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

[pawsplay]

I figure WotC is going after the low-hanging fruit first.

Hey, let's be nice.

 

[catsclaw227]

A recent online discussion I had with Reeves Gabrels (Tin Machine/David Bowie/solo, etc.) reminded me of one last element I didn't address...

OK... just throwing out a casual conversation with Reeves Gabrels will get you some XP.

That guy is totally under-appreciated outside the industry. He is a great guitarist.

 

[Voadam]

I failed my will save to resist quibbling, and I can't tell if your are kidding.

I restate:

You can't use past behavior to predict future behavior. At best, you can use it to develop a reasonable expectation. WoTC may not have pursued legal recourse against piracy in the past, but that doesn't mean they forego the right to pursue piracy now.

Better?

I'm not kidding. Maybe we have different definitions of predictions.

I see a reasonable expectation as a good prediction, not a non-prediction.

I predict that if you ate the same number of meals every day over the last year you will eat the same number of meals per day over the next week.

Predictions are simply guesses about the future, not guarantees.

I predict the redskins won't do so great this year.

Most things follow patterns and repeat behavior so past actions are good guides to predicting future actions.

I predict that if you have never owned a cat you will not own one next week.

Of course not having done something in the past does not forego the right to do it in the future. It is still valid to predict that someone who hasn't done something before won't do it in the future.

I predict that if you went to school every school day this week and did not play hooky you will continue to do so for the rest of the school week and not play hooky. (substitute work if appropriate).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK... just throwing out a casual conversation with Reeves Gabrels will get you some XP.

That guy is totally under-appreciated outside the industry. He is a great guitarist.

I am much worshipful of his axitude mastery.

To put him in perspective, Tin Machine came out in 1989, when shred was king...and here he is on a "New Wave" album with blistering licks that would do any metal axe-slinger proud. One of the great non-metal shredders of that era...

And my conversation with him ended with my promise to continue fighting the good fight on IP due to his recent experiences as a sideman for low-profile artists- hence the temporary abrogation of my vow.

 

[georgegad]

Are we still talking about this? I thought we were over it days ago.

EDIT> Oh, yucky. my post is huge, Just skip past it if your not really interested, i wont be offended. Read the prediction bit by Voadam above a second time, its really good.

I understand the site owners have a professional stance on the topic and i respect that.
That being said i will continue and try to steer away from speaking about anything that might be illegal in the websites home location. (It is my position that nothing i said is illegal in my homeland but i was well aware when i posted that it might be in usa)

We pretty much already know your position already. It is almost certainly the same one held by the bulk of people who don't understand the purpose of copyright, and don't see why we should compensate authors for creative expression.

Fair enough. I pretty much already know your position. It is almost certainly the same one held by the bulk of people who work in the entertainment industry. It is not a stupid position, i held it myself a number of years ago but now that i have changed it is clear we can never go back.
The funny thing is that when you come to terms with the change it is not actually as terrible as you may fear it to be. Instead of being authors for books everyone becomes authors for websites and advertisements. The people who wrote adventurers in the past will go on to write adventures for videogames WOW and the like. Its a new job climate, people dont keep to the same jobs forever anymore anyway we all change careers every few years. I realise that is a cynical way of looking at it and probably not as comforting as i meant it but i dont believe it will be as bad as predicted.

..... when photocopiers came into use, there was significant concern over private individuals using them to copy materials rather than purchasing books......

After all the same fears were around back then and now we look back and laugh because photocopiers never destroyed the printing industry after all. Like y2k. It may turn out to be all hot air and fear mongering like so many things are.

Sure you could. What is stopping you? Could one factor possibly be that you'd run the risk of being liable for many thousands of dollars in damages?

No, it wouldnt. That never happens here and still i havent downloaded it, i think i even have the name/pass for the account of one of the players in my group, i could install it and it would update legitimately. It is certainly not some type of fear that stops me.

By your argument I'm free to steal books from any bookshop, Music from any musicshop, films from video stores etc. etc. Actually walk in and steal it, afterall I'm 'paying my own expenses' which are 0.

Answering this point rather than ravens as it is more relevant.
I was actually suggesting that you download the document at your own expense, print it onto your own paper, bind it yourself and place it on your shelf. (But not sell it, as discussed towards the end)
If you do all that you will probably find it was cheaper to just buy the book, you would certainly get a better product if it is professionally done. I believe that that the industry can run on that fact alone for many years to come (untill i find a cheap light palmtop that is waterproof and can bounce off tile i will still need books in the loo)
If i appear calous or uncaring it is only because i dont believe it will be as big a problem as sensationalist media make it out to be.

