Associated Press notes D&D lawsuits

[Mighty Halfling]

Here's the story ... D&D rulebooks focus of lawsuits

 

[vagabundo]

Dungeons & Dragons, created in 1974 and described in the lawsuit as "the first role-playing game," involves the use of pen, paper and dice to create imaginary characters of varying attributes and randomly determined levels of skill as players search for treasure and battle monsters in magical lands.

Where are the >.< pixies!!!!

lol..

 

[Jack99]

Nolan, denying that he uploaded the handbook for public access or committed other wrongdoing, wrote personally to the court on May 20 that he lost his wallet with material showing his Web site usernames and passwords on a trip to Michigan in February.

"Any person who looked at my Scribd page could tell that I was an avid Dungeons & Dragons player and could use the page to post the file," he added.

Yeah right. And I have a bridge to sell!

 

[Nikosandros]

Yeah right. And I have a bridge to sell!

Yeah... that line of defense is ridiculous, but how does it work in court? Does the defendant need to prove that it wasn't him that actually used that account or is that burden on the prosecution?

 

[beverson]

Yeah... that line of defense is ridiculous, but how does it work in court? Does the defendant need to prove that it wasn't him that actually used that account or is that burden on the prosecution?

To the best of my knowledge, it's always been the prosecution's job to prove guilt...

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Yeah right. And I have a bridge to sell!

I'll buy it...
If it's a bridge to THE MOON!!!

(I have no idea why I think thats funny)

 

[Nikosandros]

To the best of my knowledge, it's always been the prosecution's job to prove guilt...

Yes, of course. I was asking about something more specific: as far as I understand there is solid proof that the PDF was uploaded using a specific account registered to a specific individual. My question is: in this case does the defendant need to prove that someone else used his account or does the other party (I actually think that I mis-used the term prosecution in this case) need to prove that it was the defendant that actually used the account, since it is theoretically possible that someone else used it?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes, of course. I was asking about something more specific: as far as I understand there is solid proof that the PDF was uploaded using a specific account registered to a specific individual. My question is: in this case does the defendant need to prove that someone else used his account or does the other party (I actually think that I mis-used the term prosecution in this case) need to prove that it was the defendant that actually used the account, since it is theoretically possible that someone else used it?

Depends on the judge.

 

[Krensky]

While, to my limited knowledge, the plaintiff has to prove the defended did what ever the suit alleges he did, the burden of proof is far far lower then it would be in criminal court. Nolan's defense MIGHT work with a sympathetic jury and some supporting evidence in a criminal trial since it might be reasonable doubt. In a civil case, I doubt it will work unless the jury just wants an excuse to find for him since Wizards just needs a to have more evidence and a more convincing argument.

 

[SteveC]

I would assume that the site involved logs the IP of users who upload files, so it should be possible to determine who did what with more accuracy, which one would hope would come out in the course of the trial. Still, this whole situation just makes me sick. I wonder if it's been too long to use this reference:

How will it end?
<kosh>In fire</kosh>

--Steve