FFG chose to except a deal that didn't include PDFs so they have to deal with it. However, I am not saying they did the wrong thing.

WotC took the exact same deal, and had the exact same problems throughout their entire run, from OCR all the way up to the end of Saga Edition.

For FFG, it may have come down to "do we take the licensing deal with no options for PDFs, or do we pass on one of the hotter licensed properties on the market?" Given how many other companies were chomping at the bit to snag the license once WotC announced they no longer had it, it'd call that a pretty easy question to answer.

But again, constantly bitching and belly-aching serves no purpose other than to clutter up the forum with useless noise.

When the answer changes, FFG will let us know. They were pretty **** quick to let the community know that the core rulebook was going to be delayed to the first week of July, so I'd be surprised if they didn't post a huge news announcement should they get the approval to start selling PDFs.

As for market demand, they know, as they've undoubtedly done plenty of market research that goes well beyond a few folks belly-aching on a message board about the current lack of PDFs of the core rulebooks.

I understand there were probably in a position to take a deal with PDFs or not do a deal and I probably would have made the same choice as them, but that is not my problem.

You can try to be insulting all you want by saying that I am "bitching: or "belly-aching" or whatever, but the simple fact is if you don't care for these discussions then you probably shouldn't click on a thread labeled "PDF."

There is no discussion. The question has been asked and answered. Many times in many threads. There will be no pdfs until there are pdfs. As simple as that. FFG is well aware they could sell pdfs. When or if they can they will.

I'm honestly not sure I could say it any better, Donovan, though I'd add that I believe Lucas Arts have never allowed paid-for PDFs of any of their RPG properties, even before Saga Edition. It appears to have never been on the table.

That's due more to Lucasfilm as an entity considering PDFs to fall under "electronic entertainment media" and thus be a purview of LucasArts. I'm sure both WotC and FFG tried every counter-argument they could muster to convince Lucasilm Licensing otherwise, but obviously to no avail. As mentioned in one of these threads (too **** many of them), the only reason that WotC was able to offer any PDF support on their webpage (and FFG likely the same) was through a contractual loophole that declared those free PDFs to be "support material for the physical copies of the RPG products."

That is basically the case, yes. By it falling under "electronic entertainment media", it therefore falls under the licence for Star Wars computer games, etc. In order to allow FFG to have paid-for PDFs, Lucas would have also had to have renegotiated with whoever held the computer game licence for Star Wars at the time in order to free it up to give to FFG.

I was saying things and other people were saying things back and then I said something else . . . sounds like a discussion to me.

I do want to thank everyone in this thread in helping to keep the topic at the top of page 1 for a little while. Us pro-PDF people appreciate the help.

In order to allow FFG to have paid-for PDFs, Lucas would have also had to have renegotiated with whoever held the computer game licence for Star Wars at the time in order to free it up to give to FFG.

Didn't LFL just do a new video game deal with EA?

In order to allow FFG to have paid-for PDFs, Lucas would have also had to have renegotiated with whoever held the computer game licence for Star Wars at the time in order to free it up to give to FFG.

Didn't LFL just do a new video game deal with EA?

It might have renewed their old deal, since it was already with Bioware/EA.

I was saying things and other people were saying things back and then I said something else . . . sounds like a discussion to me.

I do want to thank everyone in this thread in helping to keep the topic at the top of page 1 for a little while. Us pro-PDF people appreciate the help.

Except it doesn't help really - FFG already know there is a demand, they're asked at every opportunity. Continuously posting on the forum about it (especially when they very rarely read the forum) isn't going to help or change anything.

Also, don't try to split it into pro and anti-PDF. I would love a PDF, I just know it almost certainly will never happen, or if it does, I'm sure it won't be within this year.

You don't know if these threads help or not. Neither you nor I are in the room when these discussions happen. I think they could help (just my belief since I can't say for sure either) but at worst they don't hurt the chances of PDFs.

I was just messing with your guys on the pro/anti-PDF thing. I know we all (or most of us at least) want them.

The other issue that haven't been raised, is that some other company might have the license for "electronic entertainment media", and changing the contract for FFG, may also mean that Disney also have to re-negotiate with the 3rd company

If you want a PDF that bad, buy an extra copy of the book, buy an OCR scanner, get a razor blade, and cut out the pages, and scan them, front and back, one at a time. Poof, searchable PDF!

The other issue that haven't been raised, is that some other company might have the license for "electronic entertainment media", and changing the contract for FFG, may also mean that Disney also have to re-negotiate with the 3rd company

*points to post 28*

If you want a PDF that bad, buy an extra copy of the book, buy an OCR scanner, get a razor blade, and cut out the pages, and scan them, front and back, one at a time. Poof, searchable PDF!

