Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[rogueattorney]

I believe the compromise has already occurred. WotC agrees to stop selling the .pdf files, while we, the consumers, agree to deal with it.

I don't personally care about the newer stuff, but I'd still like to see the oop editions available again. Unless they were somehow losing money on the deal (something I strongly doubt), I can't see how pulling the oop books could have been worth the PR hit.

Even if it's just with the tiny little section of grubby old grognards like me. Instead of holding that last branch out to allow us to still be your customer, you're confirming everything we've ever said about WotC and convincing just few more people out there that we were right.

 

[Mistwell]

Its stupid of them to not offer PDF's of their old books, especially for those of us who already own print versions.

See, a key, and absolutely essential part, to copyright violation is to prove financial harm was done. So for those of us who already own print copies, and want digital PDF copies, well, since WOTC is no longer offering PDF's for sale, DLing digital PDF's of the books we already own no longer will cause WOTC any financial harm since they no longer offer their own PDF's for sale.

Your legal analysis is seriously flawed, and you should not offer legal advice unless you are an attorney or are CERTAIN you are correct. In this case, you are very wrong, and offering advice that, if followed by someone who does not know better, could result in serious lawsuits against people.

Financial harm is not only computed based on "Are you selling this product right now". I'll give you one example. Disney routinely holds back a large portion of their IP every year, for example, and then re-releases it in future years at an increased value due to the rarity. If your analysis were correct, one could just pirate Disney films not currently in release without repercussions. I do not suggest you try that, however, since Disney would almost certainly sue you and win.

And, more importantly, in the US (and many other countries) Statutory Damages are available for copyright violation. Yes, that means damages without proving ANY financial harm - just damages for you violating someone's copyrighted wsork. The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court. There is explicitly no financial harm element of said damages (that's in fact the purpose of Statutory Damages).

So for those of us who own the print versions, this a a great "grace period" in which we can DL copies for ourselves.


*As always, consult a lawyer specializing in copyright law before acting on the comments of any online idiot*

Yes, you said it.

 

[Mistwell]

Hey, I've got a compromise. How about I give WotC $4 and they give me a PDF of some old A&D product? Win-win.

Of course it costs money to distribute PDFs. It's just not very much. Look at RPGNow and you can see dozens of publishers with products with much smaller sales than, say, the original Dark Sun set probably generates.

The costs to sell goods for a larger public company like a Hasbro division are substantially more than the costs for a one man operation working out of his house.

 

[Treebore]

Your legal analysis is seriously flawed, and you should not offer legal advice unless you are an attorney or are CERTAIN you are correct. In this case, you are very wrong, and offering advice that, if followed by someone who does not know better, could result in serious lawsuits against people.

Financial harm is not only computed based on "Are you selling this product right now". I'll give you one example. Disney routinely holds back a large portion of their IP every year, for example, and then re-releases it in future years at an increased value due to the rarity. If your analysis were correct, one could just pirate Disney films not currently in release without repercussions. I do not suggest you try that, however, since Disney would almost certainly sue you and win.

And, more importantly, in the US (and many other countries) Statutory Damages are available for copyright violation. Yes, that means damages without proving ANY financial harm - just damages for you violating someone's copyrighted wsork. The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court. There is explicitly no financial harm element of said damages (that's in fact the purpose of Statutory Damages).



Yes, you said it.

Actually, I am not very wrong, but like I said, consult a copyright lawyer before you listen to on line idiots.

There is a world of differences between copyright law and how it applies to an individual in a house using it for himself, versus anyone distributing and selling the material, or trying to pass it off as their own work, etc...

Notice, for example, that everyone taken to court DISTRIBUTED copies to get in trouble.

Plus others things to consider, I suggested doing it ONLY if you already own a print copy, and just DL a pirate copy as your way of giving yourself a digital copy, which you ARE allowed to have, by law, rather than scanning it in yourself, ESPECIALLY since WOTC is not offering a fee based service to provide you with a digital copy, IE PDF's for sale.

So I agree, do not listen to me, consult a lawyer (who knows copyright laws in particular), but the laws are very specific in who can get in trouble and who cannot, and it has to involve public distribution and damages do indeed have to be provable. The copyright owner can choose which method of recompense to go after, based on what evidence they do have to offer as proof. The weaker the proof, the lesser amounts you can go after. The better the proof the higher the penalties become.

If you fail to prove damages, at any level, your case is dismissed.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, I am not very wrong, but like I said, consult a copyright lawyer before you listen to on line idiots.

I am a copyright lawyer. You are very wrong. Let's leave it at that.

Please, nobody follow Treebores "steal it cause they are not selling it" advice.

