As I've said before, I'm no expert in law, but I seriously question your claim that WotC has no control over the arrangement of public MtG tournaments - sanctioned or not. I'm guessing that WotC so far has had little incentive to meddle in unsanctioned events. But that does not mean that they could not interfere if they wanted to.
This is actually covered under copyright law. Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use). This is what lets libraries function, and what let video rental places function. You can't make your own copies of that thing, but WoTC can't tell you how to use it. So as long as a unsanctioned tournament did not use copyrightable assets in its marketing, there's no way for WotC to shut down a competing tournament organization. It's just literally people using the products they purchased for their intended purpose in an organized way. This is one of the reasons a lot of digital assets have terms of service - to prevent people from using the product (transferring ownership, reselling, etc) in a way other than intended. Even those ToS are a bit of a grey area, legally speaking. There's no ToS on opening a pack of Magic cards. Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement (unless you get prior permission). Use the words "Magic: the Gathering" in advertising would be fair use (as you'll see in ads for many ancillary Magic products).
I'm not arguing that the players using their cards in a tournament is doing something illegal. But that the tournament organizer - which probably is a for-profit establishment - may not freely arrange "Magic: the Gathering" tournaments. In practice I don't think WotC wants to interfere in this business, it would probably be bad rep. However, if someone were to make MtG tournaments into big business - like making their own DCI - I'm fairly certain WotC would want some form of control that their product is used in a way that is not in conflict with their business.
2) create a non-profit organization as a 501(c)(6). This is defined as a "Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc, created for the improvement of business conditions"
This is what the NHL and PGA exist under. This is legal. This organization would then be in charge of saying who was qualified to be a judge for its tournaments (instead of the for-profit company), and run the protour events. WoTC/Hasbro would be allowed to give the DCI money, but wouldn't be allowed to run it - Hasbro couldn't "own" the DCI for example. It would have to be functionally, and legally, distinct.
I still don't think it's accurate to compare to NHL and PGA. Those sports are much more generic than MtG. Some equipment like sticks and clubs are required, yes, but manufacturers of these items are numerous. It's not like to play a game of hockey you are required to use CCM sticks. I'm sure if someone started a "CCM hockey league" where you were required to use only CCM equipment, the CCM company would make sure this was done in a way that's ok with them.
As I've said before, I'm no expert in law, but I seriously question your claim that WotC has no control over the arrangement of public MtG tournaments - sanctioned or not. I'm guessing that WotC so far has had little incentive to meddle in unsanctioned events. But that does not mean that they could not interfere if they wanted to.
This is actually covered under copyright law. Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use). This is what lets libraries function, and what let video rental places function. You can't make your own copies of that thing, but WoTC can't tell you how to use it. So as long as a unsanctioned tournament did not use copyrightable assets in its marketing, there's no way for WotC to shut down a competing tournament organization. It's just literally people using the products they purchased for their intended purpose in an organized way. This is one of the reasons a lot of digital assets have terms of service - to prevent people from using the product (transferring ownership, reselling, etc) in a way other than intended. Even those ToS are a bit of a grey area, legally speaking. There's no ToS on opening a pack of Magic cards. Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement (unless you get prior permission). Use the words "Magic: the Gathering" in advertising would be fair use (as you'll see in ads for many ancillary Magic products).
I'm not arguing that the players using their cards in a tournament is doing something illegal. But that the tournament organizer - which probably is a for-profit establishment - may not freely arrange "Magic: the Gathering" tournaments. In practice I don't think WotC wants to interfere in this business, it would probably be bad rep. However, if someone were to make MtG tournaments into big business - like making their own DCI - I'm fairly certain WotC would want some form of control that their product is used in a way that is not in conflict with their business.