Yea.... no, that's still illegal, and committing both a criminal and civil offence by doing it (depending on jurisdiction).

Plus it's a hell of a lot of work.

If you want a PDF that bad, buy an extra copy of the book, buy an OCR scanner, get a razor blade, and cut out the pages, and scan them, front and back, one at a time. Poof, searchable PDF!

Yea.... no, that's still illegal, and committing both a criminal and civil offence by doing it (depending on jurisdiction).

Plus it's a hell of a lot of work.

Actually, as long as you're not throwing that PDF up on a torrent or handing it out, it'd likely fall under Fair Use. Making personal back ups is legal for every other form of media..what makes you think print is any different?

Actually, as long as you're not throwing that PDF up on a torrent or handing it out, it'd likely fall under Fair Use. Making personal back ups is legal for every other form of media..what makes you think print is any different?

Actually it most likely would not fall under Fair Use.

A little on Fair Use, since a lot of people toss that term around quite a bit with out ever really knowing much about it.

Fair Use covers 1) Criticism and Commentary 2) Parody 3) News Reporting 4) Scholarship/Research 5) Art (when used transformative and/or as commentary) 6) Time Shifting 7) Search Engines.

What you are talking about would be creating a new work wholly off an existing one, and that would not fall under fair use.

Your odds of getting caught if you keep it to yourself is pretty slim, but most people would hand them out and then your homemade pdf would find its way most likely online via a torrent site or something similar.

Actually, as long as you're not throwing that PDF up on a torrent or handing it out, it'd likely fall under Fair Use. Making personal back ups is legal for every other form of media..what makes you think print is any different?

Actually it most likely would not fall under Fair Use.

A little on Fair Use, since a lot of people toss that term around quite a bit with out ever really knowing much about it.

Fair Use covers 1) Criticism and Commentary 2) Parody 3) News Reporting 4) Scholarship/Research 5) Art (when used transformative and/or as commentary) 6) Time Shifting 7) Search Engines.

What you are talking about would be creating a new work wholly off an existing one, and that would not fall under fair use.

Your odds of getting caught if you keep it to yourself is pretty slim, but most people would hand them out and then your homemade pdf would find its way most likely online via a torrent site or something similar.

Basically this (coming from a person with a Masters in Law, with a thesis on copyright law and piracy) - it'd end up online guaranteed unless you kept it solely to yourself, and even if it didn't, it's still illegal.

Actually, as long as you're not throwing that PDF up on a torrent or handing it out, it'd likely fall under Fair Use. Making personal back ups is legal for every other form of media..what makes you think print is any different?

Actually it most likely would not fall under Fair Use.

A little on Fair Use, since a lot of people toss that term around quite a bit with out ever really knowing much about it.

Fair Use covers 1) Criticism and Commentary 2) Parody 3) News Reporting 4) Scholarship/Research 5) Art (when used transformative and/or as commentary) 6) Time Shifting 7) Search Engines.

What you are talking about would be creating a new work wholly off an existing one, and that would not fall under fair use.

Your odds of getting caught if you keep it to yourself is pretty slim, but most people would hand them out and then your homemade pdf would find its way most likely online via a torrent site or something similar.

Actually, I do understand Fair Use, and given that it covers the ability to make copies for Time Shifting (450-page book vs an easily portable pdf that can be read easily on a commute?) or educational purposes (for which you're actually allowed to make multiple copies and distribute them) seems to give a lot of room for a defense. Especially since Fair Use has been made clear to not be limited to just those things--those are just basic guidelines, and even things that follow all 4 of the determining factors can still be considered not Fair Use.

On top of that (though outside of Fair Use), you've got the Audio Recording Act that allows for the backup of music, which, while not print is still an example of being able to convert something into a different form for storage purposes.

Aaand on top of that, there is actually a business that has been operating in the US for about 2 years (and in Japan for longer than that) which is based on you sending in physical books, them OCR-scanning them, and then destroying the physical copy once they send you a pdf file. This company has also gotten a lot of press attention, so it isn't like they're super tiny and just slipped under the radar (there are actually quite a few companies that sprung up because of their success).

The fact is, its just something that is too recent a development to have had a Supreme Court Case rule definitively. But as it stands, it is legal to record shows, to copy movies you own, to take pictures of pictures, and to make backups of music. Essentially every form of media that is tried, becomes legal to back up and store for personal use so long as you legally own it. To talk as if print is somehow different seems a bit silly--the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of consumers time and time again, and making text the only exception to the legality of personal backups is so highly unlikely that I can't even imagine how you're arguing it.

