Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chriton227" data-source="post: 4657696" data-attributes="member: 33263">Without knowing the details of the agreement, no one can know for sure how much negotiation happened and how much influence each side had on the final terms of the agreement, but I don't know of very many cases where in a settlement between a multi-billion dollar corporation and a single infringing individual, the single individual had much of any say beyond &quot;accept the terms the corporation specifies&quot; or &quot;be plowed so far under with legal expenses and eventual penalties that you will be eating ramen noodles until the day you die&quot;. You are right, I am not happy that Ema breached the laws and as a result the site is no more. I'm not happy that the current state of copyright law (and the ever increasing duration) in the US is &quot;protect corporate interests&quot; over &quot;promoting the progress of science and the useful arts&quot;.&nbsp; In my assessment, Ema's didn't reproduce enough of the content to replace the need for the books.&nbsp; It didn't tell you how many HP per level a class got or how many powers you could pick.&nbsp; It didn't give you the 4e feat, race, or skill descriptions.&nbsp; All of the power and spell descriptions cited the source and page of the original information (which is what I though was the acceptable way of reproducing information from other sources, although Ema could have used more formal citations rather than PHB.106).&nbsp; It did include logos, but those are fairly easy to strip back out of PDFs, especially ones generated dynamically (just replace with a blank graphic of the same dimensions).&nbsp; The power cards and power/spell sheets could have easily been turned off, or replaced with simple blank versions that the user could fill in on their own.&nbsp; But I am not a lawyer, and I really don't know IP law that well, so my assessment on the matter is nothing but a personal opinion.In any case, what is done is done, and no amount of arguing with people on the internet, especially those of us discussing it had absolutely no direct involvement in the proceedings, will do anything to change that.&nbsp; I've stated my opinions on the matter; I don't think there is much chance of my opinion changing, and I don't think I have much chance of changing the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, so I'm going to step out of the discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chriton227, post: 4657696, member: 33263"] Without knowing the details of the agreement, no one can know for sure how much negotiation happened and how much influence each side had on the final terms of the agreement, but I don't know of very many cases where in a settlement between a multi-billion dollar corporation and a single infringing individual, the single individual had much of any say beyond "accept the terms the corporation specifies" or "be plowed so far under with legal expenses and eventual penalties that you will be eating ramen noodles until the day you die". You are right, I am not happy that Ema breached the laws and as a result the site is no more. I'm not happy that the current state of copyright law (and the ever increasing duration) in the US is "protect corporate interests" over "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts". In my assessment, Ema's didn't reproduce enough of the content to replace the need for the books. It didn't tell you how many HP per level a class got or how many powers you could pick. It didn't give you the 4e feat, race, or skill descriptions. All of the power and spell descriptions cited the source and page of the original information (which is what I though was the acceptable way of reproducing information from other sources, although Ema could have used more formal citations rather than PHB.106). It did include logos, but those are fairly easy to strip back out of PDFs, especially ones generated dynamically (just replace with a blank graphic of the same dimensions). The power cards and power/spell sheets could have easily been turned off, or replaced with simple blank versions that the user could fill in on their own. But I am not a lawyer, and I really don't know IP law that well, so my assessment on the matter is nothing but a personal opinion. In any case, what is done is done, and no amount of arguing with people on the internet, especially those of us discussing it had absolutely no direct involvement in the proceedings, will do anything to change that. I've stated my opinions on the matter; I don't think there is much chance of my opinion changing, and I don't think I have much chance of changing the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, so I'm going to step out of the discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification