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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4914187" data-attributes="member: 29206">The new watermark was implemented in December 2008.The old one contained an invisible component as well.I would categorize this as "a successful sting operation" far more than "oh those dumbasses thinking it was that easy."Look, it's at the very least not polite to declare on a message board frequented by some of a game's creators that you're looting their stuff for free. If you think the creator deserves contempt - and I freely give it to anyone who tries to remove previously available content from all circulation permanently - then go ahead, I guess, but realize it for what it is.(Like ff6shadow and his deciding to delete all his 4e stuff forever. I kept putting off spitefully reposting all of it in his thread and then WotC's forums exploded, but again, it's not something you say in public about someone you approve of.)The funny thing about this is that according to the documents, one of the defendants is attempting precisely this defense. I figure it'll be approximately as likely to succeed as in any other copyright case (i.e. not at all) because it seems to me, bearing in mind that I'm not a lawyer, that it's rooted in a fundamental misconception of the differences between civil and criminal trials. Civil trials only require the preponderance of the evidence, while criminal trials require a higher standard of proof. For example, if you're absolutely sure one of two people committed a murder, but there's always going to be uncertainty as to which one, our criminal system basically mandates that they both go free. On the other hand, in a civil trial it'd be relatively easy to convince people that whichever one seemed somewhat more likely had the "preponderance of the evidence" against him and thus you could sue for damages. Also see the OJ Simpson trial, where the government failed to prove that he committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but it was successfully proven that it was likely that he caused a wrongful death.Point is, "but there's at least a CHANCE it could have been my evil twin!" can't get you out of copyright infringement.</blockquote>

Verification