The Legality and Difficulties in Harvesting Compendium Data (Hypothetical)

[nnms]

It's hilarious. The funniest clause is the one in the DDI EULA that says that if they want to be compensated for something you did, you have to pay them even if they don't have proof of damages. If the EULA was legally binding, every single DDI subscriber is technically on the hook to pay WotC whatever they want, even without proof of anything.

Fortunately it's not binding. Like.. at all.

 

[eamon]

It's hilarious. The funniest clause is the one in the DDI EULA that says that if they want to be compensated for something you did, you have to pay them even if they don't have proof of damages. If the EULA was legally binding, every single DDI subscriber is technically on the hook to pay WotC whatever they want, even without proof of anything.

Fortunately it's not binding. Like.. at all.

Perhaps it shouldn't be binding. And perhaps EULA's shouldn't be considered contracts. But they are likely to construe it as one, and neither party will likely relish actually going to court - but if it comes to playing chicken and seeing who is most afraid of unpredictable courts and unpredictably high court costs, well, I wouldn't want to be you.

Fortunately, as long as you don't actually distribute the data nor noticably hammer their servers, they aren't likely to care. I'm not sure about the offline character builder, but that's gotta store all this info somewhere too - right? So if you really want the data, it's just a ton of effort to extract it, but certainly possible for existing data even without interacting with an online service. Actually, I suspect someone's already done just that, there being so many users, after all...

 

[interwyrm]

A while ago I wrote a python script to rip feat data from the compendium (I didn't realize it was against ToS). My entire reason for it was the lack of a linux based character builder, and I was hoping I could put together a parser that would let me reproduce that functionality. Pipe dream was to put it up for download, but logging into DDI would be required to use it.

On a tangential note, it's interesting to see how wotc organized the data on the compendium site. Every resource has an id=# part of the html, but the numbers aren't necessarily sequential. I couldn't figure out how they were organized.

Also, even if you were able to rip the data, you'd still be missing some functionality from the compendium. If you type in the name for a power you'll notice that it returns the class for that power as a result too... even though those words don't show up in the class page at all. (There is some hidden data you wouldn't be able to rip).

On a moral note, I'd say this - if you're trying to rip the data so you can cancel your subscription and still have access, don't do it. If you're trying to rip the data to augment the your ability to use your paid subscription, just be aware of the possible consequences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Could you?

Yeah, sure, probably. And it falls into a legal grey area at best.

Should you?

I dunno, do you like 4e? D&D? Do you want WotC to continue to make games and books and tools like the CB? Then they gots ta git paid.

"A man has got to have a code." (Omar)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Meh, technically ripping data out of the Compendium is trivial. It requires a small amount of basic perl and a decent understanding of web authentication/authorization schemes. I wrote a perfectly good set of library modules that will pluck any given item out and let you drop it into a file or just use it in some fashion.

The thing is, A) using said script you're not providing the data to anyone else, and B) you're not scanning through the entire Compendium automatically. A would certainly be a copyright violation in the vast majority of likely use cases. B is just a matter of hammering on someone's servers in a way that they weren't designed to be used.

The EULA doesn't in any way prevent you from making a program that interactively utilizes the Compendium through your personal account. That's what a web browser does after all and WotC has no business telling you which web browser to use. Hypothetically if I were to make a UI for my script that displayed the data (maybe in the context of a character sheet etc) it is really nothing more than a specialized web browser.

Even if I cache all that data for use offline this is still not stepping on anything. I have the fair use right to do that. The EULA probably prevents me from scraping the whole Compendium, but if I happen to look up a specific item and cache a copy of that data then AGAIN I'm not doing anything that web browsers don't already normally do.

Where MP got into trouble was in scraping the ENTIRE Compendium. Obviously there are some great advantages for a program to do that, but equally obviously it hits the Compendium servers pretty hard and has obvious implications for easy sharing with non-subscribers. I seriously doubt WotC could really find grounds to object to an MP that just did what I do and looked each thing up as it was needed and possibly caching those results for a time. Again, it would be doing nothing that IE, FireFox, etc don't normally do and if using THOSE is an EULA violation then I'd say the EULA is pretty pointless.

Moral of the story is use other people's data with consideration and a bit of common sense and you're fine. If you're disruptive or you cheat them of the benefits of their work, then expect to be on the wrong side of either the law, the EULA, or both.

 

[malraux]

Yeah, i wrote my own compendium searcher/browser for the mac because the older web one was horribly slow on my older machines. Heck, they even had a few articles from the designers on how to do it.

 

[Anathos]

Even if I cache all that data for use offline this is still not stepping on anything. I have the fair use right to do that.

Not really. WotC gives you authorization to cache the data for the purpose of viewing the data online in the same way that they authorize you to copy down powers from books for the purpose of playing a character. Other uses of that data have not been authorized, and using in those other ways does represent copyright infringement. While you're within fair use if you made a program like Masterplan but only saved the information that was going into your campaign notes (this is the purpose of having access to the data, and it doesn't matter what tool you use to accomplish this task), recording some or all of the data for you to browse though at your leisure even after your subscription runs out is far beyond legal.

