D&D (2024) D&D Player's Handbook Video Redactions & Takedowns

There's a lot of YouTube videos looking at the brand new Player's Handbook right now, and some of them include the YouTuber in question flipping through the new book on screen. A couple of those video creators have been asked by WotC to redact some of the content of their videos, with one finding that their video had been taken down entirely due to copyright claims from the company. It appears to be the folks who are flipping through the whole book on-screen who are running into this issue which, it seems, is based on piracy concerns.

Jorphdan posted on Twitter that "Despite fulfilling [WotC's] requests for the flip through video I was issues a copyright strike on my channel. Three strikes TERMINATES your channel. I don't think going over the 2024 PHB is worth losing my channel I've been working on since 2017. I'm pretty upset as none of this was said up front and when notified I did comply with their requirements. And I see other creators still have their videos up. Videos that are not unlike mine. Covering WotC is not worth losing my channel... Meanwhile please subscribe to my D&D free channel the Jocular Junction, where I'll most likely be making the majority of my TTRPG videos."

​

Mike Shea, aka Sly Flourish, also posted a walkthrough of the Player's Handbook. While he didn't receive a copyright takedown action, after an email from WotC he has blurred out all the page images. "Note, I blurred out pictures of the book after Hasbro sent me an email saying they worried people would take screenshots of the book and build their own. Yes, it's complete b******t, but we must all do our part to ensure four billion dollar companies maximize shareholder value."

Popular YouTuber DnD Shorts had a video entitled 100% Walkthrough of the New Player's Handbook in D&D. That video is no longer available. However, his full spoilers review is still online.

 

[Dire Bare]

The idea that WotC's actions on this are reasonable, and content creators like @SlyFlourish should have known better . . . is a supremely weird take, IMO.

How WotC handled this was pure incompetence, and inadvertently anti-consumer and anti-community. By itself, a mistake we can move past, but . . . it adds to the death of a thousand cuts WotC has been inflicting upon itself over the past few years.

DnDShorts probably shouldn't have done a flip through of every page, but his was a mistake of the amateur content creator and a passionate fan. The fact some trogs out there took advantage of that and created a pirated PDF of the PHB is unfortunate, but is not the fault of DnDShorts, it is the fault of the pirates. And ultimately, a pirated PDF would have been created soon anyway, just by a different means (scanning one of the GenCon books, for example).

WotC does need to concern itself with piracy of their books, but in so doing, they should really try to avoid burning their fans and partners, like @SlyFlourish. Especially when that burning does nothing to prevent piracy anyway.

The style of preview engaged in by @SlyFlourish and Jorphdan is pretty common, and quite reasonable that they used this style in sharing their thoughts on the new PHB.

Now, even though WotC is walking back the copyright strikes, YouTube creators will be very gun shy when it comes to previewing the upcoming DMG and MM later this year and early next. WotC shot themselves in the foot, again.

I'll still be purchasing all three core books but . . . my enthusiasm for official D&D products continues to wane and my interest in alternatives like Tales of the Valiant and Level Up grows.

 

[Horwath]

Actions like this make me wish that people pirate the sh#t out of these books so wotc can have the worst fiscal year ever.

Their public relations must be run by AI, no human can be this incompetent.

 

[Minigiant]

The idea that WotC's actions on this are reasonable, and content creators like @SlyFlourish should have known better . . . is a supremely weird take, IMO.

I think the common take is that DNDShorts's or some other reviews actions triggered either a legal or marketing team in or contracted by WOTC not associated with the WOTC marketing team that gave out the books and PDFs. And that group was overzealous in their actions and caught up YouTubers like Slyflourish.

 

[Mistwell]

The idea that WotC's actions on this are reasonable, and content creators like @SlyFlourish should have known better . . . is a supremely weird take, IMO.

Let's go through each one and see if it is:

SlyFlourish: I still have not seen what happened with slyflourish so I cannot speak to it. Can you summarize that one?

DnDShorts: I think what happened with DnDShorts, who intentionally showed each page in order and strongly implied people should pirate the book, was reasonable. And I think it's weird to say it's not reasonable to issue a take down notice on that.

Jorphdan: What happened with Jorphdan, I'm not sure. He showed more than 85% of the pages, but it was out of order. It was surely pushing it to show that quantity of pages in a book which hasn't seen wide release. That's not a "review". I can see, given he just went live for nearly 4 hours answering every question, as it's closer to an Ask Me Anything session with an author, though he's not the author. I do think he was making an unintentional mistake based on enthusiasm. But I don't think it was a "review" video despite containing a review within the longer video. You don't see 85% of the images of the movie in a novel review, or 85% pages of a book in a novel review. In watching TTRPG reviews, I cannot recall even for indie games anyone showing that many pages, if it's a bigger book, can you?

I think it's reasonable for WOTC to say "Hey, that's too much. Dial back the amount of our copyrighted content you digitally distribute please." I don't think they should have issued a strike though through YouTube, and that was a mistake by WOTC which I am glad they made right.

Alphastream: I was told he had to blur pages. I went to his only video, and it's not blurred and showed about 225 pages.

If there are others you're aware of, please let me know. I keep hearing there are ones that blurred pages, and I don't doubt it, but I have not seen them.