Plus others things to consider, I suggested doing it ONLY if you already own a print copy, and just DL a pirate copy as your way of giving yourself a digital copy, which you ARE allowed to have, by law, rather than scanning it in yourself, ESPECIALLY since WOTC is not offering a fee based service to provide you with a digital copy, IE PDF's for sale.

No, you are NOT entitled to have a pirated PDF copy of a book you own.

Again, please, nobody listen to this person on this piece of advice.

So I agree, do not listen to me, consult a lawyer (who knows copyright laws in particular), but the laws are very specific in who can get in trouble and who cannot, and it has to involve public distribution and damages do indeed have to be provable.

No, it is not specific to distribution, and no, it does not have to involve damages, and I just cited for you the statutory damages issue.

If you fail to prove damages, at any level, your case is dismissed.

No, that is not correct. Again, the entire purpose of statutory damages was for cases when you cannot prove damages, just infringement.

Seriously Treebore, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Treebore]

I am a copyright lawyer. You are very wrong. Let's leave it at that.

Please, nobody follow Treebores "steal it cause they are not selling it" advice.



No, you are NOT entitled to have a pirated PDF copy of a book you own.

Again, please, nobody listen to this person on this piece of advice.



No, it is not specific to distribution, and no, it does not have to involve damages, and I just cited for you the statutory damages issue.



No, that is not correct. Again, the entire purpose of statutory damages was for cases when you cannot prove damages, just infringement.

Seriously Treebore, you do not know what you are talking about.

Fine, I don't want anyone to listen to me, I want people to go to copyright lawyers, like I did. Sounds to me like they will want to go to one who is in Texas and considered to be a leading "legal mind" on US copyright law, though.

Lawyers are like Doctors, there are those who know their job, then there are those who kill an average of 88,000 patients per year due to medical incompetence.

So you definitely want to get a good lawyer, or you may get "killed" in court.

 

[Mistwell]

Fine, I don't want anyone to listen to me, I want people to go to copyright lawyers, like I did. Sounds to me like they will want to go to one who is in Texas and considered to be a leading "legal mind" on US copyright law, though.

Lawyers are like Doctors, there are those who know their job, then there are those who kill an average of 88,000 patients per year due to medical incompetence.

So you definitely want to get a good lawyer, or you may get "killed" in court.

I am a good lawyer. One of my focuses is copyright law. I represent some RPG publishers and comic book publishers. I am published in the field. I know what I am talking about. You are wrong.

By the way, Texas is not known for copyright attorneys. Copyright focuses on the entertainment industry for the most part, and that is primarily found in Los Angeles and New York. But that is neither here nor there. I am sure there are many fine copyright lawyers in Texas, I just have never heard it referred to as a leading location for copyright law.

 

[jmucchiello]

The costs to sell goods for a larger public company like a Hasbro division are substantially more than the costs for a one man operation working out of his house.

When the PDFs for the back catalog were up on RPGNow and Drivethrurpg and paizo, etc, the only costs WotC had was having someone in accounts receivable cash the check that was sent to them every month. Someone else in accounting probably entered these checks into their accounting system. These two people presumably are involved with cashing checks on a daily basis and so the "cost" for these employees to handle 3-4 more checks a month (I know a huge rise in volume) is negligible. So please stop saying "there are costs for a large company to sell stuff" when all the upfront costs to this (licensing contracts stuff) were already paid for years ago and all they had to do was cash their checks each month.

Returning the back catalog (2e and older stuff) to RPGNow/drivethrurpg would probably take a phone call from Scott, the exchange of a couple faxes (to sign the publisher release forms that have no changed since the catalog was taken down), and picking a go live date.

The only reason not to do this is they don't want the material available. Period.

 

[jmucchiello]

By the way, Texas is not known for copyright attorneys.

No, Texas is better known for it's wacky patent enforcement. And like all good IP discussions on the Internet, confusing copyright, patents and trademarks is all a part of rules of engagement. Disclaimer: IANAL.

 

[Umbran]

There is a world of differences between copyright law and how it applies to an individual in a house using it for himself, versus anyone distributing and selling the material, or trying to pass it off as their own work, etc...

Hm. No. The law is the law.

Do not confuse, "There is a world of difference in how the law applies to an individual doing X and one doing Y," and, "There is a world of difference in how the law is applied to an individual doing X and one doing Y". Your advice amounts to, "Your practical risk is low, so don't worry about it." But it is still a violation.

EN World does not condone copyright violation on any level. Our hobby as a whole, and many of our members individually, depend on the income IP brings in. If someone rights to the content, you do them a disservice if you copy it without permission.