WotC puts a stop to online sales of PDFs

[Jeff Wilder]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, IANAL etc. My point is: it may have something to do with the legal case. We don't know the whole story here. It is certainly possible.

It "may have something to do with" the conspiracy to deny Stephen Colbert his name's rightful place on a space-station urine-recycling node. Given that nobody seems, so far, to be able to explain how pulling PDFs "may have something to do with the legal case," suggesting the urine-node conspiracy "explanation" is about as useful. Probably more so, since it's funnier and more easily recognized as bogus.

 

[Obryn]

That would ONLY be the case if 4.0 wasn't moving as well as it should be... Which I know to be true.

You keep saying this but haven't given any evidence - only speculation.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Which I believe to be true"?

-O

 

[MerricB]

Further hypothesizing from Charles's speculation, do we have any idea who the people being sued are? The pirate copies of the 4E core books were print proofs, suggesting a leak in the production line somewhere. Perhaps they're going after people who are involved in situations analogous to that (or even that situation itself)?

I've seen a list of the people being sued by Wizards posted on the Wizards boards by someone who is much, much better at finding out that sort of stuff than me.

From the original press release:
"eight defendants located in the United States, Poland and the Philippines"

Here's the post by someone on the Wizard's boards that names them:
Wizards Community - View Single Post - WotC halts sales/downloads from rpgnow.com

WotC halts sales/downloads from rpgnow.com - Page 32 - Wizards Community

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is what I am having trouble wrapping my mind around. What could possibly be that important?

There is zero chance that suing 8 people will stop piracy or even reduce it. The RIAA sued thousands with no success. The D&D pirate market it not supplied by just 8 people. So this can't be it.

There is zero chance that suing 8 people will deter others. The RIAA sued thousands with no success. People will keep pirating and will keep downloading So this can't be it.

It seems not uncommon for the RIAA to go after people that just download via bittorrent or similar options, without acquiring a regular copy and than offering it for others to upload.

The latter case might actually be useful to sue for - since most people will not go through the hassle of buying something, possibly cracking it, and then uploading it.

Technically, if you're using bittorrent and most other filesharing tools to get your illegal copies, you become both a provider and a consumer of pirated material, but from your view of personal responsibility, it wasn't you that provided the pirated copy.

How many on EN World download MP3s, TV show episodes or PDFs? I have no idea. But I bet that the number of EN Worlders that actually rip a CD and offer it on a bittorrent site, or the numbers of EN Worlders that download a Players Handbook PDF from DriveThru, remove any existing watermarks and then upload it to a bittorrent site so that others can consume it, is quite low.
Most downloaders wouldn't even know how to do this, most don't care to do it. Heck, most _can't_ do it. (How do I remove the watermark from my Pathfinder Beta PDF? I have a vague idea to begin with, but I am actually working professionally with PDF and related technologies!)

So yes, going after 8 specific "pirates" might be exactly what you need to do. Especially if you have reasonable information suggesting that they were the primary source, possibly in more than one case. (Though I don't know if that's also true.)

And if these 8 (or just some of them) are convicted, it becomes clearer to the pirates that there is a real threat of getting caught.

So much at least, for my theory.
It doesn't seem to work for the RIAA, but the RIAA covers a lot more organizations and also has a different customer base. Transforming CDs to MP3s is also a lot easier than digitalizing (scanning, OCRing) books.

 

[Obryn]

I've seen a list of the people being sued by Wizards posted on the Wizards boards by someone who is much, much better at finding out that sort of stuff than me.

From the original press release:
"eight defendants located in the United States, Poland and the Philippines"

Here's the post by someone on the Wizard's boards that names them:
WotC halts sales/downloads from rpgnow.com - Page 32 - Wizards Community

Cheers!

Could you post the list over here? I can't get there from here, but am burning with curiosity.

-O

 

[Bagpuss]

I'd love to know who this Wizards spokeswoman is that told the Register the follow.

"A Wizards spokeswoman told El Reg online companies that were legally selling D&D handbooks in PDF format were given 24 hours yesterday to remove the content. She said those retailers aren't being accused of any wrongdoing, but it's Wizards' priority now to "take care of all the crazy action going out there" until it finds a safer way to distribute digital copies."

from The Register.

The internet is like crazy man.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Has anyone read WoTC's Authorized Internet Retailer Agreement? Is it me, or does this sound nutty?

How will this impact retailers like Amazon or BN.com?

 

[scruffygrognard]

Sorry for the double-post. The internet at work is VERY buggy.

 

[dmccoy1693]

You know, I work from a marketing and PR budget. Although I've never done so, I suppose I could imagine someday having to use some of that budget to give me a scapegoat for something.

But could I imagine spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? Legal cases are expensive. Cross-border legal cases involving two foreign countries? Not a very good RoI for the PR budget.

No, this legal case is important to WotC. Really important. Probably a lot more important than the sales lost by pulling all PDFs, and apparently even more important than all the ill-will that's been generated. WotC didn't pour all these resources into a scapegoat.

Charles, I hear what you're saying (and I gotta admit, it makes ALOT of sense), but imagine how different this week would have been if Wizards did 2 things differently:

1. They made the announcement themselves instead of letting DTRPG/RPGNow break the news, and
2. included the following in their press release:

During this action, we are suspending sales of all PDF based books. Wizards of the Coast understands that this action unfairly punishes legal customers. For our customers, we are continuing legal downloading of previously purchased products until noon tomorrow (pacific time). As soon as we are able to, we will be bringing back PDFs to sell and we will make every effort to make those previously purchased products available for download without any additional cost. Until that time, we urge all our customers to only use legal products and not illegally produce or download copies. "Piracy hurts the industry as a whole and we can no longer take a passive role in combatting it. We are choosing to instead take bold action, even if that does require all of us to sacrifice together during this time." said president Greg Leeds.
​

Personally, I'd see Wizards as more of a hero than as the villian of this tale. Its not what they do that has made them loose their status as a leader, but how they do it.

 

[Bagpuss]

That only refers to "Magic Products" I wouldn't be too concerned about it yet.

Anyone catch this post by Steve Wieck of drivethrurpg and rpgnow?

It clears up if it was any contractual disagreement, and seems to clearly link it to the court case.

Combined with the Register quote I posted earlier it's looking to me like some knee-jerk reaction not really thought through. Perhaps WotC really are that clueless.