PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Imban]

(if they didn't want it, why did they download it?)

Abject stupidity? Or rather, not really weighing it with the same seriousness they would an actual purchase.

I mean, I've certainly downloaded stuff before that I later realized I would never use in any fashion and then deleted unopened. Since the purchasing barrier for a free internet download is basically nothing - click on link, decide where to save to, hit OK - you get an amazingly higher amount of downloads than you would purchases.

 

[darjr]

In no particular order of stupidity:

1. Wizards has stopped PDF sales DESPITE the fact that the existing security process allowed them to identify the sources of the pirated materials... um, so that they can have time to come up with a security system that would let them, um, identify the source of pirated materials.

2. This relates to fewer than 3,000 copies. The legal fees alone would have already exceeded the total revenue (and not profit) of 3,000 sales at MRRP!

3. For the sake of 3,000 copies that probably had no impact on Wizards' revenues (or profits), Wizards has unleashed an Epic-level spell of nerdrageacross the internet doing untold damage to the brand with those of us who actually buy their products.

No business should be run by its lawyers. And I say that as someone who likes lawyers, who has close friends and business partners who are lawyers, but that doesn't mean that I let them run the commercial side of my businesses (just as I don't run the legal side of my businesses).

...


If Wizards has a CEO who is worth his pay he should be stepping in right now and providing some real leadership.

Yes, very stupid. I'm hoping that the Q&A thing the ENWorld staff has arranged with WotC is a part of that last paragraph.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think it's worth noting that the pdfs don't say everything. For starters, the alleged pirate from the Philippines is a minor.

So WotC, we're trying to attack minors in third world countries now? And yet you're the ones talking about morals and ethics?

Edit: Also, isn't it illegal to name a minor in papers like this? Hahahaha. WotC, you're not good at this, are you?

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think it's worth noting that the pdfs don't say everything. For starters, the alleged pirate from the Philippines is a minor.

So WotC, we're trying to attack minors in third world countries now? And yet you're the ones talking about morals and ethics?

Edit: Also, isn't it illegal to name a minor in papers like this? Hahahaha. WotC, you're not good at this, are you?

Being a minor is no excuse, nor is living in a so-called "third world country". He obviously had access to computer and a credit card, this can't be a starving ignorant boy in a shanty. He broke the law and WoTC is in the right to go after him.

And from what I understand, it's not illegal to name the minors of civil lawsuits. It may be illegal to release the name of criminal defendants, but that would depend on the nature of the crime, the district, and mitigating circumstances (minor and juvenile are two separate terms, for instance).

 

[wingsandsword]

Trying to prevent any .pdf's being made and distributed is like trying to swim up a waterfall.

Even if they came up with virtually airtight security, as has been shown it's possible (thanks to cash, public WiFi, and other anonymous means) to purchase the book in question, anonymously obtaining the hardware and software required to turn the book into a file, and then distribute it and work around watermarks in scanners and printers.

It's just a matter of how much money and effort is someone willing to put into doing something that they aren't doing for financial gain. Someone does this because they either want to share the book with others (like a lot of out-of-print pdf's on the P2P nets that are probably out there because somebody wants to share some old gem they like), or because they are just irate at the company in question and see it as their little petty revenge.

Someone really, really doesn't like 4e and wants to "stick it to WotC" as revenge for canceling 3.5 (or eliminating the legal pdf downloads from the web, or other nerdrage target of the month)? I could see somebody spending a few hundred dollars on the right hardware and books and putting lots of stuff out on the net. WotC's lawyers will run themselves ragged chasing it all down, and if somebody is pretty cagey it's going to be really hard to get it traced back to you.

This is the same sort of thing that the music industry went through, and what really cut into that piracy was making high quality, affordable downloads easily available (iTunes et al), not pulling the legal downloads from the web and suing.

I honestly wonder what goes through the Hasbro execs minds sometimes. It's crystal clear that WotC is not run in any way, shape or form by gamers, nerds, or the like, but the "suits" who use standard large-corporation procedures and mentalities. In theory this is good because it's the professionals who are supposed to know how to do things, but it can mean seeing the same mistakes that other businesses have made repeated over again because of the same patterns of behavior.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Someone really, really doesn't like 4e and wants to "stick it to WotC" as revenge for canceling 3.5 (or eliminating the legal pdf downloads from the web, or other nerdrage target of the month)? I could see somebody spending a few hundred dollars on the right hardware and books and putting lots of stuff out on the net. WotC's lawyers will run themselves ragged chasing it all down, and if somebody is pretty cagey it's going to be really hard to get it traced back to you.

It goes beyond even that. So far, the three alleged pirates in this case that I've seen or known were all huge 4e fans. That's why they shared the product. And there's always going to be fans that scan the book and throw it up on rapidshare for their friends. The rs spreads, other people see it, then someone takes it and others and puts the compilation torrent on demonoid. Most of the "pirates" that spread files are people who LOVE the product. That's why they're sharing it.

And that's why killing pirating is impossible. So long as people like the product, it's going to be shared.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Most of the "pirates" that spread files are people who LOVE the product. That's why they're sharing it.

And that's why killing pirating is impossible. So long as people like the product, it's going to be shared.

You also can't stop counterfeiting. Should the governments of the world just let it go? (I really hate the paralogical statement about "we should ignore piracy, because you can't stop it". We should also stop wiping our rears, because they're just gonna get dirty again! Or we should ignore immunization because we're all going to die anyway. Or we should stop having door locks because they won't really stop a determined thief!)

Loving a product does not mean you get to do what you want with it. Wrapping up an illegal act as something to ignore because it's done out of "love" is pretty assinine.

