What will Masterplan be after the C&D?

[malraux]

Actually, Itunes has copyrighted data. DRM FTW, eh? Software rules generally don't cover data in the US which forces WOTC cease and desist letters to invoke the GSL as the nearest defense for claiming the data under the terms of the software. I am pretty sure the companies in question are not signing onto the Wizards terms as an entity. So, data is the only word that applies.

So itunes does steal from WotC with its data feature or not? By your logic, any program that saves data infringes on WotC's IP. (ie, this is why your point about iplay4e is wrong. Either there's a difference in different types of data/save files, or every single program that saves is a problem for WotC).

Yet, what is WOTC going to claim the data with in the US if it does not choose the GSL? If it wants to try arguing ownership of data open to scraping tech, I would love to see it try. With the entire mood of the topic aside, I would love WOTC to try to make the claim for humor value alone. You can't give people an API, allow them access to data, and blame a third party with a straight face. It's the legal version of Apple suing a guy for downloading a song he is buying from their store - the choice in music player at this point is beside the point. The software company that merely offers a service giving you usage of data that you pay for is reasonably secure - Masterplan is not hosting any of the shared files. All violations occur on the user level which is an enforcement issue for WOTC.

I don't think you understand the GSL. For anything electronic (except for ebooks), the GSL doesn't apply. Moreover, the GSL only applies to signatories.

Agreed, they distribute the data, however. In terms of a legal threat. WOTC stands a greater chance of action against iPlay4e as a site that hosts data under the recent torrent cases in the US. Unless WOTC can show that Masterplan intends for end users to distribute illegal library files through its own network, I would bet my last dollar on Masterplan winning the case.

Generally speaking, I look forward to seeing what happens. I might actually finish my 4e online suite for my own site if Masterplan forces WOTC to open the data/file format.

What data does iplay4e host that wizards would care about? It doesn't tell you anything other than the names powers and items.

 

[mudbunny]

Yet, what is WOTC going to claim the data with in the US if it does not choose the GSL? If it wants to try arguing ownership of data open to scraping tech, I would love to see it try.

My guess is that they are not claiming the data. (Keep in mind that as far as I know, no-one outside of WOtC and the developers of Masterplan have seen the C&D.) My guess is that the C&D was over Masterplan providing a way for users to (a) automatically download the data of a large part of the compendium; and (b) easily share the information with other Masterplan users, giving them (the other masterplan users) the data from the compendium, even if they had never had a DDI account.

With the entire mood of the topic aside, I would love WOTC to try to make the claim for humor value alone. You can't give people an API, allow them access to data, and blame a third party with a straight face.

You can if the person writing a program to use the API does so in a manner which goes against the ToS of the service accessed by the API.

It's the legal version of Apple suing a guy for downloading a song he is buying from their store - the choice in music player at this point is beside the point.

Actually, I think that it would be closer to Apple suing a guy who had made a plug-in for the App Store that allowed you to download music in a manner which stripped the DRM from the music. (back when iTunes music automatically had DRM applied to it.)

The software company that merely offers a service giving you usage of data that you pay for is reasonably secure - Masterplan is not hosting any of the shared files. All violations occur on the user level which is an enforcement issue for WOTC.

But WotC has the right to ask Masterplan to stop providing a program that enables users to trivially violate theie ToS. (Keep in mind that a C&D order is a request, not an order. Someone can, if they feel that they are in the right, ignore a C&D and take their chances with the lawyers.)

Agreed, they distribute the data, however. In terms of a legal threat. WOTC stands a greater chance of action against iPlay4e as a site that hosts data under the recent torrent cases in the US.

Except that iPlay4e doesn't host any of the compendium data on it;'s site. Not to mention that it doesn't provide you access to the compendium data unless you have an active DDI subscription.

Unless WOTC can show that Masterplan intends for end users to distribute illegal library files through its own network, I would bet my last dollar on Masterplan winning the case.

There isn't going to be a case. The guys from MP are complying with the request. However (IANAL), if it did go to court, WotC would have a strong argument that the program was designed for the sole purpose of extracting data from the compendium and packaging it in a way so that the user no longer needed to use the DDI service to get at the Compendium, unless there are other websites that Masterplan could be pointed at to extract information from automatically.

Generally speaking, I look forward to seeing what happens. I might actually finish my 4e online suite for my own site if Masterplan forces WOTC to open the data/file format.

Have you ever looked at the output of a character builder file?? It is a plain-text file and has *no* power data in it. It references the compendium.

 

[Kafen]

malraux

Heh...if you want to chase the data path Itunes is the worst possible thing you can bring up for your side of things. If you recall, France had a bit of spat with Apple over DRM on the issue. The US pretty much ignored it until the Mininova case. On top of the Scribd.com case, you find a hefty bit of law defining hosting companies and end users. Unless you can trace a direct service/data path from the Masterplan program to the torrents hosting 'illegal' content, you are fighting an uphill battle in US courts.



The GSL defines the scope of concern that WOTC has for its general content. The lack of actual software guidelines is pretty amusing. It either suggests the GSL as a guide for WOTC to show 'how' they are protecting their trademark it provides for the fansite kit which says... So, I am using what WOTC has out - they leave a very big void to play around in.

