• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Emirikol

Adventurer
I know you've all seen this before..but how do they come up with the math for something like this?


Seattle Times
2 settle lawsuits over Dungeons & Dragons handbook

Two of eight people accused in lawsuits of illegally distributing Dungeons & Dragons handbooks over the Internet have settled, and the maker of the pioneering role-playing game is seeking a default judgment against a third.

By TIM KLASS

Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE — Two of eight people accused in lawsuits of illegally distributing Dungeons & Dragons handbooks over the Internet have settled, and the maker of the pioneering role-playing game is seeking a default judgment against a third.

In one of three lawsuits brought by Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc., U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly on Friday accepted a settlement in which Thomas Patrick Nolan of Milton, Fla., agreed to a judgment against him of $125,000.

In a settlement accepted by Zilly in July in a second Wizards lawsuit, Arthur Le of San Jose, Calif., agreed to pay $100,000 to the Hasbro Inc. subsidiary.

Wizards has asked the judge to order that Le's co-defendant, Mike Becker of Bartlesville, Okla., pay $30,000 in damages and $14,616.75 in legal fees and costs. Becker has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default in July, court filings show.

Still pending are actions against Nolan's co-defendant, Stefan Osmena of the Philippines, and, in the third case, Krysztof Radzikowski of Poland and three people whose identities remain unknown. A Wizards spokeswoman, Tolena Thorburn, has declined to give home towns or other personal or contact information for Osmena or Radzikowski.

All three copyright infringement lawsuits were filed on April 6 and concern "Player's Handbook 2," the newest handbook for Dungeons & Dragons, released on March 17 with a suggested retail price of $39.95 a copy. The handbook, which includes 242 pages of rules, and manuals sold online bear electronic watermarks that restrict use of copyright material to a specific buyer or user.

According to court filings, more than 2,600 copies of the handbook were downloaded from Scribd.com, and more than 4,200 copies were viewed online before the material was pulled from the document-sharing site at Wizards' request.

Dungeons & Dragons, created in 1974 and described in the lawsuit as "the first role-playing game," involves the use of pen, paper and dice to create imaginary characters of varying attributes and randomly determined levels of skill as players search for treasure and battle monsters in magical lands.

According to the lawsuits, about 20 million people worldwide are believed to have played the game, including 6 million at present.
No comment here. Just thought it was interesting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Honestly, it's all bogus. Just like the RIAA getting like 500,000 or whatever from that woman for downloading like 6 songs. Copyright laws really need to be changed because this is utterly ridiculous.

I think they multiply each thing by some arbitrary amount to represent "lost sales", despite the fact that that's a nonsense argument to anyone with half a brain, because people who download your song/movie/book wouldn't buy it to begin with, so there would be no sale in the first place.

Utter bollocks.
 

I'm glad WotC stood up to these pirates and taught them an expensive lesson. I hope we see even more of this from WotC and other publishers and industries in the future. There are too many spoiled folks with a warped sense of entitlement, and it's nice to see some of them get punished.

Bravo, WotC!
 


Honestly, it's all bogus. Just like the RIAA getting like 500,000 or whatever from that woman for downloading like 6 songs. Copyright laws really need to be changed because this is utterly ridiculous.

I think they multiply each thing by some arbitrary amount to represent "lost sales", despite the fact that that's a nonsense argument to anyone with half a brain, because people who download your song/movie/book wouldn't buy it to begin with, so there would be no sale in the first place.

Utter bollocks.

4,200 copies viewed times suggested retail of $40 equals $168,000, larger than any of the judgments. Granted, this uses very favorable (to WotC's case) assumptions about the monetary impact, but it's a far cry from the RIAA charging 500,000 per song to downloaders (not distributers), and it's a far cry from bollocks.
 

This looks at the specific number of downloads from a specific site. It's not about "impact" but about number of unauthorized copies. The RIAA nonsense is worse because it's attempting to pull that off with decentralized p2p networks
 

Heh, but, it couldn't possibly be reasonable because WOTC did it. Anything WOTC does has to be hysterical over reaction without any basis in reality. 'Cos, that's what WOTC does.

Right?
 

I am guessing the sum is meant to set a warning (what's that word? punitive?) Thus, it is deliberately set very high, so as to send a message and discourage other people from pirating. It is the same rationale why people caught evading taxes have to pay back a multiple of what they owe.

Sorta like punishing one to warn a hundred.

I doubt it is simply to replace lost sales (unless they factor in the other people the company will not be able to sue and make the accused foot their part as well). Though if you think about it, the costs involved in prosecuting these people does run up fast. I guess lawyers are the real winners here...;)
 

Heh, but, it couldn't possibly be reasonable because WOTC did it. Anything WOTC does has to be hysterical over reaction without any basis in reality. 'Cos, that's what WOTC does.

Right?
Settled, personally at least, by asking yourself 'if another company did this would I feel that they were over reacting?'

I would, so yes, I think that WotC is going overboard, not just in the settlement, but in pulling PDFs, etc.. I feel the same about RIAA. We are in a litigious society, but that does not have to mean that I like it.

This entirely beside any feelings I have about piracy - I don't do it, and don't think that other people should, either. In this instance I think that both sides are in the wrong. (It saves time when you can just hate everybody! :p ) I have friends who's first album showed up P2P before they even got the originals in their hands.

The Auld Grump
 

I'm not even sure that it is punitive. We know that 4000 (ish) copies of the book were downloaded - Scribt probably keeps that record. We know that a copy of the book is about 40 bucks.

Thus, the damages are pretty much in line with what was illegally shared. Not split per person, but, pretty close.

I don't see how this is out of line at all.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top