WotC puts a stop to online sales of PDFs

[Jeff Wilder]

Unlikely. I've never seen a case where that argument has carried any weight. I haven't been involved in any copyright cases in a while though, so maybe there's been something in the last couple years. I'd need to see a transcript of such a case to find it plausible.

If you're an IP attorney, Storm Raven lemme ask:

Would knowing failure to pursue copyright infringement impact the ability to win a judgment of recovery for that specific infringement? (In other words, if you know I'm pirating movies from your studio and you make no move to stop me for six months -- say, even to the point of an internal memo stating, "Nah, not worth the effort" -- at which point I stop of my own accord, can that knowing failure keep you from getting any recovery from me if you change your mind?)

Because this seems to me to be pretty plausible, in the realm of equity, if not law. (Both of which, of course, courts can consider.)

 

[Storm Raven]

Maintenace of the contract and fees from those companies. Someone has to manage that. I'd think this would have been obvious.

The contracts have already been executed, so "maintenance" is likely trivial, if anything. Managing the fees is simple bookeeping, which they probably have people on staff for. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which the marginal costs of the accounting work involved are not completely trivial.

 

[funkytable]

What's a bookshelf for if not being filled with books?

Maybe I should have just said she doesn't like a lot of bookshelves. You can put knickacks or pictures on shelves too though.

 

[mhensley]

No.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you're an IP attorney, Storm Raven lemme ask:

I am a lawyer. I have handled some trademark issues, and a few copyright matters, but not for a while (I work for the government these days, and copyrights are not so much of an issue for us). But:

Would knowing failure to pursue copyright infringement impact the ability to win a judgment of recovery for that specific infringement? (In other words, if you know I'm pirating movies from your studio and you make no move to stop me for six months -- say, even to the point of an internal memo stating, "Nah, not worth the effort" -- at which point I stop of my own accord, can that knowing failure keep you from getting any recovery from me if you change your mind?)

Probably not. The only legal theory I could think of that might prevent you from recovering in these circumstances are laches, and that isn't normally applicable in cases where a statute of limitations in in place. I know of more than one case in which a plaintiff allowed a defendant to run up a fair amount of potential damages and then stepped in - that didn't prevent the plaintiff from recovering.

If the plaintiff gives the defendant some sort of concrete basis for believing their copying is okay, that might run against them (it would then depend on whether they gave implied consent), but that would require some sort of actual communication between the copyright holder and the infringer, not merely a lack of action by the copyright holder.

What you are trying make out here is analogous to a case for adverse possession - if you live on a piece of property under some sort of colorable claim for a long time without the true owner taking action against you, then you end up owning it. But adverse possession cases are hard to make, the duration needed is usually twenty years or more. The courts simply don't like squatters very much, and don't have a lot of sympathy for copyright infringers.

Disclaimer: I am not offering legal advice to anyone online. Not only am I probably not licensed in the jurisdictions most of you are living in, I do not know any of the specific facts of any case you may be dealing with. Anyone relying upon what I say in this thread to take actions does so at their own risk. The information I am providing here is for general educational purposes, and based upon my own experiences and research. If you have actual legal questions, go and conslut directly with a lawyer in your home jurisdiction.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you have actual legal questions, go and conslut directly with a lawyer in your home jurisdiction.

Lemme tell ya, there are some lawyers in my firm I would love to conslut with.

 

[funkytable]

Comment deleted by admin.

Oh good lord, she just doesn't like books. Big deal.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Probably not. The only legal theory I could think of that might prevent you from recovering in these circumstances are laches, and that isn't normally applicable in cases where a statute of limitations in in place.

I'm not exactly doubting you, but according to my old Remedies outline, laches can not only be asserted when there's a statute of limitations, but the laches period can actually be "much shorter" than the statute of limitations.

Now it's possible that this is specifically different with respect to copyright law. It's also possible I made a horrible Remedies outline. It's also possible I should stop wasting my time and get something constructive done today.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not exactly doubting you, but according to my old Remedies outline, laches can not only be asserted when there's a statute of limitations, but the laches period can actually be "much shorter" than the statute of limitations.

Laches can be applied in a situation where a statute of limitations exists, and if it does, then it is almost certainly shorter than the SoL. But courts (in my experience) don't like to apply laches under those circumstances, finding that it usurps the authority of the legislature in many cases. I'm not saying you couldn't make a laches argument, just that you'd likely face a very uphill battle if you did.

 

[borfaxer]

Possible Reason for WotC Pulling Pdfs

I'm afraid I only had the time to read the first 17 pages of this thread (two days ago), so someone may have already suggested this idea. If not, I'm confident enough that I'm right to post and accept public ridicule if I'm not:

This morning it occurred to me that the probable reason for WotC pulling their pdfs is that they no longer have an effective watermarking system. Other than the visible watermark with email and order #, etc., their lawsuit reveals the (previously hidden) existence of another watermark of the account number embedded in a pixel in each pdf. Now that they have had to reveal this through the lawsuit, they need to come up with a different watermarking scheme so pirates can't completely scrub the pdfs that are sold.

If this is correct, then those of us who legitimately bought pdfs and only bought pdfs of RPG material lost our access because WotC (and RPGNow) depended on "security through obscurity". Hopefully they will quickly come up with a better design that doesn't depend on secrecy and re-release the pdfs. They can contact me if they need some help with that design.

Why would they pull old (non-watermarked) pdfs too? Probably they have decided to only provide watermarked versions of any pdfs from now on. Hopefully they will discount them to reflect the reduced utility to the consumer of having a watermark.

The real question this brings up is: what are the other publishers who insist on watermarks going to do right now if their watermarks are now completely removable because WotC revealed the secret part of the watermark in their lawsuit? If I were a publisher depending on a secret to ensure the security of the watermark, I would be pretty mad that WotC revealed it. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if most publishers didn't know the secret either. Do all the watermarked pdfs at RPGNow use the same system? I would be surprised if they didn't.

Of course, this doesn't eliminate piracy. If that was the only secret about the watermark system, all the watermarked WotC pdfs sold up to now can now be completely stripped of their watermarks. However, stopping pdf sales and coming up with a new watermark system is the only thing that can be done about it now, particularly if the secret had to be revealed in the lawsuits.