by telling people how to do things.

Getting something you didn't pay for is theft, pure and simple.  there is no argument to the contrary, there is no justification.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 6, 2004)

Mynex said:
			
		

> Really?  So copying software is not theft?
> 
> You're denying income to a company.  That company doesn't have that sale.  1 sale, big deal, right?  wrong.  Software companies have employee's to pay, overhead to pay for, some have debts to repay, some have royalties to pay, etc...  So you are removing the money that sale would have generated, you deny the company that profit, and by getting the software without paying for it, it is theft.  Don't believe it?  Ask a lawyer.  People are prosecuted very often for software 'Theft' (piracy).  The state and federal governments define software piracy as theft, you're personal definition of theft, doesn't matter here, what the law says is what matters.
> 
> ...






Denying a sale is not theft.  I could stand outside a store and warn people away because the owners were terrorists, child molestors, or worse, Auburn fans  .  That would deny them a few sales, but would not be theft.  As you said, I can enter the information myself - that would deny you a sale, too.  Piracy is illegal, and rightly so, but call it what it is - piracy,not theft.  It is copyright infringement, nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, I think you guys have done a commendable job with E-tools, much better than the Fluid/WOTC travesty.


----------



## herald (Jan 6, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Denying a sale is not theft.  I could stand outside a store and warn people away because the owners were terrorists, child molestors, or worse, Auburn fans  .  That would deny them a few sales, but would not be theft.  As you said, I can enter the information myself - that would deny you a sale, too.  Piracy is illegal, and rightly so, but call it what it is - piracy,not theft.  It is copyright infringement, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> BTW, I think you guys have done a commendable job with E-tools, much better than the Fluid/WOTC travesty.




Piracy is a form of theft. Don't kid yourself JRR.


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 6, 2004)

Let's call a truce here over whether piracy is theft or not, ok?

I can see the frustration, bigtime.  I heard early on that there would be some kind of files for Arcana Unearthed (wasn't necessarily for eTools, but at least for PC Gen) but haven't seen anything yet.  So I put eTools files together for my AU campaign and share those with my group only.  Does it suck that I can't share those with the rest of the world?  Sure.  I think having them available would be a boon to both the eTools and AU communities.  But I can't, so I don't.


----------



## gregweller (Jan 6, 2004)

And every time I borrow the new Stephen King book from the library, I'm denying Mr. King a sale. So that's theft, too, right? And every time I buy a book and let someone else read it, I am denying the person that wrote that book a sale, as well. So that's theft, too.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jan 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Denying a sale is not theft. I could stand outside a store and warn people away because the owners were terrorists, child molestors, or worse, Auburn fans . That would deny them a few sales, but would not be theft.



Right. Except that in your first example (piracy) you end up in possession of commercial software which you didn't pay for. Your definition may be different than mine but, to my mind, if you possess (which excludes borrowing) a product which is for sale, but you didn't pay for it, that's theft. YMMV.

I agree with you on your other points (which is why I didn't quote them).

Sorry, Eric. I erased this reply once but, in the end, I truly believed it needed to be stated.


----------



## herald (Jan 7, 2004)

gregweller said:
			
		

> And every time I borrow the new Stephen King book from the library, I'm denying Mr. King a sale. So that's theft, too, right?




Actually Your taxes paid for that book in the library.


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 7, 2004)

I'm a little confused, maybe someone can clarify. 

Before CMP, there was PCGen. PCGen at that time was choke full of information from other sources which they freely distributed. The folks behind PCGen, as I remember it, said that this was all perfectly legal ("fair use" was the argument as I recall). 

Then the PCGen folks moved over to CMP and the sharing of data files is now theft. 

Did something change or am I not recalling things correctly?


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 7, 2004)

Double post.


----------



## Mynex (Jan 7, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused, maybe someone can clarify.
> 
> Before CMP, there was PCGen. PCGen at that time was choke full of information from other sources which they freely distributed. The folks behind PCGen, as I remember it, said that this was all perfectly legal ("fair use" was the argument as I recall).
> 
> ...




First off, you're mixing a few things that don't relate.

1) PCGen data files at the time (of WotC's materials) were under Fair Use from PCGen's perspective (as well as our lawyers).  WotC disagreed, and instead of fighting it out in court (as noted many times, fighting WotC on anything is monumentally expensive), and due to some other considerations, PCGen decided to go OGL AND d20 license legitimate.

2) At the time, no one was making data sets for sale under any license agreement.  I could be wrong at that, I don't recall for sure, but I don't think you (DM Familiar) or Twin Rose (CS) had started doing that yet... But I do know that NO ONE had a license with WotC for their material - hell, eTools had _just_ been released at GenCon and ONLY covered the core 3 books at the time and that was a WotC product.