What makes you think that they may not freely arrange Magic tournaments? What about other professional tournaments for games? Like Counterstrike, or Street Fighter, or Star Craft, or Monopoly, or Settlers of Catan? What law would you think they are breaking? Star City games used to run proxy vintage tournaments - which we all know WotC doesn't like. The reality is that while WotC can remove stores who hold these tournaments from becoming premier stores, they CAN'T take legal action against the stores because they just don't have that level of legal control over their product. Now, if you make a copy of a Black Lotus to use in such a tournament - that is copyright infringement. But if you made a "Smacker Blotus" card with your own card frame and different back (played in an opaque sleeve), you could sell that card and hold tournaments where that card was legal. It would even be legal to create you very own Magic cards that could be played in your own tournament system as long as (and this is super important), if you sold it, you didn't use any of Magic's art, or specific text, on those cards (including backs).
2) create a non-profit organization as a 501(c)(6). This is defined as a "Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc, created for the improvement of business conditions"
This is what the NHL and PGA exist under. This is legal. This organization would then be in charge of saying who was qualified to be a judge for its tournaments (instead of the for-profit company), and run the protour events. WoTC/Hasbro would be allowed to give the DCI money, but wouldn't be allowed to run it - Hasbro couldn't "own" the DCI for example. It would have to be functionally, and legally, distinct.
I still don't think it's accurate to compare to NHL and PGA. Those sports are much more generic than MtG. Some equipment like sticks and clubs are required, yes, but manufacturers of these items are numerous. It's not like to play a game of hockey you are required to use CCM sticks. I'm sure if someone started a "CCM hockey league" where you were required to use only CCM equipment, the CCM company would make sure this was done in a way that's ok with them.
You can't tell your consumer how to use their product. Once they buy it, they own it. This means they can resell it, use it for something else, save it, play it with wrong rules, or whatever. This is related to First-sale doctrine in copyright law. Once WotC sells the cards, you can do whatever you want with them. This includes making up a new game to play with the cards, or creating new tournament formats. And allowing a group of people to get together (yes, even for profit) to play the game.
As I've said before, I'm no expert in law, but I seriously question your claim that WotC has no control over the arrangement of public MtG tournaments - sanctioned or not. I'm guessing that WotC so far has had little incentive to meddle in unsanctioned events. But that does not mean that they could not interfere if they wanted to.
This is actually covered under copyright law. Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use). This is what lets libraries function, and what let video rental places function. You can't make your own copies of that thing, but WoTC can't tell you how to use it. So as long as a unsanctioned tournament did not use copyrightable assets in its marketing, there's no way for WotC to shut down a competing tournament organization. It's just literally people using the products they purchased for their intended purpose in an organized way. This is one of the reasons a lot of digital assets have terms of service - to prevent people from using the product (transferring ownership, reselling, etc) in a way other than intended. Even those ToS are a bit of a grey area, legally speaking. There's no ToS on opening a pack of Magic cards. Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement (unless you get prior permission). Use the words "Magic: the Gathering" in advertising would be fair use (as you'll see in ads for many ancillary Magic products).
I'm not arguing that the players using their cards in a tournament is doing something illegal. But that the tournament organizer - which probably is a for-profit establishment - may not freely arrange "Magic: the Gathering" tournaments. In practice I don't think WotC wants to interfere in this business, it would probably be bad rep. However, if someone were to make MtG tournaments into big business - like making their own DCI - I'm fairly certain WotC would want some form of control that their product is used in a way that is not in conflict with their business.
What makes you think that they may not freely arrange Magic tournaments? What about other professional tournaments for games? Like Counterstrike, or Street Fighter, or Star Craft, or Monopoly, or Settlers of Catan? What law would you think they are breaking? Star City games used to run proxy vintage tournaments - which we all know WotC doesn't like. The reality is that while WotC can remove stores who hold these tournaments from becoming premier stores, they CAN'T take legal action against the stores because they just don't have that level of legal control over their product. Now, if you make a copy of a Black Lotus to use in such a tournament - that is copyright infringement. But if you made a "Smacker Blotus" card with your own card frame and different back (played in an opaque sleeve), you could sell that card and hold tournaments where that card was legal. It would even be legal to create you very own Magic cards that could be played in your own tournament system as long as (and this is super important), if you sold it, you didn't use any of Magic's art, or specific text, on those cards (including backs).