From the fan site kit...just for laughs... We can look at that part.

"Use of Non-Public Information Prohibited. You may not publish, display, exhibit or use any information about products (including any photographs, game text, rules, or drawings of such new products or their prototypes) that has not already been released to the general public by Wizards or that Wizards has otherwise expressly authorized for release to the collector community. "

Even if you suggest that Masterplan users are using that content, there is no reason to link the actual torrents with the Masterplan software.


"# You may not make content from the Wizards website (audio-visual materials excluded) available through your own site if such use entails Wizards hosting such content for you on Wizards' website. For example, you may not make available on a Fan Site any content from Wizards' Web site in a frame, mirror, Iframe, widget, nor may you link directly to a wallpaper file hosted on Wizards' website. "

Let's hope that iPlay4e can continue linking to items.

 

[Kafen]

My guess is that they are not claiming the data. (Keep in mind that as far as I know, no-one outside of WOtC and the developers of Masterplan have seen the C&D.) My guess is that the C&D was over Masterplan providing a way for users to (a) automatically download the data of a large part of the compendium; and (b) easily share the information with other Masterplan users, giving them (the other masterplan users) the data from the compendium, even if they had never had a DDI account.

If they are taking that route, they need to nerf the API development now - by removing the forum posts on it. I hope the other programmers take note of how WOTC is treating people for using it. In strictly coder terms, it's irresponsible and destructive of WOTC to both encourage an API and send threats.

You can if the person writing a program to use the API does so in a manner which goes against the ToS of the service accessed by the API.

Only if the party is at fault

Actually, I think that it would be closer to Apple suing a guy who had made a plug-in for the App Store that allowed you to download music in a manner which stripped the DRM from the music. (back when iTunes music automatically had DRM applied to it.)

In this case, the music aka data from WOTC does not have DRM. It's an open XML file. They can't even pretend that they tried to protect the data by 1990 standards in the US.

But WotC has the right to ask Masterplan to stop providing a program that enables users to trivially violate theie ToS. (Keep in mind that a C&D order is a request, not an order. Someone can, if they feel that they are in the right, ignore a C&D and take their chances with the lawyers.)

Making a case for it is a far cry from a right... I would chance the lawyers. I deal with the data business on a daily basis and know the data laws enough to say 'go for it' to WOTC. Without a serious software usage policy, it defaults to one of three things. The GSL, fansite policy, or law. Without people signing things, the first two serve as guides for intent and the latter part protects a software vendor from the actions of its end users.

Except that iPlay4e doesn't host any of the compendium data on it;'s site. Not to mention that it doesn't provide you access to the compendium data unless you have an active DDI subscription.

They host data which is not open to the public. In my example with Bobby. He is level 6/7 - that is not free information. It is paid content. Technically, I am violating the fansite policy.

There isn't going to be a case. The guys from MP are complying with the request. However (IANAL), if it did go to court, WotC would have a strong argument that the program was designed for the sole purpose of extracting data from the compendium and packaging it in a way so that the user no longer needed to use the DDI service to get at the Compendium, unless there are other websites that Masterplan could be pointed at to extract information from automatically.

Correct. However, they would have to show ownership of that data transfer from Masterplan to the general public. Unless there is a transfer of property, there is no Harm.

Have you ever looked at the output of a character builder file?? It is a plain-text file and has *no* power data in it. It references the compendium.

It is XML, and yes - if you go by fan site guidelines, the linking might be illegal. Not likely, you can't even link an RSS feed according to the fan site rules. So, the only real thing left is data laws which side with software vendors on the issue. Otherwise, you would have people suing M$ for hackers using a windows platform to hack them.

 

[Kurtomatic]

Seriously? I'm not sure any effort at offering clarity and accuracy is worthwhile or appreciated at this point, so I'll try to keep this short.

Masterplan and iPlay4e are neither books or fansites (strictly speaking), and thus the GSL and fansite policies are irrelevant in every way, shape, and form. Neither of these applications engage or use any of the license materials from those two agreements, so those agreements do not apply. The only public WotC agreement relevant to these apps are the DDI terms of use.

When you create a character in the DDI Character Builder application, you can save this character in a .dnd4e format file. This file does not contain any proprietary data, and you are free to distribute these files and the data contained therein any way you'd like. This is by design. iPlay4e allows you to upload this file to the google cloud, and subsequently download this very same file to another location. iPlay4e also allows you to interact with that file data through its web application interface. WotC does not care about LittleBobby.dnd4e, or what happens to the data it contains.

Everytime you interact with proprietary DDI data through a third party application (which WotC clearly does care about), the app has a couple of ways of facilitating this. The app can require you to log into DDI with your account credentials every single time you consume that data, or it can hit DDI once, copy that proprietary data locally in some persistent form, and then simply use that local copy for your future consumption needs. The advantages of the second approach potentially include improved performance and features. One of these methods explicitly follows the DDI terms of use, and the other is possibly up for debate. Guess which one each app in question uses.

