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

[pawsplay]

If that was the settlement... how much was WotC asking for if it went to trial?

 

[Alzrius]

This is the settlement, so both parties agreed to this.

[...]

We have no idea how the number was reached one side could have compromised to the other.

No, we don't. However, I find it more believable that these individuals were pressured to compromise in WotC's favor, rather than the other way around.

I'm not a lawyer, but agreeing to a settlement doesn't mean that you're agreeing that the settlement is fair/just - just that it's better (or rather, less bad) than your other options. If a mugger threatens someone with a gun, and the victim complies with the mugger's request to hand over his wallet, then both parties have agreed to the transaction, but that doesn't mean it was right.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the above analogy isn't perfect to the situation; WotC is hardly some mugger going after an innocent bystander. But I think the problem a lot of people have with this is that the punishment does not fit the crime, but rather is too harsh - a sentiment I agree with.

 

[pawsplay]

One side being willing to spend $8000 in legal fees and the other side being some college student or insurance adjuster who games on the weekend is not quite like a mugging, but it's not much like a polite conversation, either.

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.

 

[Cadfan]

If that was the settlement... how much was WotC asking for if it went to trial?

It doesn't necessarily have to be all that much more. From what we know, the trial seems like it should be a slam dunk for WotC. That means they don't have to discount much to convince the other side to settle.

Its just basic probability and expected outcomes. If you think there's a 70% chance you'll win at trial, and if you win you'll get X, then you should be willing to settle for any amount equal or over .7*X minus the cost of trial. If you think there's a 99% chance you'll in at trial, and if you win you'll get X, then you'll instead want to settle for an amount equal or over .99X, minus the cost of trial.

I think WotC had a statutory right to attorney fees. Which means the cost of trial would be negligible. And both sides are probably evaluating the likely outcome of trial similarly since liability seems pretty clear and the damages are largely statutory and therefore easy to calculate.

So at least theoretically they should have been able to negotiate an outcome very close to the likely outcome of trial.

 

[Aus_Snow]

$125,000?

Context: I purchase my RPG PDFs (though 'coincidental' decisions by WotC regarding PDF sales could, in theory, make specific future choices. . . a bit tricky). Also, I am, and have been, involved in creative pursuits. Ones that have resulted in profits. And, in one field anyway (the musical) pursuits that, I suppose, could lose / could have lost some profits to 'pirates'.

But yeah, I still find WotC's attitude in this whole area. . . well, no. I probably can't say quite what I think of it all. Not here.


In so many ways, they are not the RPG company they once were - in spirit or in deed - not so very long ago. And I'll leave it there.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Definitely about sending a message. Seems like it has been heard loud and clear . . . but was it heard by the intended subjects?

I know of some lawyers who often counsel their clients against suing for slander or libel because even if the client wins, the publicity of the trial leads to even greater spread of the lies that when eventual victory occurs, not enough of those who heard the slander or libel because of the trial publicity will end up learning of the the victorious outcome.

The lawsuit ended up only spreading exactly what it hoped to bottle up.

By suing to stop piracy of the books, more customers will learn that the books are out there to be bootlegged and will now go about and do so . . . in addition to the ill will garnered by some corners of their customer-base who see it as excessive over-reach, regardless of the merit of the case.

 

[pawsplay]

It doesn't necessarily have to be all that much more. From what we know, the trial seems like it should be a slam dunk for WotC. That means they don't have to discount much to convince the other side to settle.

Its just basic probability and expected outcomes. If you think there's a 70% chance you'll win at trial, and if you win you'll get X, then you should be willing to settle for any amount equal or over .7*X minus the cost of trial. If you think there's a 99% chance you'll in at trial, and if you win you'll get X, then you'll instead want to settle for an amount equal or over .99X, minus the cost of trial.

Ok, I agree with the maths, generally. But there is a difference between a judgment and actually paying someone. If, hypothetically, I wanted to resist a company who was hitting me up for infringement, it doesn't matter what the final amount is unless it's a very small amount. It's probably unlikely Wizards is going to try to garnish the defendants' cash. Unless the defendants are a lot more well off than I imagine. If you sue a doctor for $125,000, his insurance pays out $125,000. If you sue a grocery sacker for $125,000...

The whole point, I think, is to make companies with actual assets jumpy. Ok, I run some kind of file service, I don't usually traffic in illegal downloads, but Wizards shows up on my doorstep with a C&D... might such a judgement color my decision?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This isn't directed to anyone in particular, but in general to the Internets, but can we just summarize the next 8 pages of messages as:
-- "They never would have bought it."
-- "It's still theft. Would you steal DVDs out of a store?"
-- "It's not a physical product, so the analogy breaks down. No one is hurt."
-- "I'm a publisher, and I am hurt by those real lost sales."
-- "Repeat, they never would have bought it."
-- "We can never know how many would have been real sales."
-- "I just sample, so it's free advertising."
-- Then several lines of conversation balloon about business keeping up with the 21st century, what is the definition of "stealing", does anyone know if piracy actually helps or hurt sales/nope no one knows for sure, how dare you condone theft, etc. etc.
-- Moderator warnings
-- More people presenting the same points as above but in different words to avoid moderator hammer.
-- Moderator bans and thread closing.

So now that we've covered all the topics that appear in every single thread that ever touches on the issue of piracy, how about some original discussion and/or discussion of this particular case without just re-re-re-re-hashing the same arguments as above? It's obvious that the two sides haven't been convinced by the arguments above and I imagine Morrus has limited hard drive space and bandwidth for recycled debates, so maybe let's just agree that all of the above has now been stated and skip over it this time, eh?

Just a suggestion, take it or ignore as you like.

It misses some of the options that I would consider the most likely:
'Some, but not most would have bought it - there were lost sales, but not as many as WotC is claiming.'
'Some already had the books, and wanted PDFs that they felt WotC charged WAY too much for. (I agree with their feelings on cost - which meant that I did not get the PDFs at all, neither legally nor illegally.)

It is also worth noting that if WotC was concerned with the losses in PDF sales then by getting rid of the PDFs they lost all of those sales. Perhaps they should also sue the person who came up with that policy for the same amount? 'Cause they probably lost more sales than they did from the pirates.

Me, I stopped buying any WotC material once they ended the D20 license and came out with the GSL. I don't pirate it either, I just don't get any WotC material at all. I just don't have any need to deal with them any more.

The Auld Grump

 

[AllisterH]

So, what would people consider a fair warning...

If you were WOTC and found somebody involved with illegal filesharing, do you just ignore it?

 

[tburdett]

Hopefully the defendants agreed to settle for an amount that far exceeds what they'd ever be able to pay, and now promptly file for bankruptcy.