2) create a non-profit organization as a 501(c)(6). This is defined as a "Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc, created for the improvement of business conditions"
This is what the NHL and PGA exist under. This is legal. This organization would then be in charge of saying who was qualified to be a judge for its tournaments (instead of the for-profit company), and run the protour events. WoTC/Hasbro would be allowed to give the DCI money, but wouldn't be allowed to run it - Hasbro couldn't "own" the DCI for example. It would have to be functionally, and legally, distinct.
I still don't think it's accurate to compare to NHL and PGA. Those sports are much more generic than MtG. Some equipment like sticks and clubs are required, yes, but manufacturers of these items are numerous. It's not like to play a game of hockey you are required to use CCM sticks. I'm sure if someone started a "CCM hockey league" where you were required to use only CCM equipment, the CCM company would make sure this was done in a way that's ok with them.
You can't tell your consumer how to use their product. Once they buy it, they own it. This means they can resell it, use it for something else, save it, play it with wrong rules, or whatever. This is related to First-sale doctrine in copyright law. Once WotC sells the cards, you can do whatever you want with them. This includes making up a new game to play with the cards, or creating new tournament formats. And allowing a group of people to get together (yes, even for profit) to play the game.
[/quote]
Also for example, Commander and Tiny Leaders, neither of which originated with WoTC. WoTC has (obviously) incorporated Commander into their rules and product offerings due to how wildly popular it is among the huge casual player base, but WoTC would have been able to stop Commander from flourishing even if they hadn't seized the opportunity to increase their profit margin by tapping into this wide player base.
Now, if you make a copy of a Black Lotus to use in such a tournament - that is copyright infringement. But if you made a "Smacker Blotus" card with your own card frame and different back (played in an opaque sleeve), you could sell that card and hold tournaments where that card was legal. It would even be legal to create your very own Magic cards that could be played in your own tournament system as long as (and this is super important), if you sold it, you didn't use any of Magic's art, or specific text, on those cards (including backs).
That set uses WOTC's frames, mana symbols, and ability words. They are CLEARLY knockoff Magic cards. You need to go a heck of a lot further afield (just like this discussion has).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Along with many mods, I've moved shop over to MTGNexus. Come check us out!
I am unsure if you're trolling and being deliberately obtuse or you're just on autopilot unwilling/unable to back down.
You said this: Claiming to be ignorant of the law does not hold up in court.
Besides that, if they are not receiving compensation, are they "employees"? They are not volunteers now?
And the signage argument is thin. People volunteer for varieties of outdoor work without any "worker rights" postings.
This is strawman argumentation on so many levels.
They're not the "lawbreakers" by doing volunteer work that cannot be done. In the same way that, if a business owner pays extortion to an organized crime outfit, they're not lawbreakers even thought extortion is illegal.
You're also trying to conflate civil lawfulness with criminal lawfulness. The claim that it's "illegal" to volunteer for a for-profit enterprise is not illegal in the same way that "murder" is. It's a civil tort. And the proper response is a lawsuit.
How about just allowing the process to move ahead?
If you volunteer, you don't expect compensation, and if your experience while volunteering isn't enjoyable, you simply don't have to volunteer again.
Don't give me this crap about not being able to volunteer for a for-profit company BS. Every single judge knows full well they WERE volunteering.
Besides, most tournaments are run locally by TO's, not WoTC.
I hope the lawsuit goes down in flames.
It really doesn't matter what people "were doing" or "understood/didn't" about what they were doing. If the nature of the control rose to a certain level, it will be seen as employment by law. Laws that a very crucial to protect people from the capitalist corporations that will seek every advantage for undue enrichment though the alienation of their labor.
To oppose this legal challenge is basically to not care about any wage worker plain and simple. You may not feel the claim meets the tests. But to oppose the challenge is plane and simple classism.
From my point of view these Judges are complaining for doing something they agreed to do on terms they agreed with. They could always quit the judge program. Now, if WotC's terms didnt sit that well with people there would not be any judges and Wizards would need to think on how to get more people (maybe through wage, maybe oterhwise).
