PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[xechnao]

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.

Such the nature of digital distribution: it gives you the advantage of no printing and distribution costs but makes you more vulnerable to customer choice. If it were not for the internet I doubt there would have been the 13025 publishers hosted on drivethrurpg.com in the market with their products.
But among this vast offer, the customers that really want your product are considerable less. Customers also need considerably more browsing time. This is why they download pirated copies I guess: to try and figure out most they can about the products.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Nonetheless, piracy is not the same as counterfeiting. It's simply not comparable. And again, I refuse to lower to your strawman.

As for the victims, HI! I work with academia. Every time I or anyone I work with write anything at all we can fully expect it to be spread widely anywhere in the world for absolutely free. And you know what? All of us. All of us. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Okay, then explain to me why it's a straw man argument. If it is a straw man it should easily be defeatable and knocked down. Saying "it's a straw man" is in itself, another straw man argument, it's an attempt to ignore it and instead make an ad hominem attack. I made a basic analogy that people keep saying "piracy can't be stopped" as an excuse, but technically "counterfeiting can't be stopped" is another statement, yet will still try to stop it. You can defend piracy in other aspects, but the whole "piracy can't be stopped" is usually meant to end with "so why bother trying". Both are crimes. Both hurt people.

As far as academia goes--that's your CHOICE, to be in academia. I don't have a problem with people sharing because they want to. If you want to give away your information, that's your business. It doesn't mean others should. The customer buys the product, buys an alternative, or goes without. Piracy is not an acceptable option.

 

[jasin]

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).

Out of 1,300, how many didn't buy the product but would have if it wasn't illegally available for free?

Out of 1,300, how many bought the product but wouldn't have if it wasn't illegally available for free?

Without some credible information about this, I don't think it's possible to judge whether illegal file sharing earned you money or cost you money.

Has any serious research been done on this subject?

 

[JohnRTroy]

One of the cases was updated...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

Wizards of the Coast LLC
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:09−cv−00459−TSZ

Judge Thomas S. Zilly

Thomas Patrick Nolan, et al.

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT, AND
EARLY SETTLEMENT

I. INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES

Pursuant to the December 1, 2000 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court sets the following dates for initial disclosure and submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan:

* Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: 05/26/2009
* Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): 06/08/2009
* Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f)
and Local Rule CR 16: 06/08/2009

If this case involves claims which are exempt from the requirements of FRCP 26(a) and (f), please notify Claudia Hawney by telephone at 206−370−8830.


II. JOINT STATUS REPORT & DISCOVERY PLAN

All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (the "Report") by 06/08/2009. This conference shall be by direct and personal communication, whether that be a face−to−face meeting or a telephonic conference. The Report will be used in setting a schedule for the prompt completion of the case. It must contain the following information by corresponding paragraph numbers:

1. A statement of the nature and complexity of the case.

2. A statement of which ADR method (mediation, arbitration, or other) should be used.

The alternatives are described in Local Rule CR 39.1 and in the ADR Reference Guide which is available from the clerk’s office. If the parties believe there should be no ADR, the reasons for that belief should be stated.

3. Unless all parties agree that there should be no ADR, a statement of when mediation or another ADR proceeding under Local Rule CR 39.1 should take place. In most cases, the ADR proceeding should be held within four months after the Report is filed. It may be resumed, if necessary, after the first session.

4. A proposed deadline for joining additional parties.

5. A proposed discovery plan that indicates:

A. The date on which the FRCP 26(f) conference and FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures took place;

B. The subjects on which discovery may be needed and whether discovery
should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular
issues;

C. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed
under the Federal and Local Civil Rules, and what other limitations should be
imposed;

D. A statement of how discovery will be managed so as to minimize expense
(e.g., by foregoing or limiting depositions, exchanging documents informally,
etc.); and

E. Any other orders that should be entered by the Court under FRCP 26(c) or
under Local Rule CR 16(b) and (c).

6. The date by which the remainder of discovery can be completed.

7. Whether the parties agree that a full−time Magistrate Judge may conduct all proceedings, including trial and the entry of judgment, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule MJR 13. The Magistrate Judge who will be assigned the case is Mary Alice Theiler. Agreement in the Report will constitute the parties' consent to referral of the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

8. Whether the case should be bifurcated by trying the liability issues before the damages issues, or bifurcated in any other way.

9. Whether the pretrial statements and pretrial order called for by Local Rules CR 16(e), (h), (i), and (l), and 16.1 should be dispensed with in whole or in part for the sake of economy.

10. Any other suggestions for shortening or simplifying the case.

11. The date the case will be ready for trial.

12. Whether the trial will be jury or non−jury.

13. The number of trial days required.

14. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all trial counsel.

15. If, on the due date of the Report, all defendant(s) or respondent(s) have not been served, counsel for the plaintiff shall advise the Court when service will be effected, why it was not made earlier, and shall provide a proposed schedule for the required FRCP 26(f) conference and FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures.

16. Whether any party wishes a scheduling conference prior to a scheduling order being entered in the case. If the parties are unable to agree on any part of the Report, they may answer in separate paragraphs. No separate reports are to be filed.

The time for filing the Report may be extended only by court order. Any request for extension should be made by telephone to Claudia Hawney, by telephone at 206−370−8830.

If the parties wish to have a status conference with the Court at any time during the pendency of this action, they should notify Claudia Hawney, by telephone at 206−370−8830.

III. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSIBILITY

This Order is issued at the outset of the case, and a copy is delivered by the clerk to counsel for plaintiff (or plaintiff, if pro se) and any defendants who have appeared. Plaintiff's counsel (or plaintiff, if pro se) is directed to serve copies of this Order on all parties who appear after this Order is filed within ten (10) days of receipt of service of each appearance. Plaintiff's counsel (or plaintiff, if pro se) will be responsible for starting the communications needed to comply with this Order.

