Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[yogipsu]

It seems pawsplay has studied some of the same copyright laws that my lawyer has.

See, my lawyer doesn't practice law in one legal arena, he has practiced his trade across the nation in many court systems, so he has a much clearer "big picture" of what constitutes copyright "rights" versus actual violations.

Still, like I have always said, consult your own lawyer.

I won't bother trotting out my qualifications, but I will say this much: any second-year law student who has taken one Intellectual Property or Copyright Law class with access to LexisNexis or WestLaw can tell you what constitutes copyright infringement.

"Is downloading the latest episode of House from BitTorrent legal?" is not a difficult legal question.

 

[Ranger Smith]

Rude and needlessly confrontational post removed. If you want to continue posting here, Ranger Smith, consult the rules.

 

[Mark]

It seems obvious we aren't going to get the perfect solution for everyone. It also seems obvious that the current situation is untenable, especially for a company that is rapidly becoming all about digital delivery. We need a compromise.

The pull back of 4E PDFs from the community-oriented PDF market is meant to drive consumers to the DDI so current edition products are not likely to appear soon. The pull back in regard to previous edition PDFs is to avoid WotC competing with themselves.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Bingo!
​

The pull back of 4E PDFs from the community-oriented PDF market is meant to drive consumers to the DDI so current edition products are not likely to appear soon. The pull back in regard to previous edition PDFs is to avoid WotC competing with themselves.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I have to say, with all the different thoughts being put here, here is the one constant thought that continues to hit me.

The longer there no (older) PDFs out from Hasbro/Wotc, the interest will wane lower and lower. While that gap widens, and folks wll seek other veins for their pleasure.

Given 'suggestions' on how a horse should drink the 'water', is cleary becoming a moot point.

Especially when the horse in question...is quite dead.

 

[ashockney]

As I once heard a distinguished business person say in a speech, "When the horse is dead, dismount."

I look forward to mining through all my back-catalog of 1e, 2e, 3e, and all my new 4e books and magazines for new and innovative materials through DDO someday in the near future! I can imagine dozens of new and innovative ways to search, update, and share such information that takes full advantage of the web 2.0 medium. This is going to be cool.

One other point I'd like to make about distributing electronic products, is to refer people into one of the latest and most interesting thoughts in web-based and electronic delivery with regards to marketing and sales: the long tail. Supply can meet demand on a much deeper, much longer tail, which can grow revenues significantly, and spread overhead out over a much longer demand curve. I think there's an opportunity here. A big one. The primary questions are:
1) How do you deal with piracy efficiently and cost-effectively?
2) Can these required new business disciplines be developed internally (or outsourced) cost effectively?
3) Are there sustainable profits from Hasbro's and Wizard's that it makes financial sense to re-invest in this new business model?
4) Are the returns on this investment comparable or superior to other investment opportunities such as the DDI?

Regardless of the outcome to the above questions, I can only imagine how BEAUTIFUL an effective group of business managers could make a business case look for a variety of "electronic distribution models" for D&D using the market demographics now available through World of Warcraft. Thanks, Blizzard!

D&D is the grand-daddy brand of the RPG markets - computer, digital, and paperback. DO NOT underestimate it.

Go Hasbro, Go Wizards, Go D&D.

/pops popcorn in anticipation of enjoying the show to follow

 

[pawsplay]

You're of course right that fair use might excuse potential infringement. But don't forget about MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

Can anybody? It created an important test for future cases. The deciding factor there seems to be that Grokster was marketed in such a way as to promote infringement, rather than for its legitimate uses. You can slice a grain of rice with a precedent that narrow. Very interesting stuff.

I may not be a second year law student, but I will tel you this - Second year law students are probably the worst people to ask about the future of IP law. A little knowledge, as they say, is a dangerous thing. IANAL, but this topic in particular is of importance to me, and I can tell you right now that anyone who thinks copyright law for the 21st century has been settled is fooling themselves.

This is the basis for copyright law:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

So the real test for any copyright law is not simply whether it secures the righs of the author, but that by doing so their endeavors are made available to the public. Certainly, the rights of the author do not extend as far as dictating how a person enjoys a particular work. Deciding cases on which files are made into electronic backups and so forth requires a balancing of concerns.

So in my view, removing PDFs of out of print games, specifically to make them unavailable, invalidates the constitutional basis for copyright and hence the case for infringment. While a commercial purpose does not have to be established, it must be shown that an author's right to benefit from a work has been infringed. Removing PDFs from availability simply to avoid paying for site maintenance is not a use reserved to the author, but simply a practical decision. The case for infringement would probably have to establish that the files had some potential value other than being distributed for free that outweighs the public benefit of access to historically and academically and recreationally valuable vintage gaming products.

 

[Obryn]

So in my view, removing PDFs of out of print games, specifically to make them unavailable, invalidates the constitutional basis for copyright and hence the case for infringment.

Um.

No.

(1) You have no guarantees they won't sell it in the future. Mistwell's Disney example is a prime case. If they are not selling a movie right now, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And they are intentionally withholding to create scarcity, too.

(2) If something has never been sold, you can still violate copyright. I don't think Disney is selling Song of the South due to racist implications. It is not therefore okay to download it.

(3) Even if I write something that I don't make commercial profit from, you can't copy it willy-nilly. You're still violating my copyrights.

-O

 

[Mark]

The longer there no (older) PDFs out from Hasbro/Wotc, the interest will wane lower and lower.

Naw. Between FLGS auctions and flea markets and Half-Priced Books and Internet options like ebay and many others, the hardcopies are still plenty available. Of course, the secondary market prices will be a bit higher while the PDFs aren't available and some folks will use it as an excuse to illegally download and share files.

Games Plus - Auction

http://www.halfpricebooks.com/find_a_store.html

 

[pawsplay]

Naw. Between FLGS auctions and flea markets and Half-Priced Books and Internet options like ebay and many others, the hardcopies are still plenty available. Of course, the secondary market prices will be a bit higher while the PDFs aren't available and some folks will use it as an excuse to illegally download and share files.

Games Plus - Auction

Store Locator

Of course, used books earn no royalties for the copyright holder.