PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Starbuck_II]

The award for one guilty party was $100,000.00. Does WoTC have to collect it all, is it handled by the court system, or can they at their own discretion reduce the amount?

I see the money going to ther lawyers not WotC. But I assume they will be like Student loans.
His credit till he pays back will be crud.

After all, that is why most people ask for huge sums: not because that is how much they need, but the fact that Lawyers are expensive.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I see the money going to ther lawyers not WotC. But I assume they will be like Student loans.
His credit till he pays back will be crud.

After all, that is why most people ask for huge sums: not because that is how much they need, but the fact that Lawyers are expensive.

Actually, if you read the judgement carefully, it says legal fees will each be paid by their own parties. So WoTC is paying their lawyers, and the defendant is paying his own (which being pro se, means none). So right now the only award is damages due to the violation and potential lost income for WoTC.

6. Each party shall bear its or his own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

That's why I am wondering what WoTC will end up doing. Clearly, this guy needs to pay some restitution, but I wonder if WoTC will ask for the full amount or might later make it smaller just to make sure the kid doesn't end up bankrupt.

 

[qstor]

*puts on lawyers hat*

It was mentioned that we have one person who knows one of the defendants who is ignoring the suit--and I assume that person lives in the US. Does that mean the person could be jailed for contempt of court? Does it mean they will make a judgment in his absence and then send Sheriffs after him?

I think someone mentioned this before. People can't be jailed in the US in civil cases.

Contempt of court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the bottom under US

They'll take a default judgment against the person.

Default judgment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Marshals could seize their property to pay the debt.


[quote/]
The award for one guilty party was $100,000.00. Does WoTC have to collect it all, is it handled by the court system, or can they at their own discretion reduce the amount?[/quote]

They can reduce it if they want too. But I doubt they will. They've gone through this much work.

Mike

 

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, we got rid of debters Prisons. The fools!

 

[qstor]

I see the money going to ther lawyers not WotC. But I assume they will be like Student loans.
His credit till he pays back will be crud.

Its up to the creditor whether they want to report the judgment to the credit reporting companies. A lot of 'junk' gets reported to credit reporting companies. In the U.S. people have the right to challenge the accuarcy of the information.

Mike

 

[Imban]

Oh dear God, I just realized something!

The emotional intensity, the broken English, the irrational pleadings . . .

YOU are the 16-year-old kid from the Philippines!

(cue Alfred Hitchcock music here)

You know, obviously this was just a snarky response, but I find it sort of telling that you're basically accusing someone of being a Filipino because he's dumb.

I mean, I used to chat with said kid from the Philippines who's being sued by WotC now on basically a daily basis and he fits... pretty much none of what you just listed.

(snip... man, everything)

Alright, here's a clear example. Say I, being a dishonourable scoundrel, the lowest of villains, and the surest of blackguards, want to provide a comrade of mine with a new video game to try out because I think that he may like it. The game has a demo, but I am a blackguard and wrongdoing is my forte.

Now, in order to provide him with a copy, I could ambush a shipping truck, callously murder the deliverymen, and retrieve a copy to bring to my comrade. Alternatively, I could send him a copy of my disc using the internet messenger of my choice. Alternatively, I could sneak through the darkest night to his home and deliver my disc to him in person, that he may play it for a few hours while I nap to regain my strength for more villainy.

Regardless of these, I discover that my comrade is brainless and without soul, and detests the game! In fact, he only played the introductory dungeon from the demo before quitting and uninstalling it. While contemplating whether or not to execute him for his folly, I might also reflect upon the alternative methods I could have used to allow him to come to that conclusion.

Now, for chaos and evil, clearly nothing can top murdering a deliveryman and stealing the product! I've not only killed someone - unimportant, really, he was just a retail peon - I've removed a physical product from circulation that a store could easily have sold to someone willing to purchase it. Clearly if I was to act as a mere courier-boy and deliver the disc to him, this would be neither unlawful nor malicious, at least in most cases. So what of the case where I delivered it to him over the internet?!