You cannot "agree" to sell your kidney. You generally cannot enter into a legally binding contract for many things. So, on the surface your "point-of-view" can be shown to be unsound in other contexts.
Further, you presume a level of "awareness" and "disclosure" that may not be there. I'm testing for level 1 and shadowed a judge for pre-release. It was 12 hours. I was not only given breaks, I was coached by the level 2 judge on the best way to find and take them. I was offered a meal from the TO. Even so, it was trial by fire. This imagined idea you have that people can have correct and full understanding of a commitment prior to it being made is odd. You do know...for example...half of all "Until Death Do Us Parts" end in divorce?
Finally, the treatment of judges is not universal. I'm quite sure I could have been at another store with a much less helpful or communicative TO and level 2 and left to either "figure it out on my own" or "be unhappy" or "assume the abuse is part of the job", etc. I assure you ...there are others who are not so lucky.
Now, however I do not agree with Judges' course of action the whole case of whether its legal is beyond my knowledge of the law, especially since the program is not limited to one country only. Can't say much of the morality of the program either. I would want to participate myself, if I was younger and had more time (no work, family etc).
This was a nice admission! Ty for acknowledging the limits of your point-of-view.
This is actually covered under copyright law. Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use). This is what lets libraries function, and what let video rental places function. You can't make your own copies of that thing, but WoTC can't tell you how to use it... This is one of the reasons a lot of digital assets have terms of service - to prevent people from using the product (transferring ownership, reselling, etc) in a way other than intended. Even those ToS are a bit of a grey area, legally speaking. There's no ToS on opening a pack of Magic cards. Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement (unless you get prior permission). Use the words "Magic: the Gathering" in advertising would be fair use (as you'll see in ads for many ancillary Magic products).
This is actually wrong on a few points. I agree that that I've never seen a license or terms of service on a package of Magic cards, but if we want to discuss intellectual property and legal issues, let's at least be correct.
- "Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use)." - Correct, with emphasis on "personal use." This does not cover duplication, distribution, or a number of other things. As intellectual property still owned by Wizards, you have to remember that you do not buy any rights to the intellectual property when you buy the cards. So let's say you make a feature film that shows people playing Magic - if you didn't get the rights to show that, you could face legal issues.
- "This is what lets... video rental places function." Wrong. If you buy a bunch of DVDs and Blurays at Walmart and attempt to rent them out, you will be breaking the law. When you buy a disc, you are buying a license to view that in your home. Ever read the FBI warning? And it doesn't matter if you are not making money - if you attempt a public exhibition at no charge, you are in violation of the law. Video rental companies have to pay higher license fees in order to rent them out.
- "Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement" - Close, but not quite. It's actually trademark infringement. Copyright protects the rights of the author of a work so they are the only ones who can reproduce, distribute, or display the work or to make derivative works. Trademark protects a word, name or symbol from being abused or ripped off. The Magic logo is trademarked, and as such, Wizards can object to how people use it in certain circumstances. Fair use (as you said) allows people to use it, but even that is not a black and white issue - it is open to interpretation.
That aside, I'll be curious how the lawsuit goes, and I don't even play in tournaments (almost exclusively a Commander player, here).
I am unsure if you're trolling and being deliberately obtuse or you're just on autopilot unwilling/unable to back down.
You said this: Claiming to be ignorant of the law does not hold up in court.
Besides that, if they are not receiving compensation, are they "employees"? They are not volunteers now?
And the signage argument is thin. People volunteer for varieties of outdoor work without any "worker rights" postings.
This is strawman argumentation on so many levels.
They're not the "lawbreakers" by doing volunteer work that cannot be done. In the same way that, if a business owner pays extortion to an organized crime outfit, they're not lawbreakers even thought extortion is illegal.
You're also trying to conflate civil lawfulness with criminal lawfulness. The claim that it's "illegal" to volunteer for a for-profit enterprise is not illegal in the same way that "murder" is. It's a civil tort. And the proper response is a lawsuit.
