Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peterstepon

Core book PDF

Recommended Posts

 

If I remember my FLGS owner has a contact at FFG that mentioned something to the effect that a different company, possibly Electronic Arts but that could be way off base, had an exclusivity clause for producing digital media.  I believe it goes back to the X-Wing games? Suffice it to say that online PDF sales weren't really a consideration at the time, but given the changes in information sharing... I'm not certain disney will even actively DO anything with the LFL companies, they aren't exactly broke, so why "fix" them.

 

I personally would love an electronic copy of the rules.  I've already purchased 2 copies of the core book, and am loathe to shell out another $40-$60 (american).

 

 

Indeed, Electronic Arts currently owns the licence for electronic games, which generally covers computer games, but also technically covers paid-for digital copies of RPGs, hence why WotC were never allowed, and that doesn't seem to have changed, as it would require a renegotiation with EA, and why would they willingly give up a right unless they got something in return? Even if they don't make paid-for PDFs, it's one more thing they could do if they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How unlikely would it be for FFG to cut a partnership with EA. If EA allows the PDFs with their brand on it and only gets a small cut, they are effectively getting something for nothing. FFG can likewise only profit at this point from such a deal, even if they share a cut with EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How unlikely would it be for FFG to cut a partnership with EA. If EA allows the PDFs with their brand on it and only gets a small cut, they are effectively getting something for nothing. FFG can likewise only profit at this point from such a deal, even if they share a cut with EA.

I very much doubt that's allowed, as that would amount to sub-licensing, which most licensing contracts explicitly disallow. It's because it means a company with a licence could then give a licence to another company for an IP they don't own, and profit from such an agreement, rather than the company who owns the IP profiting.

 

So yea, I'm 99.9999% sure that legally can't happen, unless Lucas Licensing screwed up big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my FLGS owner has a contact at FFG that mentioned something to the effect that a different company, possibly Electronic Arts but that could be way off base, had an exclusivity clause for producing digital media.  I believe it goes back to the X-Wing games? Suffice it to say that online PDF sales weren't really a consideration at the time, but given the changes in information sharing... I'm not certain disney will even actively DO anything with the LFL companies, they aren't exactly broke, so why "fix" them.

 

Now, mind you this was many many moons and several companys ago, but I had a friend who worked at WEG when they had the liscense. In their Adventure Journals, they ran a short 2 or so page comic strip for a couple of issues - until Dark Horse got angry and put a kibosh on the piece. Has this changed over the years? No idea -  but yeah, Star Wars rights are (well, were) pretty compartmentalized and territorial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the court has ruled about a seven years ago, that something in your cache files is not the same as intentionally downloading.

To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court is about as close as we in the U.S. get to having a court that can generally be considered "the court" in terms of its rulings controlling across the country. If I'm looking at the case you were talking about, Pennsylvania v. Diodoro, then that was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, interpreting a particular Pennsylvania law and has not binding authority in any other state. What's more, that case, which I linked above held that mere viewing can be sufficient to violate the statute if the defendant views intentionally.

This was a case regarding specifically the topic listed above in which a person was sent a link to a site that contained illegal porn, and at the same time the police were informed that the individual collected illegal porn.

I think you may be confusing two cases. The case you named states that the Defendant admitted he had been searching for the images in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaargh.  Why does this thread persist?

 

Yes, there is a lot of legal difficulties, disagreements, and philosophical differences.

 

Can we please let this thread die until they change their mind?

 

Please...I beg of you all.

 

:unsure:  :wacko:  :mellow:  :huh:  <_<  :unsure:  :wacko:  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how long it will be until FFG can have a resource like Paizo does for Pathfinder.  The Pathfinder PRD is an invaluable resource that I use a lot!!!  Having a tool like that for EotE would be amazing!  Though I'm not sure that FFG has the same vision for their games as Paizo, I'd still love to see an equivilent resource.  Until such a point where we have our own EotE-RD, a PDF would be wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how long it will be until FFG can have a resource like Paizo does for Pathfinder.  The Pathfinder PRD is an invaluable resource that I use a lot!!!  Having a tool like that for EotE would be amazing!  Though I'm not sure that FFG has the same vision for their games as Paizo, I'd still love to see an equivilent resource.  Until such a point where we have our own EotE-RD, a PDF would be wonderful.

