Author Topic: WotC sues filesharers (Read 30404 times)

Surreal · « **on:** April 09, 2009, 05:27:11 PM »

I wasn't quite sure which subforum this one would belong in, but I only ever post in min/max anyways...

Straight from WoTC itself: WIZARDS OF THE COAST SUES EIGHT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Rebel7284 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2009, 05:48:02 PM »

That's what they get for playing 4th edition.

Bozwevial · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2009, 05:54:13 PM »

Ohhh, the 4e PHB2. I thought it was the 3.5 edition and thought, "You just picked up on this now?"

jameswilliamogle · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2009, 05:55:17 PM »

Huh. It worked so well for the record companies...

Surreal · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2009, 05:59:16 PM »

I believe they've also halted all digital distributions for the time being as well.

PhaedrusXY · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2009, 06:12:25 PM »

Quote from: Surreal on April 09, 2009, 05:59:16 PM

I believe they've also halted all digital distributions for the time being as well.

Well... at least the ones they're hosting.

ninjarabbit · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2009, 06:47:48 PM »

I hate to side with WotC but the law is the law and IP rights do have to be protected.

That being said it wouldn't be a bad idea for WotC to have a free basic edition of 4th Edition online for free if they haven't done so already. The technology isn't suddenly going to disappera so WotC needs to adjust to the reality of the times like many of the record companies had to or need to.

Rebel7284 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2009, 07:27:25 PM »

Most modern copyright laws generally do not encourage innovation and growth. I think the only reasonable law that I've seen is what they do in medicine where copyright runs out after 7 or 8 years.

Surreal · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2009, 08:01:28 PM »

And now in sad news: http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/dungeons-dragons-dave-arn.php

PhaedrusXY · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2009, 08:35:21 PM »

Quote from: Surreal on April 09, 2009, 08:01:28 PM

And now in sad news: http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/dungeons-dragons-dave-arn.php

NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! They're both gone?

The_Mad_Linguist · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2009, 08:47:17 PM »

Quote from: Rebel7284 on April 09, 2009, 07:27:25 PM

Most modern copyright laws generally do not encourage innovation and growth. I think the only reasonable law that I've seen is what they do in medicine where copyright runs out after 7 or 8 years.

Patent law (17 years) seems about right...

Kuroimaken · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2009, 09:09:45 PM »

This thread made me LOL AND weep.

veekie · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2009, 04:12:24 AM »

Quote from: PhaedrusXY on April 09, 2009, 06:12:25 PM

Quote from: Surreal on April 09, 2009, 05:59:16 PM
I believe they've also halted all digital distributions for the time being as well.
Well... at least the ones they're hosting.

Yeah, the only ones they're getting profit out of.

CannibalSmith · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2009, 05:20:57 AM »

Quote from: The_Mad_Linguist on April 09, 2009, 08:47:17 PM

Patent law (17 years) seems about right...

That's an insane amount of time.

The_Mad_Linguist · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2009, 06:50:02 AM »

Quote from: CannibalSmith on April 10, 2009, 05:20:57 AM

Quote from: The_Mad_Linguist on April 09, 2009, 08:47:17 PM
Patent law (17 years) seems about right...
That's an insane amount of time.

Not really. Without extensions (there are some extremely special cases for patent extensions, IIRC), it's short enough to let things enter the domain in a timely fashion, but long enough to put an artist's kid through college. It also has legal precedent, which is nice.

CannibalSmith · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2009, 07:01:13 AM »

I'm thinking of all these drugs and treatments and other stuff where several corporations are locked in a standoff each one having a piece of technology. For each of them licensing all other pieces exceeds the expected profits, and thus some new technology and an entire tech tree it would unlock are delayed by 17 whooping years.

Think of all the stuff you might not live to see. What if one of them is longevity?

The_Mad_Linguist · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2009, 07:24:39 AM »

Quote from: CannibalSmith on April 10, 2009, 07:01:13 AM

I'm thinking of all these drugs and treatments and other stuff where several corporations are locked in a standoff each one having a piece of technology. For each of them licensing all other pieces exceeds the expected profits, and thus some new technology and an entire tech tree it would unlock are delayed by 17 whooping years.

Think of all the stuff you might not live to see. What if one of them is longevity?

The way it worked about thirty years ago was the companies would gleefully use each others patents, with the understanding that as long as they were stealing fairly equally from each other neither would cry foul. In other words, defensive, rather than offensive, patent use.

The standoff implies that the individual companies would prefer no profit to profit. Which is just dumb.

And think of it this way - without the ability to profit off your ideas, what's to prevent $evilCorporationOfYourChoice from taking somebody else's design and manufacturing it more cheaply, then driving them out of business? Without the possibility of benefit for entrepreneurs with new inventions, fewer new ideas will be produced. What if the the person whose brilliant ideas would have revolutionized genetics couldn't get his Genetictek company off the ground because UltraMegaGigacorp took his formula and mass produced it, running Genetictek out of business?

CannibalSmith · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2009, 07:58:16 AM »

I'm arguing for shorter patents, not against patents as such. Say, 4~5 years should be plenty to get the product out the door and gain market dominance, making it hard for UltraMegaGigacorp to outcompete Genetictek.

In computing these times are even shorter. Eee PC had a less than year head start, and by the time the cheaper Aspire One came out, Asus had improved their design thus keeping the lead. Granted, Asus is not a startup.

Ramaloke · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2009, 08:08:07 AM »

If the patent where to last as long as an edition that would be fine, it is sort of silly though, that they are churning out new editions so fast that the patents cant expire.

veekie · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2009, 04:24:57 PM »

Quote from: CannibalSmith on April 10, 2009, 07:58:16 AM

I'm arguing for shorter patents, not against patents as such. Say, 4~5 years should be plenty to get the product out the door and gain market dominance, making it hard for UltraMegaGigacorp to outcompete Genetictek.

In computing these times are even shorter. Eee PC had a less than year head start, and by the time the cheaper Aspire One came out, Asus had improved their design thus keeping the lead. Granted, Asus is not a startup.

I'd say a 2 year patent is plenty in computing, since by then, whatever technology it was for is likely obsolete. 4-5 years seems a nice balance point for patenting.

I figure patent durations were based back in earlier days, where research, and then deployment took a much longer cycle. These days, if it isn't ready in 3 years, they aren't even going to listen to your proposal, coz it'd be obsolete by the time it happens.

News:

Author Topic: WotC sues filesharers (Read 30404 times)