How about just allowing the process to move ahead?
Its not straw man. That is how the system works, buddy. And judging by your avatar, you have no clue what that is and only want to bend the system to fit your crooked agenda.
That is how the system works, buddy. And judging by your avatar, you have no clue what that is and only want to bend the system to fit your crooked agenda.
How about you conform and not contort?
Let me help you by returning the words of the great abolitionist Rev. Luther Lee in response to those who wish him to follow the "law" known as the Fugitive Slave Act.
"I never would obey it. I had assisted thirty slaves to escape to Canada during the last month. If the authorities wanted anything of me, my residence was at 39 Onondaga Street. I would admit that and they could take me and lock me up in the Penitentiary on the hill; but if they did such a foolish thing as that I had friends enough on Onondaga County to level it to the ground before the next morning.
Just yesterday I and hundreds of other activists prevented GEO a private prison corporation from getting a zoning variance to build on of their so called "immigrant detention centers" in Gary, IN.
I don't conform so PEOPLE LIKE YOU have freedom!
So I ask you this...if you looked at my icon, what part of dehumanization do you support. Was Dread Scott wrong to sue? Or was the SCOTUS wrong to decide that people could be property? If you work a 40 hours job, with benefits, and have weekends off...thank a union agitator! Now we will get protection for falsely named "freelancers" too.
Finally, I was the one who described how it works here. Separating criminal law from civil tort. It's you writing some lines out of a bad TV script about "ignorance of the law"... What part of WIZARDS ignorance does you think makes them free of culpability, baby boi? I stand with the judges, I stand with the people.
If you volunteer, you don't expect compensation, and if your experience while volunteering isn't enjoyable, you simply don't have to volunteer again.
Don't give me this crap about not being able to volunteer for a for-profit company BS. Every single judge knows full well they WERE volunteering.
Besides, most tournaments are run locally by TO's, not WoTC.
I hope the lawsuit goes down in flames.
It really doesn't matter what people "were doing" or "understood/didn't" about what they were doing. If the nature of the control rose to a certain level, it will be seen as employment by law. Laws that a very crucial to protect people from the capitalist corporations that will seek every advantage for undue enrichment though the alienation of their labor.
To oppose this legal challenge is basically to not care about any wage worker plain and simple. You may not feel the claim meets the tests. But to oppose the challenge is plane and simple classism.
This is a perfect example of black and white thinking. One can oppose this without supporting dystopian wage slavery. Believe it or not, almost no issue lands one of two diametrically opposed poles, but rather often, on a spectrum of sorts. Binary thinking like that frequently prevents practical solutions from arising.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
To oppose this legal challenge is basically to not care about any wage worker plain and simple. You may not feel the claim meets the tests. But to oppose the challenge is plane and simple classism.
Then you replied
[quoteThis is a perfect example of black and white thinking. One can oppose this without supporting dystopian wage slavery. Believe it or not, almost no issue lands one of two diametrically opposed poles, but rather often, on a spectrum of sorts. Binary thinking like that frequently prevents practical solutions from arising.[/quote]
I'm not sure why you thought this was an example of "black and white thinking". In fact, it's "Grey" thinking. Because, you can ALSO have other reasons...but it will still be classism and/or a lack of concern for the workers. Classism is the nature of the topic...
Note, I was clear. They may not have a valid case...but to oppose their even having the chance to make their case is the most bold position one could take.
This is no longer a rumor and discussion has deviated from the man issue to a variety of loosely related (and unrelated) legal, civic, moral, and societal issues. Feel free to continue that discussion in the Debate subforum or somewhere more appropriate.
If there are any updates in the case, users can post a new thread in the Rumor Mill with that new information.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not arguing that the players using their cards in a tournament is doing something illegal. But that the tournament organizer - which probably is a for-profit establishment - may not freely arrange "Magic: the Gathering" tournaments. In practice I don't think WotC wants to interfere in this business, it would probably be bad rep. However, if someone were to make MtG tournaments into big business - like making their own DCI - I'm fairly certain WotC would want some form of control that their product is used in a way that is not in conflict with their business.