If you're a true fan, you would have some empathy, and pay the company their asking price. Otherwise, your not a real fan, you're a selfish person. Most fans will pay the writer, performer, etc.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You also can't stop counterfeiting. Should the governments of the world just let it go? (I really hate the paralogical statement about "we should ignore piracy, because you can't stop it". We should also stop wiping our rears, because they're just gonna get dirty again! Or we should ignore immunization because we're all going to die anyway. Or we should stop having door locks because they won't really stop a determined thief!)

Loving a product does not mean you get to do what you want with it. Wrapping up an illegal act as something to ignore because it's done out of "love" is pretty assinine.

If you're a true fan, you would have some empathy, and pay the company their asking price. Otherwise, your not a real fan, you're a selfish person. Most fans will pay the writer, performer, etc.

Counterfeiting isn't pirating, though.

You're also confusing the idea of "liking a product" with "Absolutely loving the product and having your laptop desktop be a picture of, say, Chris Avellone." And again, the puddle of what is and isn't pirating is a very muddy one.

I have, let's say, the PHB2. The others at my table don't. I let them use it while we play. Is there pirating going on? More so, would any of you at this website tell your other group members "No, you can't use this book. Not until you've bought it. Only I'm allowed to use it."

I have a LOT of books they don't. I let them use it while we play. Is it pirating now?

I let them borrow the books when we aren't playing because they're interested. How about now? Piracy?

Replace books with pdfs. Are any of those steps now (or no longer) piracy?

I put the pdfs on a website so they access them easier.

I compile the various feats, spells, classes, abilities, paragon paths, etc, onto one pdf.

I let others use that pdf.

I let others borrow that pdf.

I put that pdf on a website. It's probably the most insanely useful thing in all of existance. I tell only my group.

And now things get tricky. Take any of the above examples regarding the pdf or pdfs and add "Other people find out about it and download it as well."

Am I a nasty, dirty pirate?

Counterfeiting and piracy are drastically different things. You should know not to try and compare them. I see your strawman, and refuse it.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I think the simplest point to make is that, assuming the 2,993 downloads of illegal pdfs is accurate, we know with reasonable assurance that those 2,993 people wanted a pdf copy of the PHB2 (if they didn't want it, why did they download it?) but did not pay for it. That is a direct loss. It does not matter if they would have paid for it. Nor does it matter if they paid for it in another format. 2,993 people allegedly stole an illegal copy instead of paying for it. It is cut and dry to me.

Except WotC didn't actually lose anything. Whether 12 people or 1200 people download a PDF makes no direct impact on their bottom line. Such is the nature of the digital media. When dealing with digital piracy, ultimately we're talking in terms of opportunity cost. So we have the following subsets of downloaders.

• People who downloaded the PDF and bought the book.
• People who downloaded the PDF instead of buying the book.
• People who downloaded the PDF but would not have bought the book either way.

Of those sets, the first represent possible profits that were achieved (no opportunity cost), the second represent possible profits that were not achieved (here be opportunity cost), and the third represent profits which were not possible (no opportunity cost). Those sets obviously aren't going to consist of equal numbers, but only the second represents a missing profit -- which again, isn't attainable at the moment anyway since the book isn't available. So they're not even a present opportunity cost.

Downloading a PDF is not tantamount to stealing a physical book. That isn't to say that the former is something to be endorsed, but you're very obviously miscoloring the situation if you fall into the trap of "You wouldn't steal a car..."

 

[Jraynack]

I put that pdf on a website. It's probably the most insanely useful thing in all of existance. I tell only my group.

And now things get tricky. Take any of the above examples regarding the pdf or pdfs and add "Other people find out about it and download it as well."

Am I a nasty, dirty pirate?

Yes.

As a small publisher, I too recently found my work on scribd. To be frank, I don't mind our customers sharing our products around the game table (preferably in a printed format), but when someone puts it on the net for free - that takes potential money right out of our pocket.

As a small publisher, a good selling .pdf sale for us is 150-250 copies in the first month or so, but I was disgusted to find that nearly 1,300 people either viewed or downloaded the product for free (more than any one individual product sale in our 5 years of publishing).

It is like going to work, working hard that day, and your boss telling you you're not getting paid. Unlike a WotC employee, I do not get paid until I sell my product. And if they don't sell products, they fire employees.

If people LOVE our products so much, then please tell your friends to invest in our company by paying the $4.00-$7.00 dollars to encourage us to make more of the same and to continue to do what we do.

If I lived in a society that I didn't have to pay for food or a car payment, house, etc. I wouldn't mind people downloading our products for free, but since people who buy our products need money for other things, so do we.

I mainly got into publishing for love of the game, but I do personally invest my time, work, and money in each of our products (I also sometimes get burned out).

What I think is really disparaging about the whole thing is WotC even reduced the costs of their .pdfs with the launch of 4th Edition instead of pricing them, as they did before, as the same cost as a printed book. It is just a slap in the face.

As for the minor argument, I was a minor too - before file sharing and the internet - I saved my hard earned money (working at Dairy Queen, allowance, odd jobs, etc.) to get the D&D books I loved. It is called learning responsibility and managing your priorities. After all, I did not get all the books I wanted.

More importantly, I did share with friends (either their books or mine), and did borrow from the library D&D books I fortunately found there, but in the end - I had to give them back. And if I lost a book or did not return it (either to the library or my friend), I had to pay a fee or buy the book. That is something that you can't do with a file share - return it.

If you love a .pdf and want to share it - print it out and keep it around the table like any other book or better yet, buy a copy for a friend (if you can afford it). There is no excuse for illegal file sharing.