| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1zombiegleemaxOct 21, 2008 15:26:09 | As a friendly reminder, the content of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines is subscriber-only and is covered by intellectual property and other laws. Please be respectful of other users when discussing this content. No spoilers, please! As a rule of thumb, do not copy or disclose more information than you would expect to see in a brief book or movie review. Violation of laws may result in termination of your account. |
| #2jedriousOct 22, 2008 11:26:53 | perhaps you should consider a subscriber-only forum so they could be discussed with less constraint there, though if the articles continue to be of the quality of the gladiator one you may want those spoilers to draw in more subscribers |
| #3divinedragoonxdOct 24, 2008 18:13:33 | perhaps you should consider a subscriber-only forum so they could be discussed with less constraint there, though if the articles continue to be of the quality of the gladiator one you may want those spoilers to draw in more subscribers Yea, would make sense. But hey when ever does Wizards ever make sense. And NOW they are worried about IP. I can go over all the forums and pick out dozens of IP/Copyright "Violations" which they have done nothing about. Top of my mind the Dread Necromancer Playtest violates like 3 IP provisions. Not gonna even mention all the IP "violations" in the Races forums. People love to follow fools; they dont feel so alone then. |
| #4divinedragoonxdOct 24, 2008 18:48:30 | And just to inform everyone a little about the Fair Use Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: -the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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. Copyrights can be put in public domain 70 years after the original author's death. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Basically, "-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" means that as long as no one is selling the information or the information is intended for sale that the material may be "borrowed" as long as it complies with all other provisions of the Digital Millenia Act. "-the nature of the copyrighted work;" this just prevents the private ownership of public domain and thus has no bearing here. "-the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;" the third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use." Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters,[11] the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial. Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.[12] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music has reversed this standing, eliminating the de minimis defense for samples of recorded music, but stating that the decision did not apply to fair use. "-the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." the fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,[14] where the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In the aforementioned Nation case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled this factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has indeed enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[15] that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation. In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market of the original work: First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work. In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Acuff-Rose Music they decisively stated that, "when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.[16] Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-pack for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.[17] Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism. Fair use as a defense: The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[15] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a "prima facie" case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense. Because of the defendant's burden of proof, some copyright owners frequently make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in his defense. This type of frivolous lawsuit is part of a much larger problem in First Amendment law; see Strategic lawsuit against public participation. Because paying a royalty fee may be much less expensive than having a potential copyright suit threaten the publication of a completed work in which a publisher has invested significant resources, many authors may seek a license even for uses that copyright law ostensibly permits without liability. The frequent argument over whether fair use is a "right" or a "defense"[18] is generated by confusion over the use of the term "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is simply a term of art from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses," and so it does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not a right but a defense." The First Amendment, for instance, is generally raised as an affirmative defense in litigation, but is clearly a "right." Similarly, while fair use is characterized as a defense in terms of the litigation posture, Section 107 defines fair use as a "limitation" on copyright law and states clearly that "the fair use of a copyrighted work … is not an infringement of copyright."[19] In response to perceived over-expansion of copyrights, several electronic civil liberties and free expression organizations began in the 1990s to add fair use cases to their dockets and concerns. These include the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association, numerous clinical programs at law schools, and others. The "Chilling Effects" archive was established in 2002 as a coalition of several law school clinics and the EFF to document the use of cease and desist letters. Most recently, in 2006, Stanford University began an initiative called "The Fair Use Project" (FUP) to help artists, particularly filmmakers, fight lawsuits brought against them by large corporations. Here is a common misconception: It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose. Pretty much as long as you follow these guideline, you CAN copyright, just under certain circumstances. I am not saying you CANT be sued. I am saying if you are sued, you will not be liable. The thing is, big companies like to scare us little people and this time its not gonna work. Know your laws. And remeber I am not endorcing ILLEGAL copyrighting, just LEGAL fair use under the Fair Use Act. |