Won't happen. Since Pathfinder is based on 3.5 which was an open resource, they can do it. FFG's game is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was a case regarding specifically the topic listed above in which a person was sent a link to a site that contained illegal porn, and at the same time the police were informed that the individual collected illegal porn.

I think you may be confusing two cases. The case you named states that the Defendant admitted he had been searching for the images in question.

 

 

It is definitely possible that I am mis-remembering the details of this case and confusing it with another in which that happened, I admittedly didn't research the detail before the claim, I just remember a very similar case with that happening and recalled the name of this one :)

I suppose FFG can send its army of lawyers my way if they wish ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually the court has ruled about a seven years ago, that something in your cache files is not the same as intentionally downloading.

To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court is about as close as we in the U.S. get to having a court that can generally be considered "the court" in terms of its rulings controlling across the country. If I'm looking at the case you were talking about, Pennsylvania v. Diodoro, then that was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, interpreting a particular Pennsylvania law and has not binding authority in any other state. What's more, that case, which I linked above held that mere viewing can be sufficient to violate the statute if the defendant views intentionally.

This was a case regarding specifically the topic listed above in which a person was sent a link to a site that contained illegal porn, and at the same time the police were informed that the individual collected illegal porn.

I think you may be confusing two cases. The case you named states that the Defendant admitted he had been searching for the images in question.

 

That's exactly what I thought - so it has absolutely zero application to copyright infringement, and therefore entirely irrelevant to this situation.

 

So yea, just loading up copyright work to your browser intentionally is copyright infringement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually the court has ruled about a seven years ago, that something in your cache files is not the same as intentionally downloading.

To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court is about as close as we in the U.S. get to having a court that can generally be considered "the court" in terms of its rulings controlling across the country. If I'm looking at the case you were talking about, Pennsylvania v. Diodoro, then that was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, interpreting a particular Pennsylvania law and has not binding authority in any other state. What's more, that case, which I linked above held that mere viewing can be sufficient to violate the statute if the defendant views intentionally.

This was a case regarding specifically the topic listed above in which a person was sent a link to a site that contained illegal porn, and at the same time the police were informed that the individual collected illegal porn.

I think you may be confusing two cases. The case you named states that the Defendant admitted he had been searching for the images in question.

 

That's exactly what I thought - so it has absolutely zero application to copyright infringement, and therefore entirely irrelevant to this situation.

 

So yea, just loading up copyright work to your browser intentionally is copyright infringement.

 

It isn't completely irrelevant, and again, they are welcome to send their lawyers, I am happy to fight that case ;)

Case precedent in the court states knowingly looking something up illegal or not, is *not* illegal. Intentionally accessing and keeping the information or intentionally trying to delete and hide your tracks knowing you are doing it for the sole purpose of covering that single crime can be illegal. In this case, none of the above applies to me, nor anyone else that decides to look at the file online. In fact you offer yourself protection by *not* clearing your cache after viewing something that is questionable, such as copyrighted works in your browser.

Edited by Valdier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how long it will be until FFG can have a resource like Paizo does for Pathfinder.  The Pathfinder PRD is an invaluable resource that I use a lot!!!  Having a tool like that for EotE would be amazing!  Though I'm not sure that FFG has the same vision for their games as Paizo, I'd still love to see an equivilent resource.  Until such a point where we have our own EotE-RD, a PDF would be wonderful.

 

There's actually a lot of stuff FFG could do to better support its RPGs digitally. I love the studio dearly, as they make pretty much all of my favorite games, but I can't deny that they seem to be a bit behind the times with regard to digital support for their games. Pathfinder has that wonderful PRD< and I use HeroLab to manage my character, which is a fantastic and versatile utility.
 
Now, perhaps the contract language with LFL prevents them from doing these things for Edge of the Empire, but what about Fireborn, Grimm, and Anima? 
 
I hope to ask this at GenCon, if I can get a moment with Christian. There is so much cool stuff FFG could do to digitally support its games. I hope they are at least considering it. Perhaps it's just not worth the investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually the court has ruled about a seven years ago, that something in your cache files is not the same as intentionally downloading.

To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court is about as close as we in the U.S. get to having a court that can generally be considered "the court" in terms of its rulings controlling across the country. If I'm looking at the case you were talking about, Pennsylvania v. Diodoro, then that was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, interpreting a particular Pennsylvania law and has not binding authority in any other state. What's more, that case, which I linked above held that mere viewing can be sufficient to violate the statute if the defendant views intentionally.

This was a case regarding specifically the topic listed above in which a person was sent a link to a site that contained illegal porn, and at the same time the police were informed that the individual collected illegal porn.

I think you may be confusing two cases. The case you named states that the Defendant admitted he had been searching for the images in question.

 

That's exactly what I thought - so it has absolutely zero application to copyright infringement, and therefore entirely irrelevant to this situation.

 

So yea, just loading up copyright work to your browser intentionally is copyright infringement.

 

It isn't completely irrelevant, and again, they are welcome to send their lawyers, I am happy to fight that case ;)

Case precedent in the court states knowingly looking something up illegal or not, is *not* illegal. Intentionally accessing and keeping the information or intentionally trying to delete and hide your tracks knowing you are doing it for the sole purpose of covering that single crime can be illegal. In this case, none of the above applies to me, nor anyone else that decides to look at the file online. In fact you offer yourself protection by *not* clearing your cache after viewing something that is questionable, such as copyrighted works in your browser.

 

 

Except that that would mean streaming pirated films wouldn't be illegal, as you are intentionally accessing it, but not keeping it, and that's incorrect, it is illegal to access streamed content in breach of copyright. That case also wasn't fought on the basis of copyright, it was based on illegal porn, and so I would argue the validity of that case in regards to copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making a moral judgement on any of it, I'm purely talking about the law regarding it.

 

You don't need to read or post in a thread you don't like if you don't want to, no one is forcing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should just ask Disney how they feel about viewing the scanned pdf?

 

tips@disneyantipiracy.com

How Disney feels is immaterial.

 

What the law allows is quite different - and Disney's videos have unenforceable claims, blocking even format shifting, which is explicitly allowed under federal regulations within the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps we should just ask Disney how they feel about viewing the scanned pdf?

 

tips@disneyantipiracy.com

How Disney feels is immaterial.right

 

What the law allows is quite different - and Disney's videos have unenforceable claims, blocking even format shifting, which is explicitly allowed under federal regulations within the US.

 

Disney could always request that FFG take action to defend the copyright. At the least, banning users from the forums that publicly announce that they are viewing illegal scans. Disney might even want contact information forwarded to them of such individiuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on Amazon the core book is about $50.00 which is a reasonable price for yet another trophy on my bookshelf.

 

Still, buying all this stuff on dead trees seems so...barbaric.  I am really getting into the PDF format for many of my books and it just seems like the next step in our evolution as human beings.

 

Another thing I wanted to ask you guys about.  I thought that Wizards of the Coast were feeling the same way for a long time about people downloading their stuff illegally.  For many years they took their products off of Drivethrurpg when suddenly BOOM, D&D products are appearing on drivethrurpg.com like crazy.  My impression is that they held out, realized that they could not win against the march of progress, and embraced the future by going PDF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how long it will be until FFG can have a resource like Paizo does for Pathfinder.  The Pathfinder PRD is an invaluable resource that I use a lot!!!  Having a tool like that for EotE would be amazing!  Though I'm not sure that FFG has the same vision for their games as Paizo, I'd still love to see an equivilent resource.  Until such a point where we have our own EotE-RD, a PDF would be wonderful.

Even if they eventually get rights to do PDF's this will never happen.  Pathfinder uses an open license engine, and owns all the source and background material themselves, so they can do whatever they want with it.  I don't know about their other titles, but with EotE Fantasy Flight has to run everything they want to publish by the Lucas, and I don't see Lucas anytime in the near future allowing an open website with all the rules.

 

Working with Licensed materials is much trickier.  I had aquaintences who worked at WotC, and they said Lucas was a huge pain to work with, and wouldn't let them create a lot of original material they wanted to.

Edited by Split Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...