Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9428038" data-attributes="member: 2525">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. 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.You mean, the thing he suggested in the video could be done? Come on man.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification