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

[Umbran]

So does captial punishment ...

Capital punishment is neither a fitting analogy for IP law, nor is such an analogy a fitting subject for discussion on EN World.

Folks, do remember - we don't allow digression into matters of politics. We sometimes allow discussion of IP law because it is highly relevant to gaming, but it is still a political issue. If we start seeing hyperbole, anger, or butting of heads, we'll take action to get the thread under control.

Please don't make us have to do that. Keep it civil, respectful, and polite.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with both of these. It is a good thing that WotC were able to defend their IP. Hopefully, doing so will have had the desired effect.

At the same time, IP laws have really gotten out of hand. They really haven't adapted to the internet, are no longer doing everything they're intended to do, and are badly in need of revision.

Yeah, I think this is where I come down. Protecting intellectual property is vitally important, and if these are the tools we have to do it with, well, so be it. But we could really use a new toolkit.

 

[AllisterH]

They should have instead taken a stance like Microsoft did back in the early days and turn a blind eye - after all if people pirate D&D PDFs it means that they're using them and not a competing system. Eventually they'll buy your stuff; that's how Microsoft got to where it is today, by publicly decrying piracy but doing nothing to enforce it because hey, you've got them locked in to your products now.

Um, that's NOT how MS became the dominant software company as it is today....

This is the firs ttime I've ever heard of someone saying Piracy actually is the reason why MS is the dominant company

 

[Hussar]

//snip
If I create a PDF and sell it, then the cost of making another PDF doesn't exist since it's just a collection of 1s and 0s that a computer translates to pretty images and text. If somebody downloads my PDF, then they aren't "stealing" it. Now there may be issues with IP (which is another can of worms in and of itself) but calling it theft is a just a petty attempt to demonize the people who do it (e.g. "These people are thieves, and thieves are criminals") and make the person doing the suing seem justified and the "good guys" when in most cases it's the reverse (i.e. people standing up to big greedy corporations who overcharge out of their executives desire to line their pockets; not necessarily lumping WotC into that group however).

Y'know what? I don't get this one. In a free market economy, I have the absolute right to charge whatever the heck I want for whatever I'm selling. No matter what. If people will pay the price I am asking, it's the right price.

Price does not justify piracy. Nothing justifies piracy. It might not be theft or stealing, but that doesn't make it right either. The pirate is taking something that he or she has no right to. None. While it might not be depriving the original owner (and thus be called theft), it's most certainly not a legitimate action.

WotC may be justified, but I'm betting this is going to hurt them more and cause more people to pirate PDFs (especially seeing as there is no legal way to buy them at this point, and when there was it was highway robbery since the PDF cost roughly the same as a the hardcore book despite there being absolutely $0 cost to WotC to produce them since the PDF was used to print the books, so they were making money off of the hardback sales to cover the printing costs. Those PDFs should have been maybe $10 at most, and probably less than that, since 100% of the revenue generated from it is profit since the creator has no expenses for a PDF). They should have instead taken a stance like Microsoft did back in the early days and turn a blind eye - after all if people pirate D&D PDFs it means that they're using them and not a competing system. Eventually they'll buy your stuff; that's how Microsoft got to where it is today, by publicly decrying piracy but doing nothing to enforce it because hey, you've got them locked in to your products now.

Umm, no. The first PDF cost a considerable amount of money to build. You had to pay the writers, artists, editors, layout guys, etc to get that first one. Just because there are no printing costs associated with a pdf, does not make copies of a pdf free. That's not how it works. You have to divide the total costs by the number of sales in order to recoup your expenses.

If you could sell that first pdf for the total cost to produce that book, then you would have a point. But, since you can't do that, then whatever price the company decides is the price. You might not like it, you might even hate it. But NOTHING gives you the right to copy it without permission.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm surprised these guys didn't report this earlier, I had already posted the results of Arthur Le several weeks ago. Maybe I need to check PACER again.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Y'know what? I don't get this one. In a free market economy, I have the absolute right to charge whatever the heck I want for whatever I'm selling. No matter what. If people will pay the price I am asking, it's the right price.

Price does not justify piracy. Nothing justifies piracy. It might not be theft or stealing, but that doesn't make it right either. The pirate is taking something that he or she has no right to. None. While it might not be depriving the original owner (and thus be called theft), it's most certainly not a legitimate action.

Yes, this is true. The moral thing to do is to go without, not to use unethical means to get the product. If I only have X dollars in my game budget, I can spend it on X or Y, I don't have a right to take Y because I feel Y is "overpriced". If something's overpriced, let the legitimate market forces play.

As for you statement about fixed costs. I agree. In many cases, the cost of printing is only a small portion of the creative content. Yet I hear many people balk at paying anything more than 50% of the retail price for a PDF.