With all you typed there you proved you have no grasp on what Fair Use actually is. So lets dissect everything you have put up there.

Actually, I do understand Fair Use, and given that it covers the ability to make copies for Time Shifting (450-page book vs an easily portable pdf that can be read easily on a commute?) or educational purposes (for which you're actually allowed to make multiple copies and distribute them) seems to give a lot of room for a defense. Especially since Fair Use has been made clear to not be limited to just those things--those are just basic guidelines, and even things that follow all 4 of the determining factors can still be considered not Fair Use.

On top of that (though outside of Fair Use), you've got the Audio Recording Act that allows for the backup of music, which, while not print is still an example of being able to convert something into a different form for storage purposes.

Lets start off with you lack of understanding on what Time Shifting is. It does not cover printed materials and put into a pdf or any digital format. It covers the recording of programming to a digital medium to be used at a later and more convenient time. The big stickler on this is that it is for personal, non commercial home use. So you can't use that as a valid argument or defense in court.

Next lets look at your entire "educational purposes" idea. You are not meeting the requirement for teaching in any level of an educational facility, nor are you doing it for the purposes of study, research, interlibrary exchange or archival preservation. Believe it or not there is actually governmental guidelines on the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes. Plus it would be nearly impossible to argue EotE or any RPG for that matter as educational.

The Audio Recording Act has no bearing on this what so ever, so you are pulling out something non-related to pursue an argument of fallacy.

Aaand on top of that, there is actually a business that has been operating in the US for about 2 years (and in Japan for longer than that) which is based on you sending in physical books, them OCR-scanning them, and then destroying the physical copy once they send you a pdf file. This company has also gotten a lot of press attention, so it isn't like they're super tiny and just slipped under the radar (there are actually quite a few companies that sprung up because of their success).

The fact is, its just something that is too recent a development to have had a Supreme Court Case rule definitively. But as it stands, it is legal to record shows, to copy movies you own, to take pictures of pictures, and to make backups of music. Essentially every form of media that is tried, becomes legal to back up and store for personal use so long as you legally own it. To talk as if print is somehow different seems a bit silly--the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of consumers time and time again, and making text the only exception to the legality of personal backups is so highly unlikely that I can't even imagine how you're arguing it.

Those companies are in fact facing several lawsuits for doing that. First of all they are copying a lot of copyrighted materials, some of which contains art that is illegal to reproduce baring permission of those who own said art. You can have it OCR scanned as long as you get the correct permissions from those who own said properties in the book.

Actually it is illegal to copy movies that you own. Since DVD's and Blu-Rays are released copy protected (which is every one you will find in a store or online store), and thus in the United States and some other countries it is illegal to do so. In order to copy something from DVD and Blu-Ray means that you have had to crack it. So the second you rip it you are breaking the DRM which is covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For your reference the information if found in Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C.1201 which prevents the circumvention of DRM.

As for your taking pictures of pictures, there are a lot of laws involved, so that can be yes and no depending on several situations.

If you don't have a grasp you should probably contact a lawyer or law professor that specializes in patents and copyright law to explain things to you.

The thing is that this book, and most rpgs, cover a lot of copyrighted material that would make it extremely hard to argue fair use. You have the licence to contend with, the original gaming system created at FFG, the art. Plus there is the potential debate of is it a game or a book.

What you should really do if you want to OCR it, is to contact FFG and get their permission to do so and avoid any legal issues.

But I will let you know this. If a scanned copy appears online, it will be easy to assume you might be the party responsible for doing that since you seem intent on finding any way to justify making your own home made pdf of it.

Now should there have been a pdf they released? Sure, but its not worth complaining about endlessly on forums. There are things involved in this we have no clue on. Could be apart of the agreement, a decision on FFGs part, etc. Again it would be better to voice those concerns directly to FFG in an email, letter or phone call as they do not really check these forums.

You said it more eloquently than I could have, DeadInk, but you have the right of it. Legally, there is no right for a person to scan in a copy of a book and make a PDF from the images just for the sake of convenience.

Clearly you didn't actually understand what I'm saying. I fully realize that Time Shifting is for programs, radio shows, and podcasts. And I also fully understand that Audio Recording Act is not Fair Use (look, it even says it right there!) and that I'm not using it for educational purposes. What I was saying is that, as there is no ruling on the backup of text, those things are examples of how every other form of media can be copied for various purposes. It all has bearing because they are similar situations, and if you don't think that means anything in a court of law.. well, sorry? But it does.

