PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Nikosandros]

Did you know that many printers come with a "watermark", too. Each page is imprinted with it - invisibly to the naked eye, but if you print out something, it could be traced back to the buyer of the printer.

How so? It's not like you have to show ID when you buy a printer or a scanner.

 

[Derulbaskul]

In no particular order of stupidity:

1. Wizards has stopped PDF sales DESPITE the fact that the existing security process allowed them to identify the sources of the pirated materials... um, so that they can have time to come up with a security system that would let them, um, identify the source of pirated materials.

2. This relates to fewer than 3,000 copies. The legal fees alone would have already exceeded the total revenue (and not profit) of 3,000 sales at MRRP!

3. For the sake of 3,000 copies that probably had no impact on Wizards' revenues (or profits), Wizards has unleashed an Epic-level spell of nerdrageacross the internet doing untold damage to the brand with those of us who actually buy their products.

No business should be run by its lawyers. And I say that as someone who likes lawyers, who has close friends and business partners who are lawyers, but that doesn't mean that I let them run the commercial side of my businesses (just as I don't run the legal side of my businesses).

However, I do wish I was a lawyer for Wizards and/or Hasbro because I can see now that they would be an easy mark for squeezing out some ridiculous fees to fund multiple tilts at multiple small windmills.

If Wizards has a CEO who is worth his pay he should be stepping in right now and providing some real leadership.

 

[Quartz]

I really don't get the outrage. An alleged copyright infringer has been found and is being prosecuted. Pretty standard. Wizards has stopped selling PDFs. It's a pity, but clearly there isn't sufficient profit in it for them. Maybe the legal fees for this case have brought it home to them. It's a business decision. Big deal. I mean, we managed before pdfs, didn't we?

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) I mean, we managed before pdfs, didn't we?

Yes, but now I live in two countries: I prep in one and play in the other and it's not convenient to cart my 400 kgs of books 7,000 kms each way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How so? It's not like you have to show ID when you buy a printer or a scanner.

Still narrows things down considerably. They will know at least at which shop they were sold, which means they have to cross-check "only" the list of customers in the area of that shop with other data.

Even if they can't find you with it, they can later use it as evidence against you, because one you are caught, checking your printer or scanner can be enough.

 

[xechnao]

Still narrows things down considerably. They will know at least at which shop they were sold, which means they have to cross-check "only" the list of customers in the area of that shop with other data.

Even if they can't find you with it, they can later use it as evidence against you, because one you are caught, checking your printer or scanner can be enough.

Ahh, this is way too optimistic IMO. I doubt shop inventory identifies individual physical products (only in some food fields -such as wine bottles have I seen this).

Moreover even if there was shop ID and you found out the shop that sold it you would need lots of luck to make something out of it. Even more I am not sure that the shop should cooperate due to privacy reasons.

 

[lmpjr007]

There is no jail time possible for civil cases. For jail to be a possibility the "state" (local/state/federal) would have to file a criminal case and the likelyhood of that is as close to zero as to make it meaningless.

After they win a civil case on the people, HOW difficult will it be for the "State" to go after them for a criminal case? They have already proved them guilty in case. That is basically an automatic conviction if you don't mess it up.

 

[Nikosandros]

Still narrows things down considerably. They will know at least at which shop they were sold, which means they have to cross-check "only" the list of customers in the area of that shop with other data.

Even if they can't find you with it, they can later use it as evidence against you, because one you are caught, checking your printer or scanner can be enough.

Well, the definition of area can be rather vague. I bought my last HP printer at a big store on the outskirts of Rome, rather far from my home. It's a popular place and the list of potential customers is several millions...

On the other hand, this conversation gave me a disturbing thought. What if in the future, all printers and scanners will have this kind of watermarks and you will always be required to identify yourself when you buy one? After all, that's what happens with sim cards for cell phones currently...

 

[Belgos]

How so? It's not like you have to show ID when you buy a printer or a scanner.

Very true, I can confirm this as my partner works on 'Question Documents' as her daily grind in a Police forensics lab. To answer the question, it only takes a forensic scientist to poinpoint the watermark with the printer in question, which is then tied to the manuafacturer, then the store it was shipped to, then to who it was sold if payed by credit or POS. If by cash, that can be traced to the time of sale and a marriage of surveillance cameras. Of course, this process only works in a perfect scenario; real world physics always throws up extenuating circumstance or five to make it harder. Just remember, it is well within the realms of possiblity to trace it to at least the time and place the printer was initially sold. Extenuating circumstances just make the trail longer.

 

[pedr]

After they win a civil case on the people, HOW difficult will it be for the "State" to go after them for a criminal case? They have already proved them guilty in case. That is basically an automatic conviction if you don't mess it up.

Although the US Congress has created a law which might apply here, the usual (and almost worldwide) situation is that copyright infringement is a tort, i.e. a civil wrong, and not a crime. This action, pursuing those who infringed copyright in civil court for damages, is the appropriate and most usual course of action.

Criminal offences relating to copyright infringement tend to be linked to cases of organised copyright infringement for the pursuit of profit. I'm not an expert on US law (obviously!) and discussions on this previously have suggested that the US Act was amended to include criminal liability if the losses reach a certain level, even if the infringement wasn't for commercial reasons, but this is unusual. This is why many of us with some legal understanding disagree with the 'piracy is theft' argument: while taking a penny from someone else without their permission is theft as well as being a tort, it's not always or generally the case that other civil wrongs also lead to criminal liability. Just because something could cause another person a loss which the courts would seek to remedy does not mean that the criminal law has been breached (see, by analogy, breaches of contract, or - more explicitly - remedies for negligently causing injury).

Finally (!!) the burden of proof in civil cases is 'on the balance of probabilities' or 'on the preponderance of the evidence' - a far lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. While a judgment on the civil case might help a prosecutor (and bring more information to light) it isn't a 'slam dunk'.