The Legality and Difficulties in Harvesting Compendium Data (Hypothetical)

[Anathos]

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't authorize uses of legitimate copies, but they can refuse to authorize copies that are made for certain uses. For example, they can't do a thing if you buy a book in a store and then use it as a masturbation aid, but they can refuse to allow you to print stuff off of the Compendium for that purpose because you need their permission to create a new copy.

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're allowed to do this because WotC as explicitly authorized the reproduction of their works for the purpose of playing their game and allowing someone else to read an authorized copy is perfectly legitimate. This isn't the gray area you claim it to be.

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.

I know that. This is why I said that it was perfectly legal to create a program that records a paraphrased version of powers. Please pay attention, because this isn't something that's being disputed.

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.

Again, WotC gives explicit permission to create copies of their works for the purpose of playing the game. Creating a copy of their database so that you can access it without a subscription ISN'T authorized and therefore violates copyright.

 

[evilref]

ffs.

Edit: In more detail. I'll admit to being overly knee-jerking with my response. Because of my primary work in the past years with european rights infringements and what passes for copyright laws in China, (where fair use doesn't apply in the american form), I forgot this one. Which is also foolish as i've actually been involved in several fair use cases, albeit none of which found that clause to be upheld.

Given how the courts handle this aspect of fair use, it's certainly an area you'd want a lawyer to specifically advise on, past precedent from my lexisnexis search shows that the burden of proof is on the potential infringer to show there's no reduction in worth or potential worth.

It also specifically doesn't apply in the primary topic under discussion. Having the material frmo the compendium without having to pay for it would certainly not count here.

 

[malraux]

They can't authorize uses of legitimate copies, but they can refuse to authorize copies that are made for certain uses. For example, they can't do a thing if you buy a book in a store and then use it as a masturbation aid, but they can refuse to allow you to print stuff off of the Compendium for that purpose because you need their permission to create a new copy.

Format shifting is generally considered fair use, as the EFF quote earlier said. Printing is a case of format shifting.

 

[evilref]

Format shifting is generally considered fair use, as the EFF quote earlier said. Printing is a case of format shifting.

I don't think it's quite as cut and dried. I agree with any normal purchased good/object that it is, but in this case the service is providing access to information stored on a server the subscriber doesn't own. As such it's not as clear that they're format shifting. To be sure it's an argument that could be used, but it's by no means based on any firm evidence.

If it's deemed to be a sale of access to the IP and not a sale of the IP itself then it wouldn't apply. This of course just applying to the compendium rather than the books.

 

[malraux]

It also specifically doesn't apply in the primary topic under discussion. Having the material frmo the compendium without having to pay for it would certainly not count here.

I'd argue it does, if we are talking about legally making a personal copy of the compendium data while one is a current subscriber. Certainly distributing the material would be a copyright violation. But keeping a personal copy for offline access would seem to be legit primarily because it doesn't affect the market in general.

 

[evilref]

I'd argue it does, if we are talking about legally making a personal copy of the compendium data while one is a current subscriber. Certainly distributing the material would be a copyright violation. But keeping a personal copy for offline access would seem to be legit primarily because it doesn't affect the market in general.

I could see that argument having some worth while you were still a subscriber, but it'd lose any weight if the subscription ended. And, again, there are many jurisdictions where this wouldn't be a defence at all.

Edit: It also goes back to the argument of whether you are paying for the information or purely access to the information (yes it's more involved than that). Looking round a few things i'm subscribed to, they have very specific terms on this (grants the user the right to use the service etc.). I'll see if I can find the wotc boilerplate for the actual compendium (as it should be different than that for dragon/dungeon given the difference in products and offering).

 

[Anathos]

I'd argue it does, if we are talking about legally making a personal copy of the compendium data while one is a current subscriber. Certainly distributing the material would be a copyright violation. But keeping a personal copy for offline access would seem to be legit primarily because it doesn't affect the market in general.

You seem to be under the impression that if as long as you don't do any harm then it isn't an infringement of copyright, and you're wrong to think so. The bit about the effect on the value or market is supposed to be a supporting point, that you are somehow within the other aspects of fair use and have limited effects on the value. For example, if you buy a printing press and then make thousands of copies of a book and never distribute them you aren't going to be able to claim fair use based off your lack of impact on the value and market. It isn't the distribution that violates copyright, it's the copying.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You seem to be under the impression that if as long as you don't do any harm then it isn't an infringement of copyright, and you're wrong to think so. The bit about the effect on the value or market is supposed to be a supporting point, that you are somehow within the other aspects of fair use and have limited effects on the value. For example, if you buy a printing press and then make thousands of copies of a book and never distribute them you aren't going to be able to claim fair use based off your lack of impact on the value and market. It isn't the distribution that violates copyright, it's the copying.