And nope, no lawsuits against 1dollarscan. The Author's Guild is a bit uppity...but given that they've done nothing, I think that says something.

And in regards to the movie copy protection thing.. considering how the EU has recently ruled on DRM in games, just because a company puts protection on their stuff doesn't necessarily mean much. Things are changing.

The digital age is rushing ahead like a bullet train, and you seem to be caught up in an era that's coming to an end.

You can keep saying that digitizing a book is illegal, but you haven't actually provided any proof or example, whereas I've provided plenty of precedence for media being copyable.

As for threatening me, ha. Because I made a joke that someone could go through a MOUNTAIN of work to create a PDF, I must be doing it myself? Give me a break and get off your high horse. I can defend the legal grey area all I want and not be considered a criminal. But thanks for making me laugh.

Steve can't say anything about PDFs until FFG is ready to announce it (assuming there is anything to announce). The answer he gave wasn't important. The question being asked is important.

And when they can give an answer, they'll give it.

Constantly pitching a hissy fit over this issue when it's pretty **** clear that FFG is well aware of the customer base wanting PDFs accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Re-negotiating a contract can take several months. So it's not like threads like this whining about "I want PDFs of these books!" isn't going to change anything.

Dono, I don't see anyone here 'pitching a hissy fit'. At least not in this thread so far.

Inksplat,

First off I didn't levy any threat, I just stated the obvious based upon things you have posted. Its called circumstantial evidence, which is actually the most damning type of evidence out there. Perhaps you should learn what a really constitutes a threat. If you think you can get away with it try it and get them to bring you to court so you can prove that you are in the right.

Okay those scanning sites as I have said before are facing pending lawsuits.

As for your entire digital age statement, you are further from the truth then you even realize. Just because something is digital doesn't take it change how laws work.

The EU case of DRM and games has nothing to do with making copies of it. It has to do with the ability to resell a downloadable games and movies. I have never supported the used game market for how shady and crappy it is. So not going to go into that rant. You ever notice how Steam and other sites get away with selling new games 10 to 20 dollars cheaper? Or the insane Steam sales of games for five to 10 dollars? It was because of the DRM and lack of resale. That will change if the EU ruling takes hold in other countries. Or the EU could end up reversing their decision. Once again the EU ruling has to do with resale, not copying/ripping a game or movie. Referencing a case from the EU has no bearing here in the US.

The problem with a lot of these things is that Consumer rights are outweighing the rights of the copyright holders and companies. I will not be surprised if one day I wake up and something I enjoy doesn't exist anymore because of this. But I fully expect for courts to start overturning past rulings as the digital age moves on.

As for providing proof, copyright law and cases pertaining to it are quite numerous and would take to long to list. Now if you want me to show you how bad piracy is, and affects things, that will be easy to show. That will be the lynch pin that will end up changing things.

There will be a PDF - sadly FFG won't get any money from it. I hope the new owners of SW have more common sense :-)

There will be a PDF - sadly FFG won't get any money from it. I hope the new owners of SW have more common sense :-)

You expect the Mouse House to have common sense? I doubt they'll change much, if anything.

There will be a PDF - sadly FFG won't get any money from it. I hope the new owners of SW have more common sense :-)

You expect the Mouse House to have common sense? I doubt they'll change much, if anything.

In time they will most likely change any future agreements to the same as any other they make. Sadly this may ( most likly will) have zero effects on agreements made before they purchased the company.

There will be a PDF - sadly FFG won't get any money from it. I hope the new owners of SW have more common sense :-)

You expect the Mouse House to have common sense? I doubt they'll change much, if anything.

In time they will most likely change any future agreements to the same as any other they make. Sadly this may ( most likly will) have zero effects on agreements made before they purchased the company.

That was basically the jist of what I meant, yea. Disney'll probably just stick with the current licence, and, if I was involved, I'd not want to rock the boat, in case they just canned the whole licence (like they did with the Marvel RPG).

There will be a PDF - sadly FFG won't get any money from it. I hope the new owners of SW have more common sense :-)

You expect the Mouse House to have common sense? I doubt they'll change much, if anything.

In time they will most likely change any future agreements to the same as any other they make. Sadly this may ( most likly will) have zero effects on agreements made before they purchased the company.

That was basically the jist of what I meant, yea. Disney'll probably just stick with the current licence, and, if I was involved, I'd not want to rock the boat, in case they just canned the whole licence (like they did with the Marvel RPG).

Agreed, if FFG gets a chance to renew it later or Disney brings it up, sure. But I, myself would also be happy with what i have and not go and wake up the dragon to see if it wants to talk