3) CMP came well after PCGen went OGL/D20... 7 months or thereabouts... The 2 are only related in the aspect of three of us that worked on PCGen own CMP and the fact that both produce data sets for PCGen (CMP Licensed, PCGen OGL)

So Todd, instead of trying to rehash old issues, and incorrectly at that, how about you go through all the effort that we did as CMP to secure a license with WotC, how about you go through the man hours of work to create the data sets from scratch, the coding that was needed, and then have people spread those files across Kazaa/personal web space/etc and then come tell me that's not theft.

You get those files illegaly and don't pay for the hard work that went into creating those data files and if you distribute said material on peer to peer, personal web space, etc,, you're stealing from the people that did do that hard work as well as from WotC.  Pure and simple.

Slice it any way you want to, unless you have the money and you're willing to go to court and justify/convince a judge that it's not stealing, then there is no debate.  I'd recommend to anyone that doesn't agree with this point of view to get yourself a software lawyer and ask them... Most of them will give you a free consultation as well, or at least answer your question over the phone.


----------



## Mynex (Jan 7, 2004)

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary online.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Data sets are produced by CMP.

Please note definition #3.

Main Entry: pi·ra·cy 
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
Date: 1537
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright 

Also this;

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/software+theft

 Search Dictionary:       

SOFTWARE THEFT
Computing Dictionary 

  Definition:   The unauthorised duplication and/or use of computer software. This usually means unauthorised copying, either by individuals for use by themselves or their friends or, less commonly, by companies who then sell the illegal copies to users. Many kinds of software protection have been invented to try to reduce software theft but, with sufficient effort it is always possible to bypass or "crack" the protection, and software protection is often annoying for legitimate users.

Software theft was estimated for 1994 to have cost $15 billion in worldwide lost revenues to software publishers. It is a serious offence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which states that "The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to copy the work.".

It is estimated that European software houses alone lose $6 billion per year through the unlawful copying and distribution of software, with much of this loss being through business users rather than "basement hackers". One Italian pirating operation employed over 100 staff and had a turnover of $10m.

It is illegal to: 1. Copy or distribute software or its documentation without the permission or licence of the copyright owner. 2. Run purchased software on two or more computers simultaneously unless the licence specifically allows it. 3. Knowingly or unknowingly allow, encourage or pressure employees to make or use illegal copies sources within the organisation. 4. Infringe laws against unauthorised software copying because a superior, colleague or friend compels or requests it. 5. Loan software in order that a copy be made of it.

When software is upgraded it is generally the case that the licence accompanying the new version revokes the old version. This means that it is illegal to run both the old and new versions as only the new version is licensed.

Both individuals and companies may be convicted of piracy offences. Officers of a company are also liable to conviction if the offences were carried out by the company with their consent. On conviction, the guilty party can face imprisonment for up to two years (five in USA), an unlimited fine or both as well as being sued for copyright infringement (with no limit) by the copyright owner.

Some people mistakenly think that, because it is so easy to make illegal copies of software, that it is less wrong than, say, stealing it from a shop. In fact, both actions deprive software producers of the income they need to continue their business and develop their products.

Software theft should be reported to the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST).

See also Business Software Alliance, software audit, software law.


----------



## Mynex (Jan 7, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Let's call a truce here over whether piracy is theft or not, ok?
> 
> I can see the frustration, bigtime.  I heard early on that there would be some kind of files for Arcana Unearthed (wasn't necessarily for eTools, but at least for PC Gen) but haven't seen anything yet.  So I put eTools files together for my AU campaign and share those with my group only.  Does it suck that I can't share those with the rest of the world?  Sure.  I think having them available would be a boon to both the eTools and AU communities.  But I can't, so I don't.




The PCGen AU files are getting some finishing tweaks, then they go back to Sue and Monte for final review... Shouldn't be too much longer.

As for AU in eTools, can't say anything at the moment, but there may be good news on the near horizon, so hang in there.


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 7, 2004)

Mynex said:
			
		

> 1) PCGen data files at the time (of WotC's materials) were under Fair Use from PCGen's perspective (as well as our lawyers).



Do you still feel that way? 

If yes, then let's play a hypothetical: I create the datasets for the WOTC splatbooks myself. I put up a website and give them away for free. I could do this couldn't I using the same "fair use" argument that PCGen did previously? 



> 2) At the time, no one was making data sets for sale under any license agreement.



I'm not following your argument here. If it's fair use, why does it matter if someone else is selling it? Leonard Maltin sells a book of movie reviews which falls under fair use. That doesn't keep Roger Ebert from reviewing those movies as well. 



> 3) CMP came well after PCGen went OGL/D20



Sorry, my bad. 