I still don't think it's accurate to compare to NHL and PGA. Those sports are much more generic than MtG. Some equipment like sticks and clubs are required, yes, but manufacturers of these items are numerous. It's not like to play a game of hockey you are required to use CCM sticks. I'm sure if someone started a "CCM hockey league" where you were required to use only CCM equipment, the CCM company would make sure this was done in a way that's ok with them.
What makes you think that they may not freely arrange Magic tournaments? What about other professional tournaments for games? Like Counterstrike, or Street Fighter, or Star Craft, or Monopoly, or Settlers of Catan? What law would you think they are breaking? Star City games used to run proxy vintage tournaments - which we all know WotC doesn't like. The reality is that while WotC can remove stores who hold these tournaments from becoming premier stores, they CAN'T take legal action against the stores because they just don't have that level of legal control over their product. Now, if you make a copy of a Black Lotus to use in such a tournament - that is copyright infringement. But if you made a "Smacker Blotus" card with your own card frame and different back (played in an opaque sleeve), you could sell that card and hold tournaments where that card was legal. It would even be legal to create you very own Magic cards that could be played in your own tournament system as long as (and this is super important), if you sold it, you didn't use any of Magic's art, or specific text, on those cards (including backs).
You can't tell your consumer how to use their product. Once they buy it, they own it. This means they can resell it, use it for something else, save it, play it with wrong rules, or whatever. This is related to First-sale doctrine in copyright law. Once WotC sells the cards, you can do whatever you want with them. This includes making up a new game to play with the cards, or creating new tournament formats. And allowing a group of people to get together (yes, even for profit) to play the game.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
For example, the recently infamous Star Wars cube, yes?
[/quote]
Also for example, Commander and Tiny Leaders, neither of which originated with WoTC. WoTC has (obviously) incorporated Commander into their rules and product offerings due to how wildly popular it is among the huge casual player base, but WoTC would have been able to stop Commander from flourishing even if they hadn't seized the opportunity to increase their profit margin by tapping into this wide player base.
No.
That set uses WOTC's frames, mana symbols, and ability words. They are CLEARLY knockoff Magic cards. You need to go a heck of a lot further afield (just like this discussion has).
You said this: Claiming to be ignorant of the law does not hold up in court.
Besides that, if they are not receiving compensation, are they "employees"? They are not volunteers now?
And the signage argument is thin. People volunteer for varieties of outdoor work without any "worker rights" postings.
This is strawman argumentation on so many levels.
They're not the "lawbreakers" by doing volunteer work that cannot be done. In the same way that, if a business owner pays extortion to an organized crime outfit, they're not lawbreakers even thought extortion is illegal.
You're also trying to conflate civil lawfulness with criminal lawfulness. The claim that it's "illegal" to volunteer for a for-profit enterprise is not illegal in the same way that "murder" is. It's a civil tort. And the proper response is a lawsuit.
How about just allowing the process to move ahead?
It really doesn't matter what people "were doing" or "understood/didn't" about what they were doing. If the nature of the control rose to a certain level, it will be seen as employment by law. Laws that a very crucial to protect people from the capitalist corporations that will seek every advantage for undue enrichment though the alienation of their labor.
To oppose this legal challenge is basically to not care about any wage worker plain and simple. You may not feel the claim meets the tests. But to oppose the challenge is plane and simple classism.
You cannot "agree" to sell your kidney. You generally cannot enter into a legally binding contract for many things. So, on the surface your "point-of-view" can be shown to be unsound in other contexts.
Further, you presume a level of "awareness" and "disclosure" that may not be there. I'm testing for level 1 and shadowed a judge for pre-release. It was 12 hours. I was not only given breaks, I was coached by the level 2 judge on the best way to find and take them. I was offered a meal from the TO. Even so, it was trial by fire. This imagined idea you have that people can have correct and full understanding of a commitment prior to it being made is odd. You do know...for example...half of all "Until Death Do Us Parts" end in divorce?