IV. EARLY SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION

When civil cases are settled early −− before they become costly and time−consuming −−all parties and the court benefit. The Federal Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Task Force Report for this district stated:

[T]he major ADR related problem is not the percentage of civil cases that
ultimately settle, since statistics demonstrate that approximately 95% of all
cases are resolved without trial. However, the timing of settlement is a major
concern. Frequently, under our existing ADR system, case resolution occurs
far too late, after the parties have completed discovery and incurred
substantial expenditure of fees and costs.

The judges of this district have adopted a resolution “approving the Task Force’s recommendation that court−connected ADR services be provided as early, effectively, and economically as possible in every suitable case.”

The steps required by this Order are meant to help achieve that goal while preserving the rights of all parties.

If settlement is achieved, counsel shall notify Claudia Hawney at 206−370−8830.

V. SANCTIONS

A failure by any party to comply fully with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

DATED: April 9, 2009
s/ Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge

 

[jgbrowning]

I am sorry, but you must make a choice:

Either accept that sharing of digital files are one of the most inherently valuable aspects of the new technology, as well as the fact that the people you call "pirates" 1) haven't actually stolen anything

Huh? Of course they haven't "stolen" anything, but they have copyright infringed. Theft is different from copyright infringement.

joe b.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Defendant Osmeña here. 16, male, Philippines. I wonder, do WotC, Hasbro, or any of their attorneys know that they're suing the hell out of a minor in the Philippines? Without providing him with any way of properly comprehending the exact details of the case report and the summons given to him? All in all, along with the fact that they're trying to get the defendants (fans of the game) to stop playing D&D altogether, would mala fides not be out of the question here?

 

[jgbrowning]

As for the victims, HI! I work with academia. Every time I or anyone I work with write anything at all we can fully expect it to be spread widely anywhere in the world for absolutely free. And you know what? All of us. All of us. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Would you feel a victim were someone to remove your name from a work you did for academia and replace it with their own? Do you have an expectation of proper accreditation of the source of one of your works? Why cannot one simply put one's name in the place of others' names?

What laws do you have to protect your work were someone to lock-stock-and barrel claim what you have written as their work? Why are those laws more important than the exclusive right of distribution provided by copyright law?

I feel a victim when someone decides they have the right of distribution of one of our properly accredited products when I have not expressly given them that right just like I would assume you would feel the victim where someone to decide to replace your name with theirs as the author of an academic text.

And that product that I produced and was taken down at scribd? The guy who put it up changed the content, claimed right of copyright to my product by making it available at that site and then declared that the product was under a creative commons license and therefore saying anyone could use it under that creative commons. Nice guy, huh?

joe b.

 

[malraux]

Okay, then explain to me why it's a straw man argument. If it is a straw man it should easily be defeatable and knocked down. Saying "it's a straw man" is in itself, another straw man argument, it's an attempt to ignore it and instead make an ad hominem attack. I made a basic analogy that people keep saying "piracy can't be stopped" as an excuse, but technically "counterfeiting can't be stopped" is another statement, yet will still try to stop it. You can defend piracy in other aspects, but the whole "piracy can't be stopped" is usually meant to end with "so why bother trying". Both are crimes. Both hurt people.

The difference is that increasing enforcement can reduce the number of counterfeiters and the scale of their operation. Increasing enforcement against digital piracy might decrease the number of people willing to crack DRM, scan books, re-encode files, etc, but, because it only takes one person to do it, won't reduce the number of people gaining access to the work illegally. I guess reducing the number of people involved in the original distribution of pirated works is good, but because it won't affect the number of people gaining access to the work, it is unlike the case of counterfeiting.

I hate the idea of restricting a product through artificial measures so it does less than it could. But I also want to have the product in the first place, and if these measures are the only thing people can come up with to ensure they still earn enough money to create more products... I am unhappy, but I'd rather take that than nothing at all.

Personally, I don't see much unethical (regardless of legality) in purchasing a work legitimately, then grabbing the cracked/unDRMed work from the pirate sites. Hacks that remove the requirement to keep the CD in the drive in games, for example, are really hard to argue that its unethical to use.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The difference is that increasing enforcement can reduce the number of counterfeiters and the scale of their operation. Increasing enforcement against digital piracy might decrease the number of people willing to crack DRM, scan books, re-encode files, etc, but, because it only takes one person to do it, won't reduce the number of people gaining access to the work illegally. I guess reducing the number of people involved in the original distribution of pirated works is good, but because it won't affect the number of people gaining access to the work, it is unlike the case of counterfeiting.

Well, since it can be debated like this it's by no means a strong man. Piracy and Counterfeiting are both criminal acts, and federal agencies get involved in them. So I can't assume this is a straw man argument. It still damages both parties.

It's an interesting point, but because piracy can be reduced it is worth fighting. Watermarking, DRM, and others techniques are ways in which it can be done. I just hate the "defeatist attitude" people who want to excuse piracy make. Anti-Piracy techniques keep the honest honest, just like door locks.

Simple point--If you make it easy to pirate, more people will.

 

[Treebore]

"Fair Use" needs to be updated. I do a lot of on line gaming. In face to face you can pass the book around, but online you can only share by copy/pasting and sending it. It is clear that when we are done with the game we are to delete everything we are given for our characters from rule books we don't own, but its the closest we can get to "sharing" the book like we do at face to face tables.

So it would be nice if "fair use" would get updated to reflect a policy for sharing pieces/parts via the internet, especially since it involves "copies" of material from a book. We follow the spirit of fair use, but I would feel more comfortable if the written law reflected it. As it is we are probably in technical violation of it. Things like this happen all the time, and unfortunately laws often don't get updated to adapt to technology changes until after court cases occur.