> So Todd, instead of trying to rehash old issues,



It's an old issue? Sorry, what's the answer then to the original poster's question. He said:

"So I got online and started looking and I can't find any sites with *user* created files. i found a site which had the E-Tools Helper and associated programes but no Files to use them with. So is anyone using this programing and does anyone have any files to share. I will be sharing *what I make up*"

Sounds like he wants to create his own datafiles and share them. Or he would like to use datasets that other people have created. That sounds like the fair use argument PCGen made long ago. Isn't that OK?



> and then have people spread those files across Kazaa/personal web space/etc and then come tell me that's not theft.



I absolutely agree with you here. The sharing of files that you have made is piracy. You can't do that. 

The original poster didn't state that he wanted your files though. He specifically mentioned user created info. 

The person who mentioned Kazaa didn't say anything about copyrighted files either. He just said to check Kazaa. Sharing my user created files on Kazaa would be fair use again wouldn't it?


----------



## merton_monk (Jan 7, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> Do you still feel that way?
> 
> If yes, then let's play a hypothetical: I create the datasets for the WOTC splatbooks myself. I put up a website and give them away for free. I could do this couldn't I using the same "fair use" argument that PCGen did previously?




Ummm.... does it matter how any of us feel? Wotc owns the IP - so you'd have to take that up with them.  Feel free to do so, our discussions with them were laborious but always pleasant.  PCGen seeks permission from the publishers before including anything in its free distribution, and I think that's a good policy.   Distributing them on your own server or through Kazaa is irrelevant.  I doubt Wotc cares if you create data files for your own usages (you own the book, so you can put the info into a different format for your own usage), it's the distribution of said material that Wotc would take issue with. That's a decision you're free to make, though it's not so free to follow through with it. 

Bryan McRoberts
Code Monkey Publishing, Co-Founder
Benevolent Dictator of PCGen


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 7, 2004)

And I do just need to add a bit about why the whole "checking out books from the library is the same as downloading files on the internet" analogy is flawed.

When you borrow a book from the library, you are taking a physical copy.  While you have it, no one else can use it.  When you return it, one other person can borrow it.  There are no laws that say you can't lend out a physical item.  

But when you download eTools files you are making a copy of the files.  It's not like when you download them you are "borrowing" them and the original gets erased so now you have the only copy.  Copying decreases the value of the item for those who want to make money by selling legitimate copies.  

If file-"sharing" software really did work like a library we wouldn't have a problem -- there would be maybe one copy of "Livin' La Vida Loca" floating around on the internet, and if you really were "sharing" it it would be erased from your computer when someone downloaded it from you.  Hmm, that's actually kind of a cool idea...


----------



## Enkhidu (Jan 7, 2004)

Dangit, Eric! Here I was, fighting the urge to respond to that post because you wanted called for a truce, only to have you come on and give exactly the same clarification that I was going to.

Stinky old mod...

Anyway, Eric's right - file sharing is completely different than physical sharing, because the person doing the sharing doesn't give anything up when he "lends" it to another person.

Look at it this way - let's say you do contract work for The Widgets Company. The Widgets Company (TWC) pays you X amount of money for each widget you make. However, TWC has just made a perfect clone of you that does exactly the same type, quality, and amount of work you do - its a perfect copy of everything you are and do. And, because they now have someone else doing exactly the kind of work you do, they don't need you as much any more. Instead of paying you to make widgets, they simply use your clone to make them instead. So, every time your clone makes a widget, you effectively lose X amount of money!

This is a far more accurate model of how downloading files works ends up working. Its no where near like lending a friend your new PHB.


----------



## Mynex (Jan 8, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> Do you still feel that way?
> 
> If yes, then let's play a hypothetical: I create the datasets for the WOTC splatbooks myself. I put up a website and give them away for free. I could do this couldn't I using the same "fair use" argument that PCGen did previously?
> 
> ...





Yes I still do feel that way, but as I noted, money and courts = time and money wasted.  It was far easier to work with them than it was to fight with them, and it proved far more beneficial that way.

I wasn't replying to the original poster actually... I was replying to the person who said look on Kazaa... Personal created _custom_ files wouldn't be on Kazaa now would they?  Let's be real here, you go onto Kazaa to find something, you're looking for an illegal copy of something... Kazaa and other peer to peer softwares had some really great potential, but it's been co-opted by those that would rather pirate than have legitimate uses for it (not entirely, just a general statement of my opinion based on observation)... 

Let's be clear here a second... If you create your own material, and then share it, that's perfectly fine... you created it, you own it, that simple.  If you create your own files from a WotC book and then share it, that's not fine.  Yes, they're user created, but you don't own the material.

There's a lot of fine distinctions in this debate, some of which are undergoing court challenges, some of which probably never will... but we're talking about one thing here, and only one thing... Getting software you didn't pay for.

