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

[Storm Raven]

Scanned in ones? I've not heard of anyone being caught and tagged with a judgment, by WotC or otherwise and I have heard of people being struck by lightning all over the world, though there is the significant factor of how many upload versus how many are at risk of strikes. I have not been watching out for other infringement cases and do not know if anything similar has been done before for other scanned books. Actual probability would depend on how WotC could track down those types of uploads.

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

 

[Voadam]

Well, in this case no one did. But, for example, if the uploader got paid some amount per each download, then if damages were limited to the retail value of the uploaded product, then once you discount for the expected chance of getting caught, illegal uploads in this manner could be profitable.

I don't think that's a plausible scenario. Just like I don't believe the chain emails claiming microsoft will pay you pyramid scheme style for forwarding the chain email to test out their new system.

These are people who bought the pdfs from WotC and then shared them on file sharing networks.

They didn't gain anything. They shared what they bought. The sharing of copies is the infringing.

If damages were based on the pirate's profit then WotC would have gotten $0.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't think that's a plausible scenario. Just like I don't believe the chain emails claiming microsoft will pay you pyramid scheme style for forwarding the chain email to test out their new system.

These are people who bought the pdfs from WotC and then shared them on file sharing networks.

They didn't gain anything. They shared what they bought. The sharing of copies is the infringing.

I didn't say that this was what happened here, but just that if you limited demages solely to the cost of the product itself, then the deterrent effect would be reduced, potentially to a level low enough that pirating could be arationally profitable strtaegy. That's all.

If damages were based on the pirate's profit then WotC would have gotten $0.

Good thing for WotC that isn't the measure of damages then.

 

[Xris Robin]

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

Really? Why didn't they do anything about all the 3.x scans then? It's not like this is new, it was happening before 4th edition.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

You can't use past actions to predict future performance. WoTC may have any number of reasons for deciding to pursue piracy now.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

Well, yes and no. A defendant can always reprsent themselves pro se (unless they are a coporation), so the possibility of legal fees isn't certain. Generally, when establishing penalties, (at least in the U.S.) attorney's fees only "count" if they are being shifted from the winner to the loser.

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)?

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?

 

[WayneLigon]

I don't know the financial circumstances of the defendants, but I wonder how much of that settlement WOTC will ever see?

 

[Voadam]

You can't use past actions to predict future performance. WoTC may have any number of reasons for deciding to pursue piracy now.

Of course you can. Its usually the best predictor you've got. There may be any number of reasons things change, but for making predictions past performance is generally a good guide.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

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...

A note to the pirates (esp. those who go after music/video):

The tech that enables you to download virtually without fear is the same tech that is letting more and more artists release their creative products directly to the public without the backing of a major multinational companies for production and distribution.

That means that the more you steal of the new stuff, the more likely you're directly affecting the bottom line of the artists (and whatever engineers/producers, etc. that may have helped). The fewer creative types who can make a living producing IP, the less IP we'll all have to choose from.

Ani DiFranco is famous for being an indie pioneer who releases her own stuff on her own label. The past 5 years, however, she's been forced to spend more and more time monitoring and fighting piracy, which, of course, detracts from her practice, recording, and touring time.

Just so you know.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

Of course you can. Its usually the best predictor you've got. There may be any number of reasons things change, but for making predictions past performance is generally a good guide.

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?