Not true. When a potential copyright infringement is being evaluated by the court the issue of value is one of the considerations which is used to evaluate whether or not the use was legitimate. The defendant would simply need to assert that there is a theory under which use is possible and that said use does not present an economic harm to the complainant.

Your example wouldn't even make it to court in the US. DISTRIBUTION is in and of itself a key factor. I could make as many copies of copyrighted material as I want as long as I use them myself and don't distribute them. Economic harm is not the ONLY consideration and lack of such is not in and of itself sufficient defense, but it is very certainly a factor. Piling up unauthorized copies of someone else's work in my basement is virtually assured to be found inconsequential. This is in fact why the RIAA's cases against file sharers require some proof that the defendant distributed the work to those not authorized by the copyright holder to have access to it. Invariably in these cases they went to the extent of actually downloading the files from the defendant's computer (or at least parts of them). Without that these cases are at best extremely hard to pursue.

Were it as easy as you're making it out to be to establish a violation EULA's and such would hardly exist. It is the very fact that copyright only gives a fairly circumscribed set of rights that content vendors are in the habit of creating additional contractual obligations. In the case of DDI material the EULA/ToS actually gives the end user some additional rights they might not clearly have by law (though they probably do).

Again, as this applies to web based content like Compendium the very fact that the data is online implies that the vendor expects it will accessed by software which uses HTTP and other related technologies. That includes things like local caching, proxying, etc which can all result in temporary storage of the material in the course of its use, which has generally been found to be perfectly acceptable.

As far as non-US jurisdictions you simply cannot generalize. They DO however typically have provisions analogous to the fair use doctrine available in the US. This is to be expected since most such provisions exist in order to provide a practical balance between the license holder and the consumers and those practicalities are universal.

Obviously if you were intending to create some sort of commercial or public non-commercial service that makes use of Compendium data or something similar then you'd be well advised to have a significant legal budget or be prepared to fold up at a moment's notice. Generally that's enough for a company like WotC. They are unlikely to care what individual users do as long as it doesn't negatively impact sales or endanger other business they may want to undertake.

 

[evilref]

As far as non-US jurisdictions you simply cannot generalize. They DO however typically have provisions analogous to the fair use doctrine available in the US. This is to be expected since most such provisions exist in order to provide a practical balance between the license holder and the consumers and those practicalities are universal.

I didn't say you can generalize, but you're wrong on the fair use aspect. We have Fair Dealing as the closest thing to Fair Use which, while better outlined, is far less open and primarily concerning review, study, research, criticism, education, parody and so forth. We do have some fair dealing clauses America doesn't have, or hasn't made explicit. Format-shifting hasn't been made explicit though there was an attempt by Lord Ralph Lucas earlier this year to do so, along with a number of other measures. This was turned down in favour of seeking a European-wide review of copyright legislation.

Googling the CDPA 1988 will show the similarities but they're far more limited than you seem to be suggesting.

And then Europe has other differences, though the past five years has seen some concentrated efforts to bring a more uniform approach across mainland Europe.

Your example wouldn't even make it to court in the US. DISTRIBUTION is in and of itself a key factor. I could make as many copies of copyrighted material as I want as long as I use them myself and don't distribute them. Economic harm is not the ONLY consideration and lack of such is not in and of itself sufficient defense, but it is very certainly a factor. Piling up unauthorized copies of someone else's work in my basement is virtually assured to be found inconsequential. This is in fact why the RIAA's cases against file sharers require some proof that the defendant distributed the work to those not authorized by the copyright holder to have access to it. Invariably in these cases they went to the extent of actually downloading the files from the defendant's computer (or at least parts of them). Without that these cases are at best extremely hard to pursue.

You seem to be ignoring the reproduction right which, while in the US often seen as secondary infringement, is still sufficient to find people found guilty of copyright infringement in the past (or tossed out as non-proven, not for non-existance). It's certainly a commonly raised issue along with distribution/performance.

Moreover, Per Capitol Records versus Thomas-Rasset, the instruction to the Jury which, I believe, has been held up on appeal was that reproduction OR making available (not actual distribution itself) was sufficient to prove primary infringement. I know there's been some controversy over this but I can't find this having been overturned.

And, while generally on the side of the rights holder, as you mentioned it, I do find the 'download the file to prove distribution' to be flawed but I know Wake found it as infringement.

 

[Artoomis]

Wrong. Fair Use covers stuff like including quotes in works of criticism and the like, not copying everything. In fact, making a complete copy of someone else's works is exactly what copyrights were created to prevent, regardless of absence of profit motive.

Fair enough; while it would not be "fair use" is would also likely not be a copyright violation, though that could change depending upon the circumstances.