At this thought I might stroke my goatee and consider. It is surely unlawful, as all save the inept and deceitful know, but is it truly villainous? Surely it is less harmful than shivving an unsuspecting delivery-boy and taking another copy of the disc from his cooling hands - I mean, I'd be setting GameStop back some time to hire and train a new employee, too! - but is it more harmful than conveying the disc in person?

After pondering for a while, I would contest not. While it is true that I was not deprived of my own access to the game while my comrade tested it, in the end there would have been very little practical difference from instructing him to download the demo, except for how this process of piracy was somewhat more appealing to him.

...as an aside, it is now that I should mention that my comrade of whom I have been speaking so long is actually a Slaad. In fact, being a Slaad, he probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway, because funding organized systems like corporations doesn't really... work for him. Alignment issues, you understand? I can't tell you for certain, of course, because Slaadi are notorious individualists and the truly chaotic thing to do might have been to giant frog his way to GameStop and purchase it on a whim.

So in practice, while the decision to send him a file over the internet would really work a modron into a babbling, steam-emitting rage at how I scoff at the laws of the country and proper protocol, it's not doing the direct harm of thievery.

(...I really need a Snidely Whiplash emoticon for this post.)

On a serious note, the only way that some people rationalize that it does is through a strange conception, that every consumer necessarily represents a potential sale at the asking price. While piracy certainly highlights that this is not the case, basic economics also does - the lower your asking price, the more consumers you will get, almost without exception. For instance, many people have some interest in seeing a movie, but not enough interest to watch it in theatres, so they wait for the movie to be aired on television, where it is in and of itself free, as it is included as part of a cost that they are already paying regardless.

For them, the asking price of the movie - say, $10 - is higher than the price that they value the movie at - say, $2 - so there simply is no sale to be lost unless the asking price dips to $2 or less.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh dear God, I just realized something!

The emotional intensity, the broken English, the irrational pleadings . . .

YOU are the 16-year-old kid from the Philippines!

(cue Alfred Hitchcock music here)

Like Imban, I know and occasionally talk to the person you refer to, and he fits none of those descriptives.



Also, anti-invasive DRM isn't pro-piracy. my point has never been that piracy is good. In fact, that's the opposite of my point. My point is, IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. Piracy isn't inherently "ALWAYS GOOD" or "ALWAYS BAD."

Quite frankly, this thread is reading less like "D&D court case" and less like "Discussion about piracy" and more like "LAW VS CHAOS: ALIGNMENT DISCUSSION."

I maintain my neutrality

 

[Baron Opal]

For instance, many people have some interest in seeing a movie, but not enough interest to watch it in theatres, so they wait for the movie to be aired on television, where it is in and of itself free, as it is included as part of a cost that they are already paying regardless.

For them, the asking price of the movie - say, $10 - is higher than the price that they value the movie at - say, $2 - so there simply is no sale to be lost unless the asking price dips to $2 or less.

If you use the good or service, you should have paid for it. It doesn't matter what you feel the value is. If you don't think it's worth it, live without.

The ticket price for the movie is $10.
In six months it can be rented for $2.
In a year it can be seen for free on TV.
If you want to see the movie now, you have to pay $10. I think this is more analogus to someone sneaking into the theater and seeing it for free now rather than waiting the year to see it for free later.

If all it really is is demoing a book it wouldn't bother me. I'm willing to take N0man at his word that that is what he is doing. I don't think that is what is happening on the larger scale. I've come across too many people who sucked down every song they could off of Napster and burned their own musical library. I've known too many people who have seen movies before the premier because they downloaded it off of warez sites. "Why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?"

I think I'm done.

 

[Voadam]

But, Person B by pirating did cause a lost sale. He has a copy of the data and he did not pay for it.

If I go into Borders, look at a copy of Ptolus but I'm not willing to pay the price, stuff it under my coat and leave, I have stolen it. I have the book to read or whatever and I haven't compensated the merchant, author, whatever.

If I decide I don't want to buy Ptolus and download the files off of a torrent, I have the data and I haven't compensated RPGNow or Monte Cook.

