Special Announcement - Kickstarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrawlingChaox

So, way to prove his point?

I mean, we're all free to disagree on so many levels (from the degree of the potential harm to the proposed solutions) that there is really no need for false equivalencies such as this one.

---

First off, how do you know who I am replying to? I'm replying to the argument.

It's not a false equivalency. At least my argument isn't. The entire "In real life the DM can bring his books to another person's house and let them borrow them. SO, we should be able to do the same with FG!" argument is a ridiculous argument.

You're free to take your computer with your FG license on it, and lug it to your buddies house a continent away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrawlingChaox

A cautionary tale (such as "if you go in the woods, a wolf will eat you") isn't necessarily a threat. Even though I don't agree with his take, I don't need to misrepresent it so blatantly.

---

Oh please, give me a break. Cautionary tale. Oh yeah, The internet is dark and full of Terrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

First off, how do you know who I am replying to? I'm replying to the argument.

It's not a false equivalency. At least my argument isn't. The entire "In real life the DM can bring his books to another person's house and let them borrow them. SO, we should be able to do the same with FG!" argument is a ridiculous argument.

You're free to take your computer with your FG license on it, and lug it to your buddies house a continent away.



Oh please, give me a break. Cautionary tale. Oh yeah, The internet is dark and full of Terrors.

---

Someone who’s so keen to dismiss other people’s claims should make more of an effort to understand them. Otherwise, you’ll be grasping at straws. Let me help with that.

Your false equivalency isn’t in the argument (or in the counter-argument) that we should be able to do digitally what we can do with physical products—as I said, that’s not a given, but it’s not an unreasonable thing to discuss either. It’s in you equating someone who’s describing an hypothetical event (“people could resort to piracy if...”) to a threat, which makes absolutely no sense. You’re looking for witches to burn where there’s none, in much the same way that you’re (willingly?) mistaking the genre I mentioned for the content.

We can all discuss this stuff and disagree, we can try to be heard or we can support the current state of things, but we should be better than this. Lowering the level of the discussion doesn’t help the FG community and doesn’t help SmiteWorks.

The simple fact of the matter is that other companies own the copyright to the various materials, and SmiteWorks has contracts with these other companies that specify what can and cannot be done with the intellectual property of the copyright holders. No amount of discussion will change this fact.

As I said before, the capabilities of sharing IP belonging to WotC or Paizo et al has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with a license Contract(s) between SW and the publisher. Those contracts could say anything. They could have very specific technical descriptions or they could be totally devoid of enforceable details.

And, as I also said before, the community can voice their opinion and desires to SmiteWorks, And SW has asked us to do that via the Wishlist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

As I said before, the capabilities of sharing IP belonging to WotC or Paizo et al has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with a license Contract(s) between SW and the publisher. Those contracts could say anything. They could have very specific technical descriptions or they could be totally devoid of enforceable details.

And, as I also said before, the community can voice their opinion and desires to SmiteWorks, And SW has asked us to do that via the Wishlist.

---

Yep its all about the agreements they have. Im sure Smiteworks wouldnt mind the idea of allowing a system where a person can share the DM rights to another person; but in the end WOTC and PAZIO probably said "No" and they own the IP, so if they wont let Smiteworks do it; then they cant do it. Its deal they made. As LordEntrails said its all about the contract

I would assume if you bought the PDF of a adventure path for a live table game and emailed the PDF to another person for them to run this would too be contrary to the user agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willot

Yep its all about the agreements they have. Im sure Smiteworks wouldnt mind the idea of allowing a system where a person can share the DM rights to another person; but in the end WOTC and PAZIO probably said "No" and they own the IP, so if they wont let Smiteworks do it; then they cant do it. Its deal they made. As LordEntrails said its all about the contract

I would assume if you bought the PDF of a adventure path for a live table game and emailed the PDF to another person for them to run this would too be contrary to the user agreement.

---

I don't think we've seen a response from Smiteworks on this, so isn't this just speculation, as their contractual agreements aren't public knowledge?

And I do believe that PDF could be viewed on a shared screen just fine. I haven't transferred ownership of it or distributed it to anyone . I haven't sold it to anyone. They are able to view it for the duration that I allow it to be viewed. I can't stop them from taking a screenshot or taking a picture with a camera, but that is on them.

The whole FG system architecture and permissions is built around the Host Computer and the GM and the Content being at the same table.
SW have stated that they like the idea but they have many, many higher priorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damned

The whole FG system architecture and permissions is built around the Host Computer and the GM and the Content being at the same table.
SW have stated that they like the idea but they have many, many higher priorities.

---

Thanks for the damned reply ;)

Sharing DM responsibilities is something that has merit as a request but is not an easy item to address given our current architecture. That is the major stumbling block even before we get to any concerns over licensing. We'd prefer not to have a back and forth discussion about what is or is not "fair use" with regard to copyright. Those discussions always seem to turn into mini-flame wars.

[QUOTE=ddavison;452935...Those discussions always seem to turn into mini-flame wars.[/QUOTE]

Darn and I was about to dig out my Elon Musk Not-A-Flamethrower:(