PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case


Also, anyone claiming that one of my works is under creative commons license isn't "mislead" - they know what they're doing and choose to be as big a jerk as possible about it.

joe b.

Especially, if I clearly mark it in the credits page:

"All Alea characters, character names, and the distinctive likenesses
thereof are trademarks owned by Alea Publishing Group.
This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United
States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the
material or artwork contained herein is prohibited
without the express written permission of
Alea Publishing Group.

©2008 Alea Publishing Group
All rights reserved.
Made in the U.S.A.

Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution
of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright
infringement, including infringement without monetary
gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to
5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."​

log in or register to remove this ad


The real reality is that you don't have the right to benefit me without my explicit permission.

Clearly, that is absolutely correct. It is also the reality that with a 15 minute effort, anyone can find free copies of almost any piece of intellectual property they want -- books, movies, news stories, music, games, etc., etc.

I cannot conceive of a future where that reality changes, unless the Internet goes away completely or is so radically changed that freedom is completely curtailed online.

Every company and business owner has the right and freedom to approach this "problem" how they wish. My wish is simply that more companies realized that the genie is out of the bottle. The horse has left the barn. Godzilla is stomping Tokyo. And I wish the companies I respect and whose products I enjoy would figure out a way to deal with that rampaging genie/horse/giant flaming lizards in a way that benefits them and the consumer.

But you are absolutely correct. Nobody can or should force anyone to make a decision they don't want. And business owners are completely free to decide how or even if they want to deal with that rampage.


First Post
Or someone could just buy a hard copy of the book and scan it.

It wouldn't be perfect, but there would be zero chance of traceability. With some of the higher end vision software these days, you could probably even get a decent percentage of the text recognized to be searchable. If someone cared enough, they could manually correct errors and re-proof the whole book.

Scanners today can do very good scans and the OCRed text is good enough for searching. I do it with my books and magazines.

I even talked to my IP lawyers before doing it. They basically said as long as I have a receipt, I'm good for scanning my own books.

I started doing it during my divorce when I needed to reduce space in my temporary apartment. I was able to store my books and magazines in my storage facility while still having them at my finger tips. It was wonderful and I've kept doing it.


First Post
jgbrowning> While I can see where you're coming from, I also believe that any content creator who attempts to bury and destroy his work despite demand for it is a jerk, and thus I don't care one whit for any disrespect I do him, even if I was a fan before he became a jerk.

But I've been in the awkward position of infringing the copyright of a work by someone I know and talk to regularly before because the distributor refused to sell me a copy under anything even approaching reasonable terms, so that might have altered my perception.

So yeah, I can understand that you might not think people stealing your work is cool. But while the law gives you that right in all cases, I've personally seen times where exercising it makes you a jerk.

(I'd guess here my litmus test would be expecting to sell my exclusively online gaming group 10 copies of any book we planned on using. By and large RPG books are not priced for that being even remotely a reasonable expectation.)
Last edited:


An Update on This Legal Action

Bumping this thread up.

I have attached updated Zip files of the PDFs for this case. Here's a quick status summary report.

Thomas Patrick Nolan is taking it to trial, and representing himself Pro Se. The trial should come up in Summer/Fall, 2010. No word on the other guy.

Arthur Le who also represented himself Pro Se agreed to the penalty of $100,000.00. I think the co-consipirator has been declared "in default" because he has not responded.

The guys from Poland, no significant progress...so I didn't attach any documents for them.


  • 2-09-cv-00459-TSZ.zip
    768.6 KB · Views: 73
  • 2-09-cv-00461-RSM.zip
    1.1 MB · Views: 73
Last edited:


Thanks for the updates - I was curious!

Why the heck aren't any of these people getting in touch with lawyers?! Come on, folks!




Well, he said he was a college student and both parents were unemployed. Let's not assume his plea and the decision suddenly means he'll have to pay the entire $100,000.00. I think it's up to WoTC to decide that.

Plus I think WoTC is less likely to care about the money so much as the agreement of his to never violate copyright again. The "permanent injunction" is useful for several reasons.

Regarding lawyers, that is an expensive proposition. I think a good defense could cost in the upper 5 or low six figures.

Remove ads