| #5DuskweaverOct 25, 2008 3:27:28 | And just to inform everyone a little about the Fair Use Act. Not to be snarky here, but none of that really matters here. WotC is free to set whatever rules they want about what can be discussed on their own forums, regardless of 'fair use'. Frankly, and with all due respect, I think WOTC_Michelle's invoking of IP law as reasoning for this decision was unwise. A strict reading of appropriate laws would open up a huge can of worms concerning what gets discussed here every day, as you (DivineDragoonXD) correctly pointed out. If WotC doesn't want any non-subscribers to gain any rules-mechanics information about subscriber-only content, then they should just say that and leave out the spurious legal justifications. Violation of laws may result in termination of your account. This actually made me laugh out loud. WotC's mods have the authority to terminate an account, of course. But they absolutely do not have the authority to determine if a law has been violated or if a given poster is guilty of such. The hypothetical IP-violating account would be terminated for violating the forum rules, not for breaking the law. To imply otherwise is more than a little silly. And, yes, I realise that publically criticising WOTC_Michelle's OP is probably a CoC violation in itself. I hope it's clear that I'm actually just trying to be helpful and to avoid the sort of legalistic arguments the OP has and will continue to throw up. It is unwise to throw around terms like "violation of laws" when they're (1) spurious and (2) irrelevant because you don't actually need to justify yourselves legally, because these are your forums. |
| #6divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 16:16:50 | Not to be snarky here, but none of that really matters here. WotC is free to set whatever rules they want about what can be discussed on their own forums, regardless of 'fair use'. I totally agree that Wizards has the right to limit what is discussed and what cant be discussed. They have a Code of Conduct which everyone had to agree to to gain an Account. I agreed to their Code of Conduct as a good little boy, however, this thing that is being brought up is not mentioned in the Code of Conduct and no one can be retaliated against until it is updated and account users agree. Until then, anything goes unless the Code of Conduct changes. The thing is...I dont agree with the way Wizards "thinks" they can handle things. I dont appreciate bullying fans into "believing" that their account can be terminated. Under their current Code of Conduct, using the Fair Use Act, Wizards cannot terminate an account that has not yet violated their Code of Conduct. And for some people who dont know, a termination of account includes all paid subscribtion to D&D Insider. |
| #7divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 16:27:56 | And as far as calling out an administrator violating the Code of Conduct, I think not. Here is the full CoC: Last Updated: August 13, 2007 As part of Wizards of the Coast’s commitment to make this website (the "Site") a great place to meet and interact with other gamers around the world, members and guests of the Site agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. You are responsible for knowing and abiding by these conduct rules, the Site Terms of Use and the Gleemax Member Terms of Service to ensure that everyone feels welcome. All community and social networking aspects of the Site are subject to the Code of Conduct (often referred to as "the CoC"). This includes, without limitation, account names, group/clan names, profile content, blog content and comments, chat and forum activity, e-mail or private messages to Wizards of the Coast staff. Violation of the Code of Conduct rules is grounds for Site account(s) termination. Termination includes you forfeiting all product/content associated with your account(s) and being no longer permitted use of our online services or tools in any way. Wizards of the Coast staff are the final judges of whether a member's behavior qualifies as inappropriate or a disruption. This Code of Conduct is subject to change at any time at Wizards of the Coast's sole discretion. Choose your account’s screen names carefully. Screen names that are deemed offensive may be modified or deactivated without notice. For example: Names of offensive or notorious persons, controversial political figures, references to cultural tragedies or of significant religious or occult meaning Names containing profanity, obscene slang, graphic anatomical references, racial, ethnic, sexist, or religious slurs Names with word combinations that produce an offensive result Names of or references to illicit substances or drug-related paraphernalia Names with the intent or effect of harming the reputation of another Names including protocol prefixes and domain suffixes (e.g. http://, .org, .com) Names that impersonate the representation of a specific business or website, including any business or website you may operate or represent Proper names of Wizards of the Coast staff or their titles Misspellings, phonetic, and alternative spellings of prohibited names are subject to modification or deactivation. Variations of a deactivated screen name, as may be evidenced by your declarations under a new screen name that you are "really" the deactivated name, may also be deactivated and the account holder may have his or her account terminated. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling/spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter "testing." Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example: Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information) Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community Post or otherwise disclose any personal or private information of another person, or any confidential information pertaining to a business, without consent Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense. These topics include crimes relating to drugs, drug paraphernalia, ****, solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation. Do not impersonate other persons, including members or Wizards of the Coast staff, by screen name or self-representation, or attempt to obtain sensitive information from other members. For example: Falsely claim an official title or to hold position relating to the Site Falsely claim the representation of another business or website Fake an existing member’s screen name by using similar-looking characters "Spoof" or "emote" another member’s text in a chat room Falsely claim to be a law enforcement officer Solicit passwords or personal information from other members Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels. For example: Spam through repeated posts, or off-topic content by word or intent to forums or comments (scrolling, flooding, polling, or by "bumping" a post more than once in 48 hours) Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities) Advertise trades or sales outside of the designated areas Do not advertise. This includes: Advertising matches that card gamble/play for ante Advertising player-run tournaments Advertising trades or sales outside of the designated areas Advertise or promote a business or commercial website outside of the designated areas Sending unsolicited commercial or purportedly informational messages to any members Do not attempt to use or gain access to another's accounts or service, engage another member under false pretenses or otherwise defraud another member. Anyone linking to, posting, distributing or promoting hacks, modifications, viruses, or password mining websites may face legal action in addition to normal account penalties. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a league, sanctioned event, or organized game. For example: Bribe or offer compensation in order to change the game outcome Stall, spam, harass, or behave in any unsportsmanlike manner that affects the game Explanation of Disciplinary Escalation and Procedures If a member of Gleemax.com or Wizards.com has demonstrated he or she cannot follow this Code of Conduct, the Website Terms of Use, or the Gleemax Member Terms of Service, then the member may lose access to ALL of his or her accounts and all associated content and screen names. Moderators issue formal warnings, by post, private message or email when a member has made a Code of Conduct infraction. Depending on the severity of the infraction, Wizards of the Coast may issue a warning, timed suspension or termination of the account. This explanation of disciplinary procedure is meant to be a guideline for members to understand what their status may be with regard to the process. It is only a guideline and Wizards of the Coast may deviate from this procedure at any time in any manner it deems appropriate without notice. A specific chat, forum, list or online game situation may require other measures to ensure the family orientation of the Site. |
| #8jedriousOct 25, 2008 16:34:58 | And as far as calling out an administrator violating the Code of Conduct, I think not. Here is the full CoC: this section is all they need to use the CoC to discipline someone for posting subscriber-only content and this thread can be referenced as a blanket warning to all forum members in the case of a dispute for disciplinary escalation |
| #9divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 16:44:02 | this section is all they need to use the CoC to discipline someone for posting subscriber-only content and this thread can be referenced as a blanket warning to all forum members in the case of a dispute for disciplinary escalation As far as I know, I am not promoting, planing, glorifying or engaging in any illegal activity, the fair Use Act is LEGAL. I am not circumvanting laws to encourage illegal activity as the Fair Use Act is LEGAL, thus I "believe" I am not violating this section. My dad is a lawyer and I had asked him about this last night and he said (he had to confer with the Bar Association first cause he didnt know exactly) that what I am saying is correct. LOL he has warned me not to get carried away though, probably smart advice. You would think Wizards have their own lawyers to teach them about the law. Wizards is making mountains out of molehills. |
| #10jedriousOct 25, 2008 16:54:16 | As far as I know, I am not promoting, planing, glorifying or engaging in any illegal activity, the fair Use Act is LEGAL. I am not circumvanting laws to encourage illegal activity as the Fair Use Act is LEGAL, thus I "believe" I am not violating this section. yes Fair Use Act is legal, however, it is also extremely vague (like a law exists that isn't vague) allowing for a myriad of interpretations, also the CoC isn't the only document from wizards you should have provided to your father for legal reference, the EULA for DNDI subscribers is extrememly pertinent Member User Agreement Emphasis mine |
