Sharing DDI Accounts: why isn't this like file sharing?

[roguerouge]

In other threads, I've seen posters talk about sharing their DDI accounts with the others in their gaming group. I'm totally fine with this and think it's completely logical to share gaming content in this way. Bravo!

But when we talk about file sharing controversies on this site, many posters describe gaining access to another's content without paying for it as "stealing" rather than "sharing" or "sampling" or "trying it out". How is not paying for a DDI account yourself different? You're not paying for content. All the complaints about what it does to content creators apply. You're sharing log in and password info rather than a file, passing a laptop around the table instead of a file.

For those who are against file sharing but do share DDI accounts, I'm curious as to what the difference is in your mind.

 

[Pseudonym]

But when we talk about file sharing controversies on this site, many posters describe gaining access to another's content without paying for it as "stealing" rather than "sharing" or "sampling" or "trying it out". How is not paying for a DDI account yourself different?

Well, I believe a DDI subscription lets you use it on five separate computers. It would be as if WotC sold a pdf copy of Monster Manual 3 with a license agreement that you could give the file away to four other people.

 

[Piratecat]

Well, I believe a DDI subscription lets you use it on five separate computers. It would be as if WotC sold a pdf copy of Monster Manual 3 with a license agreement that you could give the file away to four other people.

Right. I consider this an act of genius on WotC's part; they're not going to ever come out and state it, but it seems clear to me that the number five was chosen so that you could share it with other members of your group. When we did this, about half of those members went out and got their own subscription simply for convenience's sake. They would never have done so if we hadn't started by sharing one subscription. Knowing we weren't breaking the license (I hope!) made it much more palatable.

This is a case where not being draconian appears to be paying dividends. I applaud them for it.

 

[IronWolf]

Right. I consider this an act of genius on WotC's part; they're not going to ever come out and state it, but it seems clear to me that the number five was chosen so that you could share it with other members of your group. When we did this, about half of those members went out and got their own subscription simply for convenience's sake. They would never have done so if we hadn't started by sharing one subscription. Knowing we weren't breaking the license (I hope!) made it much more palatable.

I don't think they've (Wizards) come outright and stated their stance on this at least based on some web searches to see if they have - I could not find any. Though there are lots of discussions as to the rightness and wrongness of it and whether Wizards is okay with it.

The five updates some say are simply because they are aware people are more connected and might have multiple machines at home, which can eat up a couple of instances. I know if I were a DDI user I would likely have at least three machines I would install it on. Some also say the number is so high to also allow for corrected updates to be rolled out in any given month.

I only viewed the ToS on the main signup page, but there are mentions in there of not sharing the password for the account that is used for wizard's services and that the person who signed up is responsible for the security of the password and what happens under that password.

I am not a lawyer and have really only made a few web searches and reviewed the ToS briefly, but it looks like if they wanted to enforce one user per DDI account they could simply by enforcing the section that talks about not sharing your password. So I think they have left the door open to enforce if they see the need without making changes in their ToS.

This is a case where not being draconian appears to be paying dividends. I applaud them for it.

And this is quite possibly the case - they have chosen not to enforce that as it is working well for them not to. It gets people to try it out under their "group" subscription which eventually leads to more people signing up for their own subscription.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) they have chosen not to enforce that as it is working well for them not to.

Agreed. If WotC thought that only one in five people using the DDI were actually paying for it, their enforcement of the ToS would increase dramatically as evidenced by their reaction to a number of people pirating PDFs, and everyone will have to agree that based on the ToS they will have a right to do so. Genius.

 

[roguerouge]

Lack of stringent enforcement implies consent? I'm not sure I buy that. Certainly, people could make the same case for a lot of other copyrighted material on the interwebs.

Absent the explicit consent of the creators, I'm not sure that this 5 copies thing lets people off the hook. After all, you have the right to make backup copies and copies for other locations under the precedents of space shifting and time shifting. The fact that the TOS seems to say don't share your password, the idea that 5 copies are permitted doesn't seem to trump that explicit statement.

After all, RPGNow permits multiple downloads, but I don't construe that as implicit permission to send a copy to everyone I game with. Do you?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's fabulous that WotC is not suing people for sharing. But thus far this seems like a rationalization, rather than the kind of explicit consent that Copyright Hawks insist on.

 

[Nagol]

You are granted a limited, non-sublicenseable license to access and use the Sites and Services, and to electronically copy (except where specified as prohibited) and print to hard copy portions of Site Content and/or Services for your personal, noncommercial use only; provided, that you preserve any copyright, trademark or other similar notices contained in or associated with such Site Content or Services

Anyone who shares an account is violating the TOU by which they have right to use the account.

 

[Wik]

Anyone who shares an account is violating the TOU by which they have right to use the account.

Hunh. I'll be damned.

Of course, let's say I happen to print off those articles, and then give them to my friends. Woo hoo! I'm safe!

Really, our group all uses my account - most of them use it more than I do! A few of our players use less legal means of getting the same info, which is weird, since they could also get it legally using my information (or at least, I thought it was legally!).

 

[Piratecat]

Anyone who shares an account is violating the TOU by which they have right to use the account.

Huh, that'll teach me. I could have sworn that wasn't the case.

 

[Wik]

Huh, that'll teach me. I could have sworn that wasn't the case.

Me too. I thought it was intended, what with the magic number 5, that it was built for the entire group.

Complete news to me. Will have to mention it to the other players tomorrow.