Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?

Reynard · Jul 7, 2011

Bugleyman said:
IANAL, but it is also my understanding that patents and trademarks may be lost if not enforced, but copyrights generally cannot. Assuming that is correct, this was a unnecessary overreach, and one that seems out of character for Paizo.

Hopefully this isn't a sign of things to come...

If something seems to be "out of character" for an entity, and not all the details are available or obvious, it is probably better to give the entity the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, it looks like the real issue is that the individual scanned the items cards and distributed them (as per Vic Wertz in this thread on the Paizo boards). I am also not a lawyer, but it seems to me that sendinga polite letter asking such scanned material to be removed doesn't turn Paizo into a raging, anti-fan monster.

AeroDm · Jul 7, 2011

Bugleyman said:
It seems fairly clear to me that this isn't the type of "infringement" copyright laws are intended to prevent (not that I would try to use that as a legal defense). Nor do I think that failing to squash this would lead to difficulty in preventing commercial exploitation in the future (though again, IANAL).

Don't get me wrong -- in my inexpert opinion, Paizo is well within its rights. I just think this level of "enforcement" ultimately does more harm than good, even discounting the free advertising this "infringement" represented.

YMMV

In my initial post I said it seemed out of character for Paizo but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until more info was available. Since I believe Erik's input, I don't even have any issue with how they went about it. Asking someone to take something down is totally legit. Even a "polite" C&D would be fine, IMO. (I also agree that even a "mean" C&D is within their right, just would be out of character).

Bugleyman · Jul 7, 2011

Reynard said:
...sendinga polite letter asking such scanned material to be removed doesn't turn Paizo into a raging, anti-fan monster.

And I said that it did where, exactly? Oh right, Internet hyperbole. :hmm:

Caerin · Jul 7, 2011

Dannyalcatraz said:
Yes, it's usually more expensive for the IP holder.

He's the one that has to discover the violation...which costs money.

If the IP holder is a private citizen, he'll have to find an attorney (just like the potential defendant). And he won't get any price break, so he'll be paying the same $/HR as the defendant.

If the IP holder is a company, they either have someone on retainer or an IP litigation department- both of which get paid regardless of the number of cases they get involved in. IOW, even with a price break, they will spend $10K+ per year on IP defense whether an issue crops up or not.

As for who does the actual work of "drafting" and filing of a motion- and how much it costs: if it's a solo attorney, you get charged his hourly rate, usually in 15 minute increments, with a 30 minute to 1 hour minimum.

If the attorney has clerks and THEY do the work, you still get charged at the attorney's rate. (IOW, no price difference.)

If the attorney is in-house, he and all the clerks, etc., receive annual salaries...so you could prorate how much it actually costs if you want to do the math. But again, they get paid the same if they defend 50 cases or none at all.

Then, if a C&D is not enough and they have to go to court, they pay the initial filing fees- usually small stuff- and the costs of notifying the defendant the're being served with due process of service. Do it wrong, you have to start over. Hiring a process server and, if necessary, taking out legal notice ads in newspapers and TV is not cheap.

And the defendant bears none of those costs unless and until the Court makes an adjudication in the IP holder's favor AND awards costs. (Any costs not sufficiently documented are not recoverable.)

If there are depositions to be had, the moving party, not the defendant, pays those costs.

The defendant certainly bears costs during the process. It's also true that if the defendant is a private citizen, then the costs enough are incredibly burdensome no matter the merits of the case, and attorneys often recommend settling anyway. While the court can remit fees for the prevailing party, the court's not required to, and there have been cases the court hasn't- Veoh, if I recall? Going to court is a losing proposition in general. =P

Reynard · Jul 7, 2011

Bugleyman said:
And I said that it did where, exactly? Oh right, Internet hyperbole.

"Unneccesary overreach."
"Out of character."
"Siign of things to come."

Sure, I was a little hyperbolic, but your intent and implications were quite clear.

Bugleyman · Jul 7, 2011

Reynard said:
"Unneccesary overreach."
"Out of character."
"Siign of things to come."

Sure, I was a little hyperbolic, but your intent and implications were quite clear.

Oh for heaven's sake.

I do think it was an over-reach, which no way implies whatever you seem to think it does. I do think it was out-of-character, because in my experience the Paizo folks have always been pretty easy going. And I wrote that I hope it isn't a sign of things to come...which I do. Anything else you got from that was pure inference.

Seriously though, I'm a freakin' Paizo subscriber. I'm pushing 4k posts on Paizo's forums. I flew 1100 miles to attend PaizoCon this year. Yet now I'm a hater because I think that, in this one instance, Paizo over-reached? Is no conversation safe from edition war bile? :rant:

Reynard · Jul 7, 2011

Bugleyman said:
Oh for heaven's sake.

I do think it was an over-reach, which no way implies whatever you seem to think it does. I do think it was out-of-character, because in my experience the Paizo folks have always been pretty easy going. And I wrote that I hope it isn't a sign of things to come...which I do. Anything else you got from that was pure inference.

Seriously though, I'm a freakin' Paizo subscriber. I'm pushing 4k posts on Paizo's forums. I flew 1100 miles to attend PaizoCon this year. Yet now I'm a hater because I think that, in this one instance, Paizo over-reached? Is no conversation safe from edition war bile?

I jumped on you for no reason. My fault. I apologize.

Bugleyman · Jul 7, 2011

Apology accepted. Please accept my apology in turn for me being overly pissy about the whole thing.

Matt James · Jul 7, 2011

My attorney is an avid gamer and has a column on Loremaster.org called Protection from Chaos. It's a good read for anyone wanting more information. I'm trying to get him to draft an article about this specific situation.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 7, 2011

Caerin said:
The defendant certainly bears costs during the process.

Certainly, though on average, they are not as great as those seeking to defend their IP rights.

It's also true that if the defendant is a private citizen, then the costs enough are incredibly burdensome no matter the merits of the case, and attorneys often recommend settling anyway.

Same goes for the IP holder.

While the court can remit fees for the prevailing party, the court's not required to, and there have been cases the court hasn't

Yep, many- and the IP holder has to make the same calculations.

As I said upthread, I personally own IP of several kinds. Were someone to infringe upon my rights, I'd have to hire an attorney- NEVER represent yourself if you can avoid it, you lack proper objectivity to weigh risks and benefits- and pay for all the above steps out of my own pocket, with only a small expectation that costs would get awarded. Awarding of costs is usually reserved for the worst cases (on either side). If my IP claim in something is deemed frivolous, I may have to pay the costs of person I sued.

So, odds are high that if a local band (somehow) ripped off one of my songs, I wouldn't do much more than a C&D and a word of mouth campaign. Even if I win, I'm never going to collect enough of the award to be worth it...especially compared to the risk of losing (and other risks).

If, OTOH, Lady Gaga (inexplicably) ripped off one of my songs, I would definitely go after her. (Of course, I'd have to weigh the risk that my claim against her was deemed frivolous, and that I'd have to foot part of her $200K defense bill...)