And then, I would think smaller print runs would be even more costly since you should probably want to support the creative types involved.

Mark Evanier wasn't talking about digital piracy here, but a lot of this statement from his web site applies in this case.

Unfinanced Entrepreneurs exist because of a fiction about creative people, so widely believed that even some of us writers and artists accept it. The fiction is that writing and drawing are not assets...they are things we whip up out of thin air and which cost nothing to create. If someone steals your work from you, you can always bat out another for nothing.

If you believe this, it's your right, but you do our profession a grave disservice. Every time someone tramples on our work — ruins it, changes it, mauls it, damages it — it's because they have no respect for it. And, generally speaking, they have no respect for that which cost them nothing.

They think writers and artists "just knock it out" but we don't...not really. And even when it seems like we do, it's because of a lifetime of developing whatever skills we bring to each project. My best pal, Sergio Aragonés, once was selling some sketches he'd done. A browser was interested in one but blanched at the hundred-buck price tag.

"How long did it take you to draw that?" he asked.

"About a half-hour," Sergio answered.

The man was horrified: "You expect me to pay you a hundred dollars for a half-hour's work?"

Sergio showed uncommon restraint — at least for Sergio. He calmly said, "You're not paying for the half-hour it took me to do the drawing. You're paying for the forty-one years it took me to learn how to do that."

 

[Cadfan]

While I agree with the sentiment, the "how long did you take to draw that" story is probably apocryphal. I've heard it before in various forms attributed to famous historical painters as well as to modern "my friend so and so" artists. Although its such a great line that its possible people are lifting it.

 

[Umbran]

As for you statement about fixed costs. I agree. In many cases, the cost of printing is only a small portion of the creative content. Yet I hear many people balk at paying anything more than 50% of the retail price for a PDF.

What's more, I hear that often from people who also say they prefer the PDF format to the print format, in general.

Generally speaking, you get to pay less for a product when it is similarly less convenient for you to use. Furniture you assemble yourself is typically cheaper than stuff that is assembled for you. if the PDF is actually more useful to you, you should expect to pay the higher price.

And I think that may be the logic behind Wotc keeping PDF prices high. Those of use who prefer dead-tree format don't want the PDFs, and are not likely to buy them. Those who prefer PDFs should, in theory, be willing to pay for the extra convenience the PDF offers them.

If you aren't willing to pay more for what is actually for you a convenience, honestly, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I don't think you get to gripe about not being able to do that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If it's theft, why is it not prosecuted by the authorities? Why do we leave enforcement up to the copyright holder? We don't expect businesses to track down burglars, why do we expect record labels to do so?

This strikes me as unfair to both copyright holders and to consumers.

I have a dream that someday we will live in a world were people who break laws all get punished in a timely maner...a world were people know that if they do something socoitoy as a whole has labled 'wrong' there are consaqances...unfortonatly I don't think I will ever live in that world

to put this in perspective I have had my car vandalized multi times since I was 16...once I saw who did it through the window of my house(not someone I know but I could describe the little punk to this day 7 years later). I have also had my house robbed when I was much younger...and my sister's house was robbed last year. about 8 years ago a good friend of mine was hit by a car well crossing the street in a hit and run. My aunt works at a Bank, and it was held up twice in the last 6 years...

End result of all of these is a grand total of 1 investigation of any merit...1 bank robber going to jail. The house thefts, the vandalisme, and the hit and run we were told in no uncertian terms were not even going to be investigated...becuse the polive wouldn't know where to begin...

You read that right the polive didn't do anything but file a report...oh and that first bank robber...she was never cought eaither...

long before I worry about all pirates being gone after I worry about all of the crimes we just 'let go'

 

[pedr]

I think US law confuses the issue here by using acronyms that spell out 'NET THEFT' even where the word 'theft' is not used in the law and (more generally) by allowing the use of significant punitive damages. Those saying 'if we are calling it theft, the state should be prosecuting as a criminal offence' are entirely right. Although that shouldn't preclude a copyright owner seeking to recover compensation for actual loss from the wrongdoer it would remove the punitive aspect from the civil system. I am currently unconvinced that copyright infringement is a wrong against the peace of the state, unlike physical theft, but that's a decision each jurisdiction has to make for itself. The US has said that willful copyright infringement for personal financial gain and copyright infringement of $1,000 worth of material in a 180 day period are criminal offences, while other copyright infringment (of the materials we're interested in here) are not.

I'm sure I've posted this here before, but I doubt anyone would object to a legal regime which forced copyright infringers to pay compensation for lost earnings due to the infringement. What raises eyebrows - and questions about the proper use of the private law system - are awards which seem to pay no relation to the loss of profit or earnings from the infringement.