Let's examine this through analogy. If you want to read a book you don't own you can borrow it from the library, read it, and then return it. This is perfectly legal, and an intended use of the book. If you want to read a page off to a friend of yours because you want to share something you really liked you're also within the bounds of intended use. If you make a photocopy of the entire book to keep at home in case you want to reread it after you return it to the library you've stepped outside of authorized use and into the realm of copyright infringement.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not really. WotC gives you authorization to cache the data for the purpose of viewing the data online in the same way that they authorize you to copy down powers from books for the purpose of playing a character. Other uses of that data have not been authorized, and using in those other ways does represent copyright infringement. While you're within fair use if you made a program like Masterplan but only saved the information that was going into your campaign notes (this is the purpose of having access to the data, and it doesn't matter what tool you use to accomplish this task), recording some or all of the data for you to browse though at your leisure even after your subscription runs out is far beyond legal.

Let's examine this through analogy. If you want to read a book you don't own you can borrow it from the library, read it, and then return it. This is perfectly legal, and an intended use of the book. If you want to read a page off to a friend of yours because you want to share something you really liked you're also within the bounds of intended use. If you make a photocopy of the entire book to keep at home in case you want to reread it after you return it to the library you've stepped outside of authorized use and into the realm of copyright infringement.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

Well, I don't think you're far off of the general concept, but fair use is neither clear-cut nor as restricted as you might imagine. Other people have posted the EFF guidelines on fair use so I won't do that again. Suffice it to say that quite a lot of things are acceptable as long as they generally don't deprive the copyright holder of the value of the content in question.

The key point to take out of this is the copyright holder doesn't get to decide to "authorize" or "not authorize" uses. They CAN give others authorization to do this that or the other thing. That has no impact on other people's RIGHTS though. Just because WotC might for instance say "you are only authorized to use this data on your own character sheet" is meaningless as a restriction on other uses, courts decide what those are in accordance with statutory and case law.

There is also a large gray area inherent in use of game data. The purpose of the data is to be able to play the game. If I hand my character sheet to my DM because he doesn't have DDI and doesn't have the printed book some element of my character is drawn from and needs to reference that information to run the game I'm guessing I'm on pretty solid ground even though I'm sharing WotC's game info with the guy. You just can't make black and white statements about fair use in these cases. You also can't copyright INFORMATION, which makes things even more gray. In other words HOW a power works is not something anyone can restrict. The exact words used in the products being sold under copyright OTOH is fair game. The argument then becomes where does description end and copyright violation begin? In the context of verbatim copying of text from a rules source it would seem clear-cut, but again in 4e the EXACT wording of things is often very important and can't be paraphrased without changing the meaning and effect.

In other words it is a much more complex situation than most armchair unlawyers seem to think. ACTUAL lawyers will almost certainly tell you that in court they couldn't be certain what logic would prevail in different situations. MP for instance might well be able to do what it was doing, but they'd be forced to spend a lot of money defending that use.

 

[evilref]

Suffice it to say that quite a lot of things are acceptable as long as they generally don't deprive the copyright holder of the value of the content in question.

Irrespective of whether fair use applies (there are good arguments that it doesn't). This (the above) is absolutely not something anyone should rely on as a standard for copyright. It's not something you'll find expressed in court rulings or by the copyright office. Specific 'things' are acceptable in specific places but the general attitude the above sentence suggests is akin to the recent cook's source debacle.

Whether or not value is reduced in a copyrighted work has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's an infringement or not. It may (note, may) affect the degree of damages awarded but chiefly you'll see it used to adjust an award upwards, not down.

In other words it is a much more complex situation than most armchair unlawyers seem to think. ACTUAL lawyers will almost certainly tell you that in court they couldn't be certain what logic would prevail in different situations. MP for instance might well be able to do what it was doing, but they'd be forced to spend a lot of money defending that use.

Edit: The very fact it's a complex situation means it's going to be informed (or uninformed) opinion all the way until a court rules on it, and then whether that ruling stands, and if that ruling stands etc. An individual doing something such as has been discussed on their own without distributing said material is unlikely to get named in a suit. Distribution of it, promotion of it and so forth is another matter. What's more the multiple jurisdictions (the UK doesn't have a generalised legal concept of fair use, for example, so invoking that would be no defence for someone on my side of the pond), different courts ruling in different ways the very fact it's 'complex' means that taking a more cautionary approach is, I believe, better advice than the 'yeah, it's totally fine'.

If someone did intend to carry out some of the things discussed then they should consider the potential consequences. If they intend distributing said information then that consideration should be even more carefully undertaken.

 

[malraux]

whether or not value is reduced in a copyrighted work has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's an infringement or not.

ffs.

section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work