Well, if that particular scene played out above, there would be a lot of "Objection, irrelevant," "Objection, leading," and "Objection, calls for speculation."
As far as the actual points being made in the courtoom scene:
I think it's clear that the players who like spoilers outnumber the players who do not. That does not make players entitled to spoilers.
As far as whether the set sells better with spoilers out there, as others have said, we really don't have the kind of data we'd need to figure out the answer to this question. However, to me, it makes sense that if Wizards' goal is to maximize profits, they would spoil the sets differently if it made them more money. Assuming that they are acting rationally here, they filed suit because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Regarding the idea someone brought up about how the GP prereleases were only well attended because people came out to protest--that wasn't serious, was it? I mean, I can only speak for the local prereleases, but nobody was there protesting. Nobody, zero, in any of the locations anyone I know attended. I think it's a lot more likely that, I dunno, Ravnica was a popular set? That strikes me as a much more logical reason people would come out to the prerelease.
distributing stolen material is also a crime you know. If I accept a stolen television, I'm liable for criminal charges just as the original thief is. it's called a chain of culpability. RE accepted illegal informatinon and reposted it. That at least makes him an accessory to the theft of WotC's intellectual property.
Oh, sure he and mtgsalvation are not making profits. The simple fact is that he profits from the celebrity status these spoilers have made for him. Salvation can charge more for its banner ads because they get large amounts of traffic for the spoilers.
Distribution is distribution. Even if RE has made no profit on the information, posting it is illegal re-distribution.
Journalistic integrity doesn't count. Journalists cannot reveal trade secrets in their articles. Journalists who do, break journalistic integrity. Journalistic integrity means you report information which is both