It's theft, it's illegal, it shouldn't be done, but someone will always want something for nothing. *shrug*

All we can do as individuals, is not do it ourselves and at least attempt to discourage others from doing it.  But in the end it's a personal decision whether to steal or not. *shrug*


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 8, 2004)

Mynex said:
			
		

> Yes I still do feel that way, [believe in Fair Use?]
> 
> ....  If you create your own files from a WotC book and then share it, that's not fine.



I'm even more confused now. 

PCGen distributed WOTC material in data files. At the time, you argued that this was Fair Use under Copyright Law. You say you still agree with this. But then you say that if someone where to do exactly the same thing, it would not be "fine". Which is it?

*IF* we believe that datasets are a Fair Use under copyright law then shouldn't someone be able to create an E:Tools dataset of WOTC material and call it Fair Use?

I realize that's a big IF and that if I feel that way but WOTC disagrees, my belief doesn't do me much good. I'm just trying to understand the issues.


----------



## Chacal (Jan 8, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> I'm even more confused now.
> 
> PCGen distributed WOTC material in data files. At the time, you argued that this was Fair Use under Copyright Law. You say you still agree with this. But then you say that if someone where to do exactly the same thing, it would not be "fine". Which is it?



I believe it's both.

Someone might think it's fair use, and agree to not do it because WotC said it wasn't "fine".  Pcgen follows the "fine" way.


Saying others that doing what pcgen was doing before isn't fine is consistent IMO.


Whatever one thinks is Fair Use is irrelevant to the "it's fine", since only WotC can decide what's fine (wether people like it or not).

At least, it's how I understand it 

Chacal


----------



## herald (Jan 8, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> I'm even more confused now.
> 
> PCGen distributed WOTC material in data files. At the time, you argued that this was Fair Use under Copyright Law. You say you still agree with this. But then you say that if someone where to do exactly the same thing, it would not be "fine". Which is it?
> 
> ...




Actually it comes down to this. WOTC wants to protect it's IP in any form. In order to use that IP, CMP has entered into an agreement to do so. I can't say for certain what those details are, but you can be sure that that CMP has to abide by what WOTC thinks is a legitamate and agreed use of it's IP.

WOTC has on more than one occation sent cease and desist orders to people it has felt have violated it's IP rights via distribution. And they have done so against people on Kazaa and other internet sources as well.

In the end, if you want to create something and it has WOTC IP (other than OGC) in it, you should contact WOTC and ask them if you can distribute it. Can there be anything more simple than that? You may own the book, but the work in the book belongs to someone. Publishers pay the rights to be able to produce books. (Public Domain excluded) You don't have the right to exceed the publisher's right just because you can reproduce it in another format. 

So for all of those people who download PDFs of material for free off the internet that otherwise would not be, you can't claim it to be borrowing because you didn't ask the true source of the material.


----------



## Nylanfs (Jan 8, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> I'm even more confused now.
> 
> PCGen distributed WOTC material in data files. At the time, you argued that this was Fair Use under Copyright Law. You say you still agree with this. But then you say that if someone where to do exactly the same thing, it would not be "fine". Which is it?
> 
> ...




Note: I was not privy to all the conversations but this is how I understand it to have happened.

Actually the original PCGen datasets for the splatbooks, Oriental Adventers, Forgotten Realms etc. were created under the _impression_ that it would be okay under the Fair Use guidelines. Several attempts were made to contact WotC to verify but contact could never be made until GenCon '02. At that time Anthony Valterra said that "No we don't agree. Please remove the datasets in violation." To which Bryan said "Ok, is there anyway we can continue to distribute them." AV said "Well first become OGL compliant and then we can talk about it." Which was accomplished in Umm 42days? I think that's right. after that negotiations were opened with WotC to get the datasets back, after that it was a whirlwind of negiatiations which ended up with CMP being created, them getting the "priviledge"  of fixing eTools and they purchased the rights to distribute datasets for ALL of WotC IP for both eTools and PCGen.

The main point is that while it may or maynot have been following the Fair Use guidelines, unless you have the money and time to go to court the injured party always wins.


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jan 14, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Denying a sale is not theft. I could stand outside a store and warn people away because the owners were terrorists, child molestors, or worse, Auburn fans . That would deny them a few sales, but would not be theft.



No, that's considered slander and/or libel, for which you could be rightfully sued, and the plaintiff would rightfully win. Unless, of course, it's proven to be true.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 15, 2004)

amaril said:
			
		

> No, that's considered slander and/or libel, for which you could be rightfully sued, and the plaintiff would rightfully win. Unless, of course, it's proven to be true.





In America, it does not have to be proven to be true.  If the store decided to press charges on me, the burden would be on them to prove that I had slandered them - by proving they were not terrorists.  

Anyway, I never said piracy was LEGAL, I just deny that it is theft.


