WotC puts a stop to online sales of PDFs

mach1.9pants · Apr 8, 2009

Mouseferatu said:
To be fair, if it was a requirement for the lawsuit, they might not be able to reveal that fact.

I suppose I don't know the legal ins and outs. However I would drop a lawsuit against 8 people (3 of which are John Does) like a hot stone to stop the bad press they are getting at the moment.

ps the elf ~~monk~~ martial artist is doing great IMC

weem · Apr 8, 2009

Trevor (WoTC) posted this over on those forums earlier...

(this is a snippet, read post here)...

...I don't feel like you guys are attacking me when I come in and try to make sure the information is flowing, and I understand how frustrating this has been on some of you. I expect to get entrenched with how you all feel about this issue and any other issue that affects D&D, and I expect some people will want to vent at me personally. Just part of the job.

That being said, I do want to remind everyone that I am paying very close attention to this conversation and passing on this feedback on a frequent basis to the rest of the company. Please don't feel like you're not being listened to or heard because that's just now the case.

*Emphasis mine*

I know it's a typo, but it just made me lol.

Sorry Trevor, I do appreciate the updates and can understand your position, it was just a funny typo is all

Jeff Wilder · Apr 8, 2009

Mouseferatu said:
To be fair, if it was a requirement for the lawsuit, they might not be able to reveal that fact.

I can't think of any legal reason for WotC to need to remove PDFs. I don't know much about IP law, but statutes and common law tend to have similar underlying rationales, and those rationales don't seem to apply here. (For example, contract law's requirement to mitigate damages doesn't fit.)

I realize people are only speculating about WotC doing this for legal reasons, but what rationales are people assuming?

Edena_of_Neith · Apr 8, 2009

I meant to say, that metaphorically, the Tale of Turin Turambar has been played out. I won't go any further on this, except to say it is a sad affair (just like the story was very sad.)

-

There were only a limited number of ways that a New Player in D&D *could* access OD&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and 3rd Edition products:

1: He could find them in a used bookstore or comic book store that sold old collectables.
2: He could buy the product on e-bay, searching under D&D and Older Products.
3: He could buy it from online gaming stores that sold old products.
4: He could access it online, downloading it for a fee (or, in some cases, for free.)

Option 4 was just deleted, indefinitely.

Options 1, 2, and 3 are often used by us, the Old Timers. We remember the old game, and we actively search for the old products. The old products have meaning for us.
Option 4 was the only viable option for anyone new to the game.

Those new to the game, those casually entering the game for the first time, are not going to employ options 1, 2, and 3.
They are going to buy from bookstores, from gaming stores, and from online sources. And these sources, cut off from selling older material, will sell only new material.
Those new to the Hobby, will never see the older editions.

Effectively, the older editions are being erased. Just erased. Their memory will live on only within us, the Old Timers.

Or, until the rights to the old editions are released, and someone (WOTC or otherwise) decides to place the great library of What Once Was back on the Internet.

Dausuul · Apr 8, 2009

One hopes they are noticing there is virtually no support for this decision, even from the people like me who normally give WotC the benefit of the doubt.

Krensky · Apr 8, 2009

JohnRTroy said:
This, to me, is a clear case that the US Government, both Congressional and Judicial branches, consider the term theft to be an accurate description--or at least an accepted colloquialism--of copyright infringement.

I don't know... To me it's more of a case that Congress has been giving bad laws stupid names that make cute or catchy acronyms for over a decade.

mach1.9pants · Apr 8, 2009

@Edena, I see what you are saying. I just think that will reduce the number of people picking DnD fullstop. Not by much, I guess but it is just as anti new 4E players as it is anti new older DnD players. Anyone who wants to start playing DnD using the (generally cheaper) method of getting PDF rules will have to start on something other than DnD. Everyone loses.

SteveC · Apr 8, 2009

For me, the single biggest issue is the lack of communication on WotC's part. If you take a look at the Wizard's boards, you see a very put-upon Trevor trying to let people know he's passing information up, but doesn't have anything to report back. I don't envy his job at all. Hang in there!

WotC has people who work PR for them. A decision like this needed to be explained up front, even if that explanation was "we're doing this because of litigation, and we can't comment on it more than that." The less than 24 hour notice on it, and all of the notice coming from RPGNOW and Paizo was incredibly unprofessional.

I have purchased a few PDFs from WotC, older edition stuff, and I would have liked to get another crack at downloading it to archive, but that's small potatos compared to the people who paid top dollar for 4E materials and now can't get them anymore. Not only are their PDFs not going to be updated, they can no longer even get them in the case of a hardware crash.

When the PDF issue first came about, Scott Rouse asked me why I wasn't buying them, since I let it be known that I do purchase a lot of PDFs. I said at the time it was price, but I'll have to say that in the back of my mind there was always the idea that something like this would happen. I didn't want to post about it because it would have sounded petty and rude, and frankly the mods didn't need to deal with any more nonsense in that thread. I'm glad I listened to that voice and didn't buy.

--Steve

Storm Raven · Apr 8, 2009

Bagpuss said:
I really suspect that real the motivation behind this is tied to this court case. Since in order to defend a copyright you have to demonstrate you are making efforts to protect it. I would not be surprised if they had not been advised by lawyers that this will help their case.

No. You don't. Not for copyright. Trademark, yes, but copyright, no. So I'm pretty certain their lawyers didn't give that advice, because it would be stupid of them to do so, as it is wrong.

jdrakeh · Apr 8, 2009

Storm Raven said:
No. You don't. Not for copyright. Trademark, yes, but copyright, no. So I'm pretty certain their lawyers didn't give that advice, because it would be stupid of them to do so, as it is wrong.

There are stupid attorneys, man. Some states have shockingly low standards for SBE applications (frex, in California, some correspondence courses or local apprenticeships meet the requirement of 'law school' as I recall). That said, I'm certain you're right in this case