| #11divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 17:03:07 | yes Fair Use Act is legal, however, it is also extremely vague (like a law exists that isn't vague) allowing for a myriad of interpretations, also the CoC isn't the only document from wizards you should have provided to your father for legal reference, the EULA for DNDI subscribers is extrememly pertinent LOL you should have just put that section which you wanted me to look at. I read the whole thing like a dummy thinking "Where is he going with this?". However, I believe that clause (I said believe here LOL) is for purposes of software reverse engineering as that clause is in the middle of the whole software reverse engineering, seemed like you picked what you liked and forgot to read the rest. |
| #12jedriousOct 25, 2008 17:10:02 | LOL you should have just put that section which you wanted me to look at. I read the whole thing like a dummy thinking "Where is he going with this?". However, I believe that clause (I said believe here LOL) is for purposes of software reverse engineering as that clause is in the middle of the whole software reverse engineering, seemed like you picked what you liked and forgot to read the rest. you didn't make it easy on anyone else to read, anyway you missed the part where they described that the entirety of subscription services are collectively refered to as "The Program" |
| #13divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 17:26:12 | you didn't make it easy on anyone else to read, IP/Copyright laws are not best explained in a few sentences, one could easily copy/paste a section of the Terms of Use from the Terms of Use policy. I understand what you are saying, however, (Ill copy/paste your bolded section, You may not create, facilitate, host, advertise, promote, link to or provide any other means through which the Program may be accessed, distributed, modified, downloaded or used by others. You may not exploit the Program or any of its Components, features, functions or otherwise for any commercial purpose without prior written consent of Wizards.) This clause is meant for purposes for illegally obtaining the program. Example: Say Wizards finally comes out with the Character Generator (yea I know, its a long shot). I then create a proxy (or whatever) to bypass say the login screen, that is prohibited. If I then put that proxy on my website, that is prohibited as it is considered hosting. I may not advertise my proxy, create a link to my proxy and all the others that they mention. It also mentions in that sentence "otherwise for any commercial purpose without prior written consent of Wizards". In addition, if I was in the wrong on this, my account would already be banned (LOL you know how fast Wizards works on that kind of stuff). But also, Federal Law supercedes any contract, making it null and void if someone were to be prosecuted. I love having these healthy debates and I am enjoying it. :P |
| #14jedriousOct 25, 2008 17:54:56 | IP/Copyright laws are not best explained in a few sentences, one could easily copy/paste a section from the ToU. another reason for my posting the EULA in its enirety as oppossed to just a snippet I understand what you are saying, however, (Ill copy/paste your bolded section, You may not create, facilitate, host, advertise, promote, link to or provide any other means through which the Program may be accessed, distributed, modified, downloaded or used by others. You may not exploit the Program or any of its Components, features, functions or otherwise for any commercial purpose without prior written consent of Wizards.) here's where our interpretations aren't syncing up, and I wish I could post a good analytical matrix of just the sentence You may not create, facilitate, host, advertise, promote, link to or provide any other means through which the Program may be accessed, distributed, modified, downloaded or used by others. specifically for parsing the deliniated lists within it. Example: this is an example of (i)Hosting and/or (ii)providing (a) access and/or (b) use by others, what WotC_Michelle is refering to is more of the (iii)Create, (iv)Facilitate, and/or (ii)Provide (c)distribution to and/or (b) use by others. A seemingly minor distinction especially since multiple parts of the analytical matrix are used by both instances. In addition, if I was in the wrong on this, my account would already be banned (LOL you know how fast Wizards works on that kind of stuff). The problem is we don't know exactly how much leeway we'll actually have, most moderators that I know keep a list of people offending and only act upon habitual offenders and allow minor slips to happen and chock them up to human nature, my biggest reason for thinking we need subscriber-only forums is for members giving advice that requires snippets from dragon/dungeon articles to provide propper context, the last thing I want to see is a featlist that looks like 1: Dragon Magazine w, page x, column y, line z 2: [power source] Power, page aa, column ab, line ac etc., etc. just for the poster to avoid any possibility of banning |
| #15divinedragoonxdOct 25, 2008 18:04:29 | another reason for my posting the EULA in its enirety as oppossed to just a snippet Yes, I believe overall for Wizards, the best way to avoid any situation from arrising is creating a Subscirber-Only forum. I only brought this whole thing up because Wizards seems to care for the little people but then they go and say something like Michelle did. One thing she said I dont understand and I quote: "Please be respectful of other users when discussing this content." How would it be disresectful to ANY user? |