----------



## Zub (Jan 16, 2004)

Mynex said:
			
		

> To the Person who said look on Kazaa... Thanks for encouraging piracy.  Real nice of you to direct people to take our hard work for free.  I'll save the arguments against piracy, people have hashed them over and over, either people will or they won't steal.  So I guess there is a third option, theft.



I don't use Kazaa - so I don't know what's out there.  But I don't understand why CMP feels that the downloading any E-tools files from Kazaa is an infringement (Or as you put it - theft).  If I created my own files based on WoTC closed content and posted them on Kazaa, is that theft?  If I create my own files of OGC and posted them on kazaa is that theft as well?  Is CMP the only entity able to publicly distribute e-tools data files legally?  

Zub


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jan 16, 2004)

Zub said:
			
		

> If I created my own files based on WoTC closed content and posted them on Kazaa, is that theft?



It's copyright violation and theft of intellectual property.

And in regards to CMP-made data being distributed, read your end-user license agreement.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jan 17, 2004)

Zub said:
			
		

> If I created my own files based on WoTC closed content



You're OK here, personal use is one of the things allowed under copyright law.



			
				Zub said:
			
		

> and posted them on Kazaa, is that theft?



It is a violation of copyright law. Theft is debateable, but since CMP has the exclusive license to distribute WotC content, giving it to others who then have it without having needed to pay for it, you've certainly helped others steal.



			
				Zub said:
			
		

> If I create my own files of OGC



Again, personal use. This is fine.



			
				Zub said:
			
		

> and posted them on kazaa is that theft as well?



It is not necessarily theft, but it *is* a violation of copyright and thus illegal.



			
				Zub said:
			
		

> Is CMP the only entity able to publicly distribute e-tools data files legally?



They have the license, yes.

-Dave


----------



## gregweller (Jan 17, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> And I do just need to add a bit about why the whole "checking out books from the library is the same as downloading files on the internet" analogy is flawed.
> 
> When you borrow a book from the library, you are taking a physical copy.  While you have it, no one else can use it.  When you return it, one other person can borrow it.  There are no laws that say you can't lend out a physical item.
> 
> But when you download eTools files you are making a copy of the files.  It's not like when you download them you are "borrowing" them and the original gets erased so now you have the only copy.  Copying decreases the value of the item for those who want to make money by selling legitimate copies.




You're leaving one piece out of the arguement, Eric. It has to do with the reason you're 'using' a book. When I check a book out of the library, I am doing it in order not to have to buy it. When I am done with the book, I return it to the library and my reason for borrowing that book is over, and I *will never* have to buy that book--and you could argue that I have deprived the writer of a legitimate sale. I will grant you, that if I were to download a file from KaZaa I would be doing it in order not to have to pay for it. Now, I might use that file for a longer period of time, but the end result is exactly the same: in both cases, I have used a service, in one case the library, in the other case KaZaa in order to get something I want without having to pay for it. I think the whole physical vs. virtual dichotomy is flawed. I will grant you that there is an issue of numbers--it is possible to distribute vast numbers of files--but the core activity is still the same. And please don't think that the publishing industry wouldn't like to put libraries out of business if they could think of a way to do it.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 17, 2004)

Didn't the books in the library get paid for?

That seems to be a slight difference between your examples.

edit - spelling


----------



## Kristian Serrano (Jan 17, 2004)

gregweller said:
			
		

> You're leaving one piece out of the arguement, Eric. It has to do with the reason you're 'using' a book. When I check a book out of the library, I am doing it in order not to have to buy it. When I am done with the book, I return it to the library and my reason for borrowing that book is over, and I *will never* have to buy that book--and you could argue that I have deprived the writer of a legitimate sale. I will grant you, that if I were to download a file from KaZaa I would be doing it in order not to have to pay for it. Now, I might use that file for a longer period of time, but the end result is exactly the same: in both cases, I have used a service, in one case the library, in the other case KaZaa in order to get something I want without having to pay for it. I think the whole physical vs. virtual dichotomy is flawed. I will grant you that there is an issue of numbers--it is possible to distribute vast numbers of files--but the core activity is still the same. And please don't think that the publishing industry wouldn't like to put libraries out of business if they could think of a way to do it.



Libraries also have permission to loan books, and taxes pay for library services. No one has authority to dsitributed licensed software to millions over the internet, unless it is freeware or shareware.

The fact remains that CMP data sets and homemade WotC content data sets are not for redistribution, but for personal use only. If you make your own content that falls under the OGL, then feel free to distribute as much as you want.


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 22, 2004)

Piracy is theft.

Most people work to make money.  They may get some personal satisfaction from providing goods or services, but normally, they want and need to get money from their work. That money comes from selling those goods or services.  Creating the goods or services is merely the means to an end -- getting the money they have earned and need.

If you could somehow take those goods and/or services from those who worked to create them, it wouldn't be the loss of the goods or services that would be most keenly felt, it would be the loss of money that would be most hurtful.