Asserting that WotC is arbitrarily interfering with one fan application over another because they 'do the same thing' is a complete misrepresentation of the facts based on how I understand these apps to work.

 

[Kafen]

Asserting that WotC is arbitrarily interfering with one fan application over another because they 'do the same thing' is a complete misrepresentation of the facts based on how I understand these apps to work.

Seriously.

WOTC's only defense that is could muster is its intent to defend its data and trademark. And, iPlay4e stores data in direct violation of the fan site policy. The GSL avoids it which forces WOTC into the realm of data laws. Once you reach that point, the simple fact that WOTC allows sites like iPlay 4e to link data in direct violation of its stated fansite policy suggests that it's cheery picking which sites it targets as far as 'intent' goes which speaks volumes once you get to court.

To specifically speak to your claim that iPlay4e only allows non-proprietary data, it is false. I am hosting a character with levels above the free tier on iPlay4e after letting my DDI sub run dry. iPlay4e is now exactly where the file sharing groups stands in the law - the front of a gun barrel. Masterplan only provides software which places enforcement of data rights on the burden of WOTC. If you seriously think that iPlay4e - a site hosting data which WOTC claims as its own under the DDI terms in addition to linking to WOTC data which the fansite terms explicitly prohibit- is safer than a software suite that scrapes data from the cache/end user for a pay service, you are mistaken. The scraping and data collecting software suites have many laws to protect them from companies like WOTC. To be exact, WOTC is entering into the modern world of data storage.

The only legit claim they would have is that Masterplan is copying the data into a third party storage system. On this level, the trouble for WOTC starts when they provide it as a pay service which provides for reasonable manipulation of the data in modern devices. There is nothing in the terms of service in DDI that prohibits the caching and storage of data on the end user level because WOTC can't make that claim. The data belongs to the end user at that point due to payment for services. The end users only lose the rights to that data after they stop their sub. So, the blame for this action rests solely on the handlers of the data at this point under the law unless WOTC can prove that Masterplan is supporting the transfer/mass distribution of that data which it does not. Thus, it becomes a matter of enforcement which involves them going after torrent users. People should be urging WOTC to go after the file sharing people - not the software companies. If people are looking to 'cheer' something, it is the point they need to consider.

But hey, I only know American law on the point. I'm sure that Brits along with French have entirely unique laws on the issue. However, WOTC is a US company. American laws provide protection to software companies up until they become a third party to violations of the data the theft laws. In this case, Masterplan openly encourages people to join DDI. Also, they do not host library files. You would have a hard time finding a judge that sides with WOTC at this point inside the US.

You are falling into the trap that many people fall into. You confuse what people 'think' with what the courts rule. Until the courts remove protections from software companies for the actions of end users, the only points you score will be rep points on the forum with the WOTC fans. The judges have to take into account reasonable use and existing data laws which firmly protect companies like Microsoft from people that want to sue because 'their operating system sucks' or 'the hacker used a known security hole to hack my system!'. Sure, Masterplan is not an uber giant with big pockets, but they have the same protections. I have no doubt that WOTC would be refused if they ever send anything like that letter to M$. It's unfortunate that Masterplan is giving into them.

 

[Scribble]

I have no doubt that WOTC would be refused if they ever send anything like that letter to M$. It's unfortunate that Masterplan is giving into them.

So then... you've actually seen whatever the C&D letter was?

 

[Kafen]

So then... you've actually seen whatever the C&D letter was?

Just what Masterplan posted, however.... If the AG and entire US Govey can't find a loophole in the data protection laws, you will have a hard time convincing me that WOTC is going to do it. The laws are firm. Until Masterplan goes into the business of hosting torrents and directly hosting .library files, they are safe from everything but the monetary costs of defending their case.

*inserts legal disclaimer etc...*

As a side note, I deal mostly with data and run into all kinds of people. Most are pretty tame about such things like data talk. I love the fact that DND players get emotional over it. It speaks well for the hobby. Once the passion dies, there is no reason to muck with it.

 

[malraux]

Fan site policy or GSL don't matter in these cases. Its odd that you keep bringing them up. The character builder files (ie what iplay4e shares) don't contain anything that violates WotC's IP. Clearly MP library files do. one type of data is not identical with another.

 

[Kafen]

Fan site policy or GSL don't matter in these cases. Its odd that you keep bringing them up. The character builder files (ie what iplay4e shares) don't contain anything that violates WotC's IP. Clearly MP library files do. one type of data is not identical with another.

I bring them up because they indicate intent on the part of WOTC to protect their label. It limits and highlights the failings of their TOS more than anything.

My lil' Goblin has tons of violations in it. It lists information that is not open to the public through the demo version of the character builder. The violation is present even if the format is different. The only difference between the state of the data is that iPlay4e provides an online host to information which I have no right to own while Masterplan uses that data at home. It brings the violation back to the end user on both accounts. Masterplan users should in theory delete the library files once their DDI account expires. The ones that are sharing them are the people that WOTC needs to be hounding - not the software vendor. The side note is that iPlay4e is a third party to the continual violation with online storage while Masterplan places the full burden of the DDI account status on the end user.