| #16jedriousOct 25, 2008 18:10:59 | Yes, I believe overall for Wizards, the best way to avoid any situation from arrising is creating a Subscirber-Only forum. I only brought this whole thing up because Wizards seems to care for the little people but then they go and say something like Michelle did. One thing she said I dont understand and I quote: Providing use of subscriber-only content to non-subscribers can be construed as being disrespectful to those that made the financial decision to become a subscriber "Respect" is one of those vague words that have so many uses that it is generally inappropriate to use in authoritative contexts, despite what our parents told us growing up about respecting them( I don't know about you, but I never got a straight answer from my parents when I asked them what respecting them meant, and the answer changed each time I asked) |
| #17divinedragoonxdOct 26, 2008 11:31:24 | Providing use of subscriber-only content to non-subscribers can be construed as being disrespectful to those that made the financial decision to become a subscriber Yea, I could agree if the whole DDI "program" was made available to non-subcribers. It would take many, many, many and many more posts and what not to lessen the value of DDI magazines. DDI does not only include the magizine but also the Game Table (is that still comming out), the Visualizer, and the Generator. Most of DDI cannot be posted as most of it is actually a web-based program. Also, no situation of "respect" would come about if the Subscribers did not release that info as only Subscribers have access to said info. The Subscribers would then choose to lessen the "value" of their own Subscribtion. |
| #18jedriousOct 26, 2008 11:41:21 | Also, no situation of "respect" would come about if the Subscribers did not release that info as only Subscribers have access to said info. The Subscribers would then choose to lessen the "value" of their own Subscribtion. Believe it or not this is similar to our county's current financial crisis, For example if your neighbor chooses to sell his house at far below market price it affects your house's value, at that point a decision made by someone else devalued your investment without your consent Another example being, Joe Hummer Driver is willing to pay $4 a gallon to drive his monstrocity, gas pump owners see this and raises the cost of gas accordingly because Joe Hummer Driver also is his most frequent customer, this decision just devalued your gas budget without your consent The "Disrespect" being directed at those subscribers that chose to toe the line and follow the rules having their subscriptions devalued without their consent |
| #19orc_kirinOct 26, 2008 11:55:26 | I've removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, and to preserve continuity on the thread. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. |
| #20divinedragoonxdOct 26, 2008 11:57:45 | Believe it or not this is similar to our county's current financial crisis, I suppose :P . But isnt that just the basics of economy? Granted it sucks but apprently thats life. I do however, see your point. But does copy/pasting a section from the Dungeon Magazine lessen the "value" of said Subscibtion THAT much. I could understand Wizards if a Subscriber made available ALL the content (and the content actually worth the Subscribtion, like the Generator) through giving away ones username/password. However, I dont believe it is such a big deal concerning the magazines (as the OP only had a problem with this), unless a Subscriber actually posted the whole PDF of the magazine. Posting a section of a book doesnt lessen the "value" of the book as a whole, its done all the time especially with the Core books and such. You need to have the full material in front of you to actually appreciate it and use it in its entirety (spelled correctly?). |
| #21unfamiliarOct 28, 2008 9:10:49 | I declare "Shenanigans!" on WotC for coming up with this thread. It's all well & good to prattle on about issues like intellectual property, copyright infringement, etc - but frankly, what I'd really love to know is this: Why do I find discussion of material found in core rulebooks all over these boards, yet people like me that have paid that much more in order to get the added online material are hereby being threatened with account cancellations if we do the same? Personally, I'd think discussion of DDI material would be treated the same as that found in the books (which is all over these boards), but apparently that's not the case. Seems I can pluck my copy of Adventurer's Vault off my bookshelf & talk here about this magic weapon property being better than another, or whether or not Item X is worth the gold it costs, & nothing happens to my account - but if I try to do the same thing with material found in an online subsciption-only article, all Hell will suddenly break loose. See, the problem I have as a subscriber is remembering just what content is free to everyone & what content I've actually paid to see. As a result, I find I'm visiting these forums a lot less since I subscribed, since I simply can't be bothered to double-check & make sure that it's "OK" to discuss an article I've read. If I can't talk here about something in Dragon that I've paid for, there's that much less incentive to post on these forums, & it's actually got me considering cancelling my DDI subscription altogether, since it irritates me that WotC seems to be picking & choosing just what material they're gonna take issue with when it comes to discussion. Making a subscriber-only forum would be a logical fix, but apparently WotC staff would rather make threats about account terminations, rather than provide subscribers with a place where we can actually discuss the material we've all paid good money for. IMO, that sucks. |
| #22karldark_dupOct 28, 2008 10:36:19 | Violation of laws may result in termination of your account. Well at least then you jerks won't overcharge my bank account with your unethical auto-renewal policy. This has been KarlDark finding the positive in everything. |