Similarly, if you could leave them with the goods or services, but take the money they earned from creating them, that would be the real hurt. 

That is the hurt that piracy does. 

It leaves money in your pocket that was earned by the effort and risks taken by someone else.

Piracy is not just illegal, it is also immoral. It robs people of the rightful rewards for their labors and enriches people for being dishonest.

Unfortunately, there are those who do not care how much harm they do to others as long as they come out ahead.

Victor


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 23, 2004)

Vpenman said:
			
		

> Piracy is theft.
> 
> Victor





No.  It is not.  If I download, say a copy of the Player's Handbook, I dare you to come hold the merchandise stolen in your hands.  Even if I print it out, you can't do it.  I paid for the paper I printed it on, so that belongs to me.  The fact is, I didn't steal anything, because it only exists as a bunch of zeroes and ones streaming across my phone line.  

It is a violation of copyright, and thus, illegal, but it is not theft.  So I denyed them a sale, so what?  There are many ways to do that that don't involve theft.  If I had purchased Gurps, Vampire, or Martha Stewart's memoires instead, I would have denied them a sale.  That does not mean I stole from WOTC.


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 23, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No.  It is not.  If I download, say a copy of the Player's Handbook, I dare you to come hold the merchandise stolen in your hands.  Even if I print it out, you can't do it.  I paid for the paper I printed it on, so that belongs to me.  The fact is, I didn't steal anything, because it only exists as a bunch of zeroes and ones streaming across my phone line.
> 
> It is a violation of copyright, and thus, illegal, but it is not theft.  So I denyed them a sale, so what?  There are many ways to do that that don't involve theft.  If I had purchased Gurps, Vampire, or Martha Stewart's memoires instead, I would have denied them a sale.  That does not mean I stole from WOTC.




You have done worse than steal an object.  You have stolen a person's labor, ideas, and creativity. 

Paper practically grows on trees.  It is what goes on it (and I am not talking about ink) that makes it valuable.

Similarly, it is not a series of 0s and 1s that make software, it is the knowledge, brain power, and just hard work that produces something that the dishonest find worth stealing.

Denying someone a sale is not the same as taking their work without justly compensating them for it.

Is this really too complicated for you to understand, or is it just the convenient blinders that self interest provides?

By the way, I really admire the courage and honesty of those who post opinions under an alias.

Victor


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 24, 2004)

Vpenman said:
			
		

> You have done worse than steal an object.  You have stolen a person's labor, ideas, and creativity.
> 
> Paper practically grows on trees.  It is what goes on it (and I am not talking about ink) that makes it valuable.
> 
> ...






All of the above you mention, knowledge, creativity, etc, are ephemeral and cannot be stolen.  It's like stealing the wind.

And, if you want details about me, , look in my profile, I hide it from no one.
Your profile, however, I notice contains nothing.  Funny you should say I hide behind an alias.


I'm not defending piracy.  It is illegal, and those who practice it should be prosecuted.  For copyright violation, not theft.


----------



## rook111 (Jan 24, 2004)

You Know when I stated this Thread I was just wondering if anyone else had any thing to share that they had Input into the Computer for this program. At the Time I hadn't really looked at the CMP Site, I hadn't visited the CMP Forums and My Comments weren't meant as a knock at CMP. It was just the general statment of my feelings at the time. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

As for theft or Piracy or what ever you want to call it I don't advocate it and there is no argument which can Make it an ok practice.

My comment about the Community was about the overall Larger E-Tools Community which apparently doesn't exist or at least I can't find it (except for the CMP Forums of course). I fail to Understand how when all we had was Core Rules and Core Rules II for AD&D it was fine for US the community to input the material and then share it with anyone who wanted it but now that its 3E and E-tools it can only be Distributed thrugh an athuorized outlet and must be purchased (BTW that isn't a problem for me I have since learning of CMP bought the data sets I wanted and will likly buy more as they become available.) from said company. 

Just seems sad to me for some reason, Thats all, see ya.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jan 24, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No. It is not. If I download, say a copy of the Player's Handbook, I dare you to come hold the merchandise stolen in your hands. The fact is, I didn't steal anything, because it only exists as a bunch of zeroes and ones streaming across my phone line.



That's not right. That's not even wrong.

Saying it isn't real because it is just data on your hard drive doesn't wash. Is a pirated movie not a real thing because it exists only as data on a DVD or on the tape in a VHS cartridge? Is all commercial software not real?



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> It is a violation of copyright, and thus, illegal, but it is not theft.



I'll ask again, if you are in possession of a commercially available product, and you didn't pay for it, how is that not theft?


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 24, 2004)

A collection of replies:


> If I create my own files of OGC and posted them on kazaa is that theft as well?
> 
> It is not necessarily theft, but it is a violation of copyright and thus illegal.