Interesting, so you are saying that if you were going to pirate, then the fact that you could get smacked with a $100,000+ judgment against you for doing so ...

Even you couldnt honestly believe that is going to happen for downloading. The case here is against someone who made the original upload, as you know because you have stated it immediatly in the next post.

The assertion that being fined for lost profits in a piracy case on the grounds that some of those downloads "would not have been sales" is a non-starter.

The law is pretty clear: if you take property of another- even if you wouldn't have bought it- lost value or profits are a valid remedy.

Tort or no, local law here specifically mentions moneys saved from not paying purchase price is not considered lost profit for calculating damage. Nor do we believe in punitive damages so in reality even if an individual were to go through court the total amount of damages they are liable for is zero.

.... if the uploader got paid some amount per each download.......

But before you get started saying that these are stupid laws, it is not all just a charity. Here the situation above is not just a civil copyright violation, selling someone elses work here is criminally illegal. If a person were making money selling WotC product the police will arrest the individual and he may do prison time. While i defend my right to download i do believe Wotc are the only ones with right to profit financially from their products. Raids are occasionally made against local markets and professional bootlegging is rare. That i believe is the real point of copyright.

..... we have different definitions of predictions.......

TY. This whole conversation is becoming tedious and the predictions topic is so much more exciting. I really need a change in pace and there it was

 

[TheYeti1775]

Really I think we can all agree that neither side is going to readily change the mind of the other.
So why not put it in this prespective.

Before PDF's, books were pirated.
During PDF sales, books were pirated.
After PDF sales, books were pirated.

See the theme there? The PDF legal availability didn't matter, the pirating happened regardless.

Though I would wager that during the time of sales of PDF's, pirating as a whole lost a good portion of their crowd. As folks were given a legal means of procuring what they wanted. And I'm betting the same ones that pirated before the sales but didn't during them, will go right back to pirating them again.

It took what 8 days till the majority of users on this board could find the first book released after PDF's were discontinued. Many of us found it within a day or two on a few specialized sites.

So this isn't an arguement either side will when.

So how about we all sit down with a beverage of choice, roll 3d6 x6 and play a little old school DnD while this thread continues on for another 14 pages.

 

[Storm Raven]

Fair enough. I pretty much already know your position. It is almost certainly the same one held by the bulk of people who work in the entertainment industry. It is not a stupid position, i held it myself a number of years ago but now that i have changed it is clear we can never go back.

I don't work in the entertainment industry. I do appreciate that the law helps them produce those things I like to consume.

After all the same fears were around back then and now we look back and laugh because photocopiers never destroyed the printing industry after all. Like y2k. It may turn out to be all hot air and fear mongering like so many things are.

You do realize that laws were changed because of the introduction of photocopiers, don't you?

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't understand what pro se representation has to do with the "award" in a judgement against the pirate, except that if I were to pirate material and represent myself pro se, I would at least have saved myself the cost of my own lawyer (regardless of whether that is a good plan)?

This was a response to my point that making a pirate simply pay the retail value of the work they infringed probably isn't much of a deterrent as it would make it economically viable to pirate (because then the expected cost of the work is the retail value of the product less the expected chance of being sued), hence the need for statutory damages that serve a punitive function. It was posited in response that the retail value of the infringed work plus the fact that the defedant had to pay a lawyer to defend themselves was sufficient to serve as a deterrent. I was pointing out that some people will forego a lawyer, which makes this argument a little less than persuasive.

I presume the defendant is going to be the infringing party, yes?
So if the winner is the owner of the IP, and the loser is the pirate, doesn't that mean that, in this case, WoTC's legal costs would be shifted to the pirate?

Potentially, yes.

 

[catsclaw227]

To put him in perspective, Tin Machine came out in 1989, when shred was king...and here he is on a "New Wave" album with blistering licks that would do any metal axe-slinger proud. One of the great non-metal shredders of that era...

[off-topic]That first Tin Machine album was one of my favs for a long time. It was also (IMHO) one of the best albums Bowie had put out in a while. [/off-topic]

Now.... back to watching georgegad try to defend the piracy of PDFs...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

[off-topic]That first Tin Machine album was one of my favs for a long time. It was also (IMHO) one of the best albums Bowie had put out in a while. [/off-topic]

Now.... back to watching georgegad try to defend the piracy of PDFs...

Except Georgegad doesn't seem to be defending it.

Honestly, this is one of those topics that inflames some people to the point where they get that "For me or against me - nothing in between" mentality.

I'm not for piracy. But I'm not for the anti-piracy lawsuits. Yet, according to some people in this thread, because I'm not for suing people in their mid twenties for dollar amounts they'll never see, I'm "one of them."

Some people in this thread need to lean back and take a breather.