Finally, the treatment of judges is not universal. I'm quite sure I could have been at another store with a much less helpful or communicative TO and level 2 and left to either "figure it out on my own" or "be unhappy" or "assume the abuse is part of the job", etc. I assure you ...there are others who are not so lucky.
This was a nice admission! Ty for acknowledging the limits of your point-of-view.
- "Once you buy something, you own that copy of that thing and can do with it what you want (for personal use)." - Correct, with emphasis on "personal use." This does not cover duplication, distribution, or a number of other things. As intellectual property still owned by Wizards, you have to remember that you do not buy any rights to the intellectual property when you buy the cards. So let's say you make a feature film that shows people playing Magic - if you didn't get the rights to show that, you could face legal issues.
- "This is what lets... video rental places function." Wrong. If you buy a bunch of DVDs and Blurays at Walmart and attempt to rent them out, you will be breaking the law. When you buy a disc, you are buying a license to view that in your home. Ever read the FBI warning? And it doesn't matter if you are not making money - if you attempt a public exhibition at no charge, you are in violation of the law. Video rental companies have to pay higher license fees in order to rent them out.
- "Slap the Magic logo on a banner to advertise? That's copyright infringement" - Close, but not quite. It's actually trademark infringement. Copyright protects the rights of the author of a work so they are the only ones who can reproduce, distribute, or display the work or to make derivative works. Trademark protects a word, name or symbol from being abused or ripped off. The Magic logo is trademarked, and as such, Wizards can object to how people use it in certain circumstances. Fair use (as you said) allows people to use it, but even that is not a black and white issue - it is open to interpretation.
That aside, I'll be curious how the lawsuit goes, and I don't even play in tournaments (almost exclusively a Commander player, here).
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
How about you conform and not contort?
C Long Live Eldrazi C
Let me help you by returning the words of the great abolitionist Rev. Luther Lee in response to those who wish him to follow the "law" known as the Fugitive Slave Act.
Just yesterday I and hundreds of other activists prevented GEO a private prison corporation from getting a zoning variance to build on of their so called "immigrant detention centers" in Gary, IN.
I don't conform so PEOPLE LIKE YOU have freedom!
So I ask you this...if you looked at my icon, what part of dehumanization do you support. Was Dread Scott wrong to sue? Or was the SCOTUS wrong to decide that people could be property? If you work a 40 hours job, with benefits, and have weekends off...thank a union agitator! Now we will get protection for falsely named "freelancers" too.
Finally, I was the one who described how it works here. Separating criminal law from civil tort. It's you writing some lines out of a bad TV script about "ignorance of the law"... What part of WIZARDS ignorance does you think makes them free of culpability, baby boi? I stand with the judges, I stand with the people.
This is a perfect example of black and white thinking. One can oppose this without supporting dystopian wage slavery. Believe it or not, almost no issue lands one of two diametrically opposed poles, but rather often, on a spectrum of sorts. Binary thinking like that frequently prevents practical solutions from arising.
Active Player: 1994-1999, 2016-
Sign & Share Petition To Fix MTG: Arena's Economy: https://goo.gl/z8fop8
Then you replied
[quoteThis is a perfect example of black and white thinking. One can oppose this without supporting dystopian wage slavery. Believe it or not, almost no issue lands one of two diametrically opposed poles, but rather often, on a spectrum of sorts. Binary thinking like that frequently prevents practical solutions from arising.[/quote]
I'm not sure why you thought this was an example of "black and white thinking". In fact, it's "Grey" thinking. Because, you can ALSO have other reasons...but it will still be classism and/or a lack of concern for the workers. Classism is the nature of the topic...
Note, I was clear. They may not have a valid case...but to oppose their even having the chance to make their case is the most bold position one could take.
This is no longer a rumor and discussion has deviated from the man issue to a variety of loosely related (and unrelated) legal, civic, moral, and societal issues. Feel free to continue that discussion in the Debate subforum or somewhere more appropriate.
If there are any updates in the case, users can post a new thread in the Rumor Mill with that new information.