You're allowed to distribute OGC material. That's the purpose behind OGC. As long as you follow the OGC license, then distributing those files on Kazaa would be perfectly legal. Just like distributing OGC content on RPGNow, a website, or by photocopying is legal.



> Is this really too complicated for you to understand, or is it just the convenient blinders that self interest provides?



You guys are arguing definitions. JRRNeiklot is arguing the legal defnition. Legally, taking copyrighted material is copyright infringement, it's not *legally* theft. The guy with the Oscar screening tapes wasn't arrested for theft. He was arrested for copyright infringement. 

Vpenman is arguing the common definition of the word "theft". Is the legal offense of copyright infringement an act of theft? Sure. 

You're both right.



> it was fine for US the community to input the material and then share it with anyone who wanted it but now that its 3E and E-tools



It was fine to do it in 3.0 as well. It wasn't until PCGen decided to go OGL that it stopped happening. 

Near as I can tell, and my opinion is worth a rat's fart, it's still OK to do. PCGen did it for a long time. They claimed fair use under copyright law. Wizards never complained during that long time. PCGen never received a Cease & Desist order. 

So it's been done in the past and near as I can tell no one ever objected. I see no reason why it couldn't be done today.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 24, 2004)

rook111 said:
			
		

> I fail to Understand how when all we had was Core Rules and Core Rules II for AD&D it was fine for US the community to input the material and then share it with anyone who wanted it but now that its 3E and E-tools it can only be Distributed thrugh an athuorized outlet and must be purchased (BTW that isn't a problem for me I have since learning of CMP bought the data sets I wanted and will likly buy more as they become available.) from said company.




You'll find that the internet is a different place now than when the Core Rules products were out.  At the time, when you made a copy and shared it, a few gaming groups could make use of it.  Now, if you make a copy and share it, it's probable a majority of gaming groups can make use of it (or something close).  

The number of people who can, and do, access the internet has grown significantly.  The people who use it, also use it more often.  It's a simple matter that it's a larger audience out there.

So, before if you created a data set for a product (let's say the Forgotten Realms base set) and share it, a few sales could be lost.  Now if you create a data set and share it, many sales could be lost.  

I also suspect that the reason you didn't see data sets created and sold for Core Rules is because it wasn't profitable.  There wasn't a large enough audience on the internet to make a profit and sales through stores would have too many logistical problems to be profitable.  Now, it is large enough to be profitable.  Plus, technological breakthroughs have made it practical to sell larger products because of increased download speeds (remember the standard when Core Rules 2.0 was released was 14,400 or slower).

I strongly suspect that there are many more concerns about copyright violations, even without discussing the internet directly, because of the expansion of the internet.  File sharing has seriously increased the concern because it means many more people can possess a product without paying for it.


----------



## herald (Jan 25, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> All of the above you mention, knowledge, creativity, etc, are ephemeral and cannot be stolen.  It's like stealing the wind.
> 
> And, if you want details about me, , look in my profile, I hide it from no one.
> Your profile, however, I notice contains nothing.  Funny you should say I hide behind an alias.
> ...




It's a form of theft and I've asked lawyers about it. A criminal lawyer as a matter of fact. let's just let this go.


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 25, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> All of the above you mention, knowledge, creativity, etc, are ephemeral and cannot be stolen.  It's like stealing the wind...
> .




Of course what I actually said was  "You have stolen a person's labor, ideas, and creativity."

Let's say you have a job. Pretty much each weekday you work at that job. You do that not because you would rather be working than doing anything else you could do.  You do that because you need to work to earn an honest living.

Now let's say your employer is, well let's call him a "pirate" (so as not to offend anyone). This "pirate" had no intention of paying you for your work.  Rather, he intends to enjoy the fruits of your labor without paying you for them.

Payday comes around, you get a paycheck, but it bounces. You try to collect from your "pirate" employer, but he is no where to be found.

Was this illegal?  Certainly, as the "pirate" never intended to pay you, that is fraud and illegal.

Was it immoral? Not according to "JRRNeiklot".  Apparently, since what was taken from you was not something a person can hold in his hands (the bank did return that bounced check to you), this isn't theft.  It's not even wrong.

Victor


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 25, 2004)

rook111 said:
			
		

> You Know when I stated this Thread I was just wondering if anyone else had any thing to share that they had Input into the Computer for this program...
> 
> My comment about the Community was about the overall Larger E-Tools Community which apparently doesn't exist or at least I can't find it (except for the CMP Forums of course). I fail to Understand how when all we had was Core Rules and Core Rules II for AD&D it was fine for US the community to input the material and then share it with anyone who wanted it but now that its 3E and E-tools it can only be Distributed thrugh an athuorized outlet and must be purchased (BTW that isn't a problem for me I have since learning of CMP bought the data sets I wanted and will likly buy more as they become available.) from said company.
> 
> Just seems sad to me for some reason, Thats all, see ya.




