Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Imaro]

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!

If you cannot enforce your copyrights, they are worthless.

That's not what you said... even if you don't recieve compensation, you don't loose them... you can still force that person to stop using them and your compensation only applies to that particular instance of use... but nice way to try and slide the goalposts.

 

[Xyxox]

That's not what you said... even if you don't recieve compensation, you don't loose them... you can still force that person to stop using them and your compensation only applies to that particular instance of use... but nice way to try and slide the goalposts.

I said you RISK them.

And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.

Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.

 

[xechnao]

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!

Only that this reinforces the other side of the argument where you are standing from -regarding the timing of the C&D letter that is.
From what moment would Wotc be risking losing damage loss enforcement in this case?

 

[Imaro]

I said you RISK them.

And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.

Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.

And I'm saying you risk the level of compensation for their unauthorized use not the actual copyright... Really, semantics aside you didn't state it correctly and then didn't expound on it or defend your statement when it's validity was challenged...someone else had too (and they still disagreed with your original statement), so excuse me if I don't believe that that's what you really meant...

 

[Xyxox]

And I'm saying you risk the level of compensation for their unauthorized use not the actual copyright... Really, semantics aside you didn't state it correctly and then didn't expound on it or defend your statement when it's validity was challenged...someone else had too (and they still disagreed with your original statement), so excuse me if I don't believe that that's what you really meant...

I am not accountable for educating you as to what is considered risk in business.

 

[the Jester]

You did see the card I posted right? It's not a matter of an inch vs. a mile. The only discernible difference (Because there are PDF's of the full power cards on numerous sites) is that this website allowed you to pick and choose which cards you wanted and construct a PDF with just those cards to print... but they really are the exact same cards.

No, the difference is that the site in question had ALL THE POWER TEXT FROM THE PH posted.

If other sites have pdfs of all of those cards I would be shocked if WotC didn't send them C&D's once they become aware of them.

And I remain shocked that others have such a hard time with the idea that posting about 50% of the PH (guesstimating, I admit) would not be cool with WotC. I don't really care which 50% it is- all the powers, everything but the powers, every odd page, whatever. It is INCREDIBLY obvious, if you think about it for one second, that any business that sells that information (in book form, for example) is NOT going to want it freely disseminated.

"But it's bad for the fans!"

Hey, you know what? Write what you want, create what you want, share it with your friends and your gaming group- but when you start widely distributing it, expect trouble. I don't care if it is WotC, GE, the Smithsonian or whatever- you cannot simply distribute the work of others without consequences.

I just cannot fathom why it is so hard to fathom this. But whatever, obviously some people have more of a sense of entitlement to the work and intellectual labor of others than I do.

 

[Imaro]

I am not accountable for educating you as to what is considered risk in business.

You stated it wrong. Even the poster (whose post explained your stance in a much more clear and succinct way) first states you are wrong. Perhaps it's not everyone else... perhaps it really was you that were wrong. No, couldn't be that's to simple an answer for why numerous posters felt you were wrong... even the one you claim agreed with you.

 

[Oldtimer]

I said you RISK them.

And you'd still be wrong.

And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.

No, technically you don't risk your copyrights. You only risk some of the damages you can get from litigation. You can still stop people from continue to infringe on your copyright. It's rather unhealthy to include income from litigation in your business plan.

Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.

Maybe you should learn more about civility before you insult people on ENWorld.

 

[El Mahdi]

Imagine if a singer wrote a song and only he was able to sing it live to other people. Does such a thing exist?

IANAL, but...

Technically, Yes. Technically, every local band in every local bar is performing copyrighted material without the license to do so (unless it's their own original copyrighted material). However, it's almost impossible to enforce, completely non-cost-effective to enforce, and actually counter-productive (since it is in effect, free advertising) and might be considered fair-use(?). However, if you wrote a song, and someone else started performing it, and they were actually becoming better known for it than you (or they were performing it so badly it was ruining the song), it would be in your best interest (and your rights) to force them to stop performing it.

If one of these bands started recording versions of other bands songs, or selling recordings of live performances of other peoples songs, or started performing large venues with entrance fees specifically for hearing the music (as opposed to a cover charge at a bar, which is for more than just the band), then the copyright holder (whether the music company or the musicians themselves), could (and usually do) come down on the offender like a ton-of-bricks. And, they will win.

There are lot's of example of this happening. Boston is a good one. At one point in Boston's history, two former members of Boston started touring, playing predominantly Boston material and billing themselves as the "Boston" sound. Tom Scholz (Boston's founder) sued them (I believe for both Trademark and Copyright infringement) and won (but of course it took a lot of money, on both sides). Another good example is musicians sending C&D's to politicians for using their music in their campaigns without permission.

If someone wants to use someone elses material on an album (whether live or studio), or more and more commonly in commercials, they have to get permission, and the copyright holder is within their rights to charge a royalty fee (a percentage fee to essentially license the copyrighted material, with said license possibly restricting how and how-long the material may be used).

So basically, copyright is copyright, whether a text or music. They are both equally protected.

 

[xechnao]

IANAL, but...

Technically, Yes.

I am not convinced.

If one of these bands started recording versions of other bands songs, or selling recordings of live performances of other peoples songs, or started performing large venues with entrance fees specifically for hearing the music (as opposed to a cover charge at a bar, which is for more than just the band), then the copyright holder (whether the music company or the musicians themselves), could (and usually do) come down on the offender like a ton-of-bricks. And, they will win.

Yes, to this I agree it works this way.