$125,000 in fines for D&D pirates? Help me do the math...

[TheAuldGrump]

Right now, both parties are being dicks.

Pretty much my take on it as well. I do not like or agree with piracy. But given how many worse things that folks have done with far less punishment than the settlement....

The Auld Grump, mind you I can't imagine really wanting to pirate 4e stuff anyway... (Joking... mostly....)

 

[FireLance]

I find it ironic/disturbing/darkly humorous that companies like to talk about about IP "theft," but at the end of the day, the lawsuit is the weapon of choice.

[Inappropriate humor]Surely WotC, of all people, should know that the best way to deal with the issue is to hire a party of adventurers and get them to solve the problem with a variety of weapons (and implements) of choice. [/Inappropriate humor]

 

[Fedifensor]

The PHB2 was legally available (for a time) as a PDF. The pirates can't even use the argument that they were making a product available that WotC wasn't selling (electronic version of a book). I'm not seeing any moral high ground for the defendants.

My memory and thread-skimming skills may be a bit rusty, but the defendants were doing more than just downloading a copy for their own use...they were sharing the PDF with thousands of people. The number of downloads listed are only the ones the plaintiffs were able to track, and is probably a lot higher. Especially after counting those who downloaded the PDF, then turned around and shared it with other people.

Piracy is bad. However, some forms are worse than others, just as there's a difference between going 70 in a 55 MPH zone and robbing a bank. From what I've heard so far, the defendants sound more like the bank robbers than the speeders. But not all pirates engage in that level of wrongdoing.

Pirating a book for your own use without paying for it - bad.

Pirating a book and making it available to thousands of others to pirate - VERY bad.

Now, there's a third form of piracy that's become more common since WotC changed their stance on PDFs. Some people buy a copy of the physical book, then download a pirated PDF because there's no legal way to get a copy for use on their computer. Why isn't WotC providing a legal option for these people? This is lost sales, pure and simple. (No, the Compendium is in no way, shape, or form a replacement for a PDF version).

As for me, I own legal copies of seven different 4E PDFs (all purchased before the change in policy) and I own the hardcopy versions of all but one of them (Martial Power, because I don't make many martial characters). As more books come out, I'm starting to wonder if it's time to figure out the settings on my scanner and make my own electronic copies of the books I've bought in the post-PDF environment. I believe that's covered under Fair Use, as long as I don't distribute them. It's annoying that I have the cash to spend on a WotC PDF, and I know it would be easy for WotC to offer it for sale, but they simply won't make the electronic version available.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

One thing that appears to me: Whatever the sum is, it is not just about giving back money you owe because you pirated/helped pirating something? Is it not also intended as a type of punishment?

If someone steals 500 $ from you, gets caught a while after and then you get the 500 $ back, are you fine with the thief going free? Or should he be punished by law?

If it's some kid who just took it to buy a new mountain bike or something, and it's his first offense, yes, I'd absolutely be fine with getting my money back. Well, that, and an apology. But if it's some hoodlum whose been in jail a dozen times, probably not.

Back on topic, IMO, the parties involved were wrong, but the price they are paying is ludicrous. You don't put a kid in jail for 10 years for stealing a candy bar.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Do you think Wotc will actually ever see that money,or is it just a moral victory?

Aren't those who have been fined more likely to file bankruptcy?

Without seeing the actual settlement agreement, it's impossible to say why the individuals involved made the decisions they did.

One obvious explanation as to why someone would sign an agreement for such a ruinous amount (when a defaulting defendant gets a judgment for far less) is that they find the terms more attractive than what they think they'll face with a court judgment.

For example (and we have no evidence that this is the case), it's entirely possible for a defendant to agree to a huge settlement amount so that the plaintiff can trumpet it for deterrence purposes, but have the plaintiff actually agree to accept only a small portion of that amount, waiving the rest if the defendant does not engage in any further infringement, or the plaintiff might agree to a payment plan of a small amount each year, with it being unlikely that the defendant will actually live long enough to pay the full judgment. Sometimes it's more about the press release than the actual money.

It is also possible that Nolan's original explanation for the infringement may have played some part in the settlement, if (and we have no actual evidence that this was the case) it seemed that the story was disprovable and might lead to further difficulties if he continued to try to defend against the charges.

 

[Xris Robin]

Pirating a book for your own use without paying for it - bad.

Pirating a book and making it available to thousands of others to pirate - VERY bad.

You know someone HAS to do the second before someone can do the first, right? They don't happen in a vacuum. The people in the first example are getting it from the people in the second example. (Also, if using torrents, everyone except the first seeder would be doing both at the same time even.)

 

[Lanefan]

Lots of little rambling thoughts and questions here...

First off, all the discussion has been about *US* laws; are all those being prosecuted in or from the US? And if not, how do the laws of their home countries affect any of this?

So what can you do to stop "mass flouting of the law"?
1) Try half-hearted enforcement (like with illegal immigration and speeding).

In the case of speeding, the obvious answer is to change the law to reflect reality.

2) Ignore the issue completely (like with fake IDs).

3) Let someone enforce it civilly (like with copyright piracy).

Or, again, change both the law and perception. My admittedly rather impractical suggestion goes something like this:

1. As the owner of a given piece of IP, at the time I release it for public consumption I get to declare whether or not it may be digitized, including by me. If I declare that it may be, or if I digitize it myself, then it's open season and I'm accepting that people are going to share it whether I want them to or not; though I still retain the right to sell the IP in both digital and non-digital forms. But if I declare that it may not be digitized, and agree that I will never digitize it myself, then it may not be digitized or stored on *any* digital medium. Period. And once made, this decision is irrevocable.

2. The laws have to be changed to reflect the above, including standard pre-set punishments for violation (I suggest automatic forfeit of any equipment found to contain IP declared as non-digital, for a start) and means to search for such.

Yes, utterly impractical, I know...but I stand behind the general idea, that the IP owner has the right to determine what "level" of sharing s/he is willing to accept (and that determination being made in part by what means the IP is produced and-or sold), and the laws reflect and back up that determination.

So, if I release some music on non-digital formats only (vinyl and tape, perhaps) and declare it non-digital, I should be able to expect the law to punish anyone found to have that music stored in any digital format. (yes, this means the idea of making mp3's for personal use goes out the window; but that's the root of the whole problem: once something gets digitized once, it's open season - there is no such thing as internet security...) Ditto for books being turned to pdf's. But note this limits me as the IP owner as well; by my own declaration I cannot store the music on a CD...

Same goes for a painting - if it's declared non-digital, it cannot be displayed online in any form.

This falls apart, of course, when the production medium *is* digital, e.g. computer art. I've no idea how to handle that one in any kind of black-and-white method.

Lanefan

 

[tmatk]

All these lawsuits accomplished is putting a view dummies into debt. Thousands of pirates will not even notice and continue to get away with it. Makes me wonder what the point of it all is.

 

[evilref]

All these lawsuits accomplished is putting a view dummies into debt. Thousands of pirates will not even notice and continue to get away with it. Makes me wonder what the point of it all is.

The redistribution (piracy) of RPGs is not undertaken by hundreds of people, such as with music or films. There are a relatively small number of people involved. When 1+ of them stop doing it, knock on effects happen. At least one of the individuals in this lawsuit is/has been responsible for pirating hundreds of rpg sourcebooks from dozens of companies. They developed techniques to remove hidden watermarks, passing those techniques on to others. In short, they've deliberately gone out of their way to distribute books from just about every rpg company out there.

One thing WotC's cessation of selling pdfs caused was to delay the release of their books on torrents etc. By all accounts those torrents are now of much lower quality than the originals (or certainly the earlier scans after a book's release are). Lower quality means less usability. It still doesn't mean someone who wasn't going to buy the book will do so, but it does increase the chance an individual who might have bought the book will do so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All these lawsuits accomplished is putting a view dummies into debt. Thousands of pirates will not even notice and continue to get away with it. Makes me wonder what the point of it all is.

Remember this was not a lawsuit against some random downloader.
These guys where the ones that actually offered the product for (illegal) download in the first place. Without them, they would have not been available illegally at all, since all other filesharers relied on these specific copies to be available.

Of course, someone else might jump in. But now that "someone else" might hear of this case and might think "If they got caught, I might too. Since I already have the product for myself, is it really worth the risk to provide it to random dudes on the Internet?"