I believe there are a number of fundamental differences between E-Tools and the Core Rules programs that account for this.

First, the E-Tools community is a fraction of the size of the Core Rules community.  

Second, E-Tools does not lend itself to sharing data.  There is no built in way to do that and even E-Tools Helper is not as user friendly as the import and export tools built into the Core Rules programs and which were designed to promote such sharing.

Third, it is much more difficult to create custom data with E-Tools than it was with the Core Rules. The Core Rules custom data creation tools were designed to be used by the casual user.  Creating custom data with E-Tools pretty much requires some proficiency with Access.

Fourth, the Core Rules programs were designed to promote data sharing.  It was intended that players send their characters to their DMs and the DMs could send treasures, maps, etc. to the players.  It was also designed to allow people in different gaming groups to easily share their work with one another. This was expected to make the program a more attractive product and to grow the AD&D community.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, there were never any intentions to sell a series of data sets. Having such sales creates a fundamental conflict between the free exchange of data and people receiving fair compensation for their intellectual property and labor.

Victor


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 25, 2004)

> Vpenman Said: Was it immoral? Not according to "JRRNeiklot".



That's utter crap. He never said any such thing. He merely pointed out, correctly, that the legal term for taking copyrighted material is Copyright Infringement. It's not, legally speaking, theft. 

And for that matter, the scenario you describe with the paycheck is not theft either. 

Your posts here are getting comical.


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 25, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> That's utter crap. He never said any such thing. He merely pointed out, correctly, that the legal term for taking copyrighted material is Copyright Infringement. It's not, legally speaking, theft.
> 
> And for that matter, the scenario you describe with the paycheck is not theft either.
> 
> Your posts here are getting comical.




Well, at least they have some redeaming value.

And, as long as we are being correct, I never claimed it was legally theft.  Just that it was theft, and immoral, none-the-less.

You can take credit for another person's ideas or work, possibly even take their ideas or work, and not have it be legally theft.  But it is theft, and wrong, none-the-less.

However, I did not intend to misrepresent anyone's posts.  If I have misrepresented whoever is posting as JRRNEIKLOt, I apologize.

Victor


----------



## DMFTodd (Jan 25, 2004)

Vpenman said:
			
		

> Just that it was theft, and immoral, none-the-less.Victor



Nobody said it was the right thing to do. The word "kazaa" gets mentioned and people jump on their moral high horse and start screaming "Theft!". You even went so far as to call someone immoral.



> If I have misrepresented whoever is posting as JRRNEIKLOt



If?! You fabricated a scenario and called him immoral. If you're so concerned with morals as you portray, you'd offer an honest apology, not a half-cloaked one.

Now back to the original post: Is anyone sharing E:Tools custom data files? Apparently not. IMHO, it seems like a perfectly legal thing to do (as I explained above). I don't know why people aren't doing it.


----------



## Vpenman (Jan 25, 2004)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> Nobody said it was the right thing to do. The word "kazaa" gets mentioned and people jump on their moral high horse and start screaming "Theft!". You even went so far as to call someone immoral.
> 
> 
> If?! You fabricated a scenario and called him immoral. If you're so concerned with morals as you portray, you'd offer an honest apology, not a half-cloaked one.
> ...




Really, who did I call immoral? I admit that anyone who committed the acts I describe would be committing immoral acts and I recall pointing that out.

The actual statement was: "Was it immoral? Not according to "JRRNeiklot". " 

If you are as upset as you claim to be about people misrepresenting what someone else posts, an apology from would now be appropriate.  Otherwise, the word "hypocrite" could be appropriately applied to a specific individual.

Victor


----------



## herald (Jan 25, 2004)

DMFTodd

 At this point it just seems like your badgering people. Please let this drop.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 25, 2004)

Vpenman said:
			
		

> Of course what I actually said was  "You have stolen a person's labor, ideas, and creativity."
> 
> Let's say you have a job. Pretty much each weekday you work at that job. You do that not because you would rather be working than doing anything else you could do.  You do that because you need to work to earn an honest living.
> 
> ...





If you will read my posts, I never said it was't immoral, though morality varies by culture, and as such, cannot be legislated.  At least our government has said such.  I notice, you, however, must be much more wise than our founding fathers, so it's quite all right for you to do so.

I also never said it wasn't wrong.  In fact, I said piracy was illegal and the perpretrator should be prosecuted for it.

And what is it with you and my nick on the boards?  Everyone uses a nickname on message boards, yet you single me out to complain that I am "hiding."  If you will kindly email me, I will provide you with my name, address, and a urine sample, if you like.  My email is in my profile.


----------