While this is "copyright infringement" and not theft, the only real difference between the two is that in the second case the data is on my hard drive and not on my shelf.

Why is the latter acceptible but not the former? Does it really matter what my motivation is? Does it really matter what form the data takes?

Wait.

My friends bought GURPS, various Palladium games, Shadowrun, WFRP, Star Frontiers, Rolemaster, Paranoia, Vampire and Mage and ran games four our group back in the 80s and 90s. I played in those games, borrowed and read their books, learned the systems, made characters, etc. I never bought any of those books (Or some only years afterwards).

I gained data from those books. I now have ideas those books presented.

I never paid for any of it.

I am not a thief.

. . .

Gaining the ideas/data without paying for them is not illegal.

Sharing a book is not illegal.

Reading a book the ideas are copied into your head and you get them.

Now if I copy the ideas down in a non infringing manner (memorizing, rewriting in my own words, fair use copying, etc.) and return the book then I have a copy of the data that is non infringing. I have not wronged my friend or legally wronged the copywrite holder.

If I copy the ideas down in an infringing manner and return it then I have a copy and violated copywrite. My friend still has his book, however. I have not harmed my friend. The author/publisher has the copywrite that has been violated.

If I take my friend's book then I have stolen his book. I have not, however, violated the copywrite holder's legal rights even if he loses a potential sale.

If I sneak onto my friend's computer and secretly send his file to mine (instead of sending a copy and leaving his original file behind). I have stolen his electronic copy of the book. But I again have not violated the copywrite holder's copywrite.

Motivation seems irrelevant to me. Format seems irrelevant to me.

The distinction is between copying (some of which is prohibited and some is not) and taking.

 

[pawsplay]

If you use the good or service, you should have paid for it. It doesn't matter what you feel the value is. If you don't think it's worth it, live without.

How much does it cost you to read Shakespeare's Hamlet? (rhetorical pause) That's right, approximately nothing, apart from time, enegy, and a few bytes of bandwidth. Now suppose tomorrow, Walt Disney Inc. was granted a copyright on Hamlet. Suddenly, they want $25 every time someone publishes or distributes a copy. Does this scenario sound strange?

Well, if you look at the facts, there is no difference between that and current copyright law, say, for the PHBII. A work exists, someone has been granted the copyright, and you have to pay. "But wait," you say. "It is different." And you are correct. The PHBII's copyright belongs to WotC by what most people consider a reasonable set of rules that provide benefits to our society by entitling them to a royalty. Nonetheless, infringing is not theft... it is infringing, just as posting Hamlet on Gutenberg would be infringement in the imaginary and unlikely circumstances I put forth above.

Let's say you have a copyright that lasts for 75 years. Distributing it 74 years, 364 days into its existence, that's infringment. Distributing it 75 years and one day is not. Did it suddenly become moral and ethical to distribute it after 75 years, whereas it was immoral and evil the day before? Now, what if I told you that the original copyright was assigned to Company X under duress? What if I further told you that the copyrighted work was a book on psychology and philosophy that would help thousands of people, and its publisher and copyright were purchased solely so that Company X could mothball it in favor of their own, slightly better selling but inferior, book?

There are many different ways of solving ethical problems, but very few of them are going to come up with solutions that apply to most, much less every situation.

A Utilitarian might ask - "Will more good or harm come of distributing this work?"
A rules utilitarian might ask - "What is the value of the copyright law, and what are the consequences to the rule of law in general if I choose to ignore the copyright law because I find that law objectionable?"
A virtue ethicist might ask - "What kind of person would I become if I distributed this PDF?"
A Kantian ethicist might ask - "Should I wish for everyone to distribute this PDF in such a situation? Should WotC wish that everyone would pull legal distribution of all PDFs? If the answers are no and no, how should everyone agree to resolve such dilemmas?"

This is a very different question than, "Did Person B dstribute work H in such a fashion that it appears to go against Law Y?"

And right in the middle is the question, "What is just? What is the basis of this law? Is this law supportable under our view of citizenship, enterepeneurship, and artistry? How do we know if a given law should be considered invalid?"