| #23divinedragoonxdOct 29, 2008 9:59:15 | I declare "Shenanigans!" on WotC for coming up with this thread. It's all well & good to prattle on about issues like intellectual property, copyright infringement, etc - but frankly, what I'd really love to know is this: Ditto. Not having a subscriber only forums only lessens the Customer Service you can revieve because even by their ToU you cant even post it in an e-mail to Cust Serv as it violates (by law it doesnt) their service agreement. You screwed LOL |
| #24divinedragoonxdOct 29, 2008 10:02:00 | Well at least then you jerks won't overcharge my bank account with your unethical auto-renewal policy. This has been KarlDark finding the positive in everything. You pay for the subscribtion and if it ends it doesnt just end, they take money out to renew? LOL, well, luckily for MN residents they have Consumer Protections which disallow that, maybe all states should follow their lead. LOL Seems like one would be better off to order the best pachage because you pay for it anyways, right? |
| #25grimsladeOct 30, 2008 14:21:13 | IP nerd fight? |
| #26jedriousOct 31, 2008 0:45:45 | IP nerd fight? nope, just a friendly debate that got interupted by WotC-haters |
| #27senkoOct 31, 2008 5:52:22 | I read through this (I was bored) and I have 3 things I want to clarify. 1) If you violate what they feel is justified discussion of the subscriber content they stop selling it too you? 2) What happens when subscriber content becomes non-subscriber content e.g. the barbarian in the latest issue which presumably is going to show up in the players handbook or the stuff that was previously free such as the earlier issues of dungeon magazine that now require payment to view? 3) You are presumably paying to view the Dungeon Magazine articles (I'm mainly interested in the character visualizer and until that shows up I don't intend to subscribe) but your only allowed to discuss and help yourself in regards to it rather than being able to discuss it on the forums because people who haven't payed for it might find out the secrets of your new power source but you can discuss the other book rules so people who haven't bought them can find out the secrets contained therein? |
| #28drorainOct 31, 2008 7:50:54 | so i'm guessing you guys are the rules lawyer type of players...no?:P I think it's a simple request, not hard to follow and perhaps the best solution is DDI exclusive forums. |
| #29senkoOct 31, 2008 8:49:49 | Indeed I learnt to be a rules lawyer after my first GMing experience where I gave the players a foot and before I knew it they'd taken a leg and were wipng out CR20 monsters at level 14 then rewinding the battle so they could try different ways of doing it. |
| #30jedriousOct 31, 2008 10:54:28 | so i'm guessing you guys are the rules lawyer type of players...no?:P Actually, not a rules-lawyer, though people do call me a rules-encyclopedia, I care more about consistency and play experience than anything else, I'm the gu a the table that makes the DM think of why for his house rules and pointing out unintended consequences for them, which overall improves the quality of said house rules |
| #31neiltj1Oct 31, 2008 11:21:48 | Funny, I read a similar thread on another formum dedicated to a certain tabletop minis game. An IP LAWYER (a player, not the companies counsel)came on and said that (parapharsing here) that downloading, reposting, or copying protected IP can get you in hot water, and that Fair Use does not protect you. Now that said you can disagree all you want, and if you have the money, by all means start a legal battle. I for one have not yet subscribed, and I have no problem having my access to certain information restricted since I have not paid for it. Neil disclaimer, I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV :P |
| #32divinedragoonxdNov 01, 2008 10:00:12 | so i'm guessing you guys are the rules lawyer type of players...no?:P No, actually it is not a simple request. Its called oppresion, I have rights as everyone else does. If I say woman cant vote, thats a simple request, right? I have another simple request, dont type on this forum. Is that really so simple. Just trying to prove a point. Im a rules lawyer in the respects that I am not gonna let a DM tell me I cant do something that legally I can. I hate when DMs prohibit players characters because they dont feel they should have any ability or something. As a DM of 6 years I have never done that, no matter how I believe a rule is un-fair or not. |
| #33divinedragoonxdNov 01, 2008 10:05:58 | Funny, I read a similar thread on another formum dedicated to a certain tabletop minis game. An IP LAWYER (a player, not the companies counsel)came on and said that (parapharsing here) that downloading, reposting, or copying protected IP can get you in hot water, and that Fair Use does not protect you. Now that said you can disagree all you want, and if you have the money, by all means start a legal battle. I for one have not yet subscribed, and I have no problem having my access to certain information restricted since I have not paid for it. Havent I seen you on Law & Order? LOL J/K. OK, if you would have read the Act, specifically in my post, you are right, certain things are not protected. Such as copying the Character Visualizer and selling it off as your own. However, if you would have read the first post by Michelle, you would be able to tell we are talking about the Dungeon & Dragons Magazine which have certain stipulations on which one may reproduce the material. A stipulation is for educational purposes. Another would to critisize the work, and another would be 400 words or less, and another would be to comment on the work, ect, ect, ect. You catch my drift? Could I get the link to that post with the "lawyer", I would like to see what you are talking about to give you my educated opinion. If you cant provide a source it has no validity. |