How WotC handled this was pure incompetence, and inadvertently anti-consumer and anti-community. By itself, a mistake we can move past, but . . . it adds to the death of a thousand cuts WotC has been inflicting upon itself over the past few years.

DnDShorts probably shouldn't have done a flip through of every page, but his was a mistake of the amateur content creator and a passionate fan.

Naw man, come on. Did you watch the video? He knew. There was nearly a constant wink wink throughout that video. He repeatedly says get it for free, through creative commons if you can wait, or "elsewhere" if you can't. He was not making a "mistake" and I think it does an injustice to what he makes clear is his cause to call what he did with clear intent a mistake. I doubt he regrets it. I think that was the major point he was making by doing it page by page, in order.

The fact some trogs out there took advantage of that and created a pirated PDF of the PHB is unfortunate, but is not the fault of DnDShorts,

You mean, the thing he suggested in the video could be done? Come on man.

it is the fault of the pirates. And ultimately, a pirated PDF would have been created soon anyway, just by a different means (scanning one of the GenCon books, for example).

There is a difference between saying "someone will pirate this" and "I am giving you a digital copy of it right here, telling you to pause on the screen, encouraging you to acquire this by whatever means you can without paying for it because WOTC should not receive your money for how bad they are."

There is no completely honest way you can paint DNDshorts as a victim here, and I doubt he'd be happy you're trying.

WotC does need to concern itself with piracy of their books, but in so doing, they should really try to avoid burning their fans and partners, like @SlyFlourish. Especially when that burning does nothing to prevent piracy anyway.

I'd still like the details of what happened with SlyFlourish but I don't think they were burning anything with DNDShorts. And I like DNDShorts, and I got something valuable from his videos about D&D. But he's not WOTC's partner or fan.

The style of preview engaged in by @SlyFlourish and Jorphdan is pretty common, and quite reasonable that they used this style in sharing their thoughts on the new PHB.

Can't speak to SlyFlourish but I do not think what Jorphdan is "pretty common". Pick 100 random reviews of larger TTRPG books and I do not think you will find a meaningful number that show more than 85% of a large book they're reviewing. I'm not even sure I could find any?

I think there is some disingenuousness going on here. I think you fully comprehend the difference in what DNDShorts and Jorphdan did, and what 90%+ of the reviewers did with this book. But you're treating it all the same and claiming victimhood for the oppressed reviewers, and I am not buying for a moment you don't see the distinction here or that you think it's weird to point out the distinction.

 

[mamba]

According to Sly Flourish, there are those who got the NDA and PDF and those who just got books.

The two groups got different messages.

I know, and he was in the latter group

Without the bear the entire TTRPG market collapses because again

no one else does millions of dollars of marketing for TTRPGs but WOTC.

If any other company gets that big, they would start acting just like WOTC does.

eh, I am kinda willing to find out how true that actually is, this bear is becoming unbearable (pun intended)

 

[mamba]

You can't stream a video of you watching 20% of a movie.

I can post a review that contain parts of the movie, also notice that I wrote less than 20%, now that the video is down it is hard to figure out how much it was

But I would blacklist DnDShorts from any new events.

fine by me, would do the same thing

WotC is not responsible for teaching people the law.

but they are responsible for providing their guidelines, and whether any law was broken by SF is anything but clear

 

[DMinTraining]

[Edit: I watched it, good video. In my count of pages he shows, none of which were blurred, he shows about 225 pages. Now given the nature of him flipping back and forth, sometimes quickly, it was hard to tell if he repeated some pages (though if he blatantly flipped past something and then immediately flipped back to it I didn't count those as doubled). I am assuming he did, just because some of what he's doing is random flipping and even a new book will naturally break to some pages over others due to the spine. But just in pages, he shows about 225 pages.)

Sly Flourish is close friends with Teos Abadía and mentioned that he's currently working through things with WotC because his video is not easily blurred due to how it was filmed.

 

[mamba]

Doesn't look blurred? That's his only public video in the last couple weeks.

watch it, sometimes it is not blurred, other times it is (only watched the beginning, it starts out not blurred but that changes), I suppose when he runs afoul of the 75% rule

[Edit: I watched it, good video. In my count of pages he shows, none of which were blurred, he shows about 225 pages.

no idea why it would not be blurred for you, I used your link, see image above at the 6:45 timestamp

 

[Mistwell]

watch it, sometimes it is not blurred, other times it is (only watched the beginning, it starts out not blurred but that changes), I suppose when he runs afoul of the 75% rule

View attachment 375699


no idea why it would not be blurred for you, I used your link, see image above at the 6:45 timestamp

I watched the entire video. The screenshot you have there is him pulling the book away from his second camera to flip a page to a specific section so he could read it, and then he puts the book back and you see that happen. If you actually watched the full video, you will see that, and you can just go to that 6:45 section and watch him put the book back after he reads the section to position the book for a closeup. You're not seeing a blurred page there, you're seeing a tabletop with no book on it. He doesn't blur anything I saw.

 

[Mistwell]

Sly Flourish is close friends with Teos Abadía and mentioned that he's currently working through things with WotC because his video is not easily blurred due to how it was filmed.

Ah thank you! Will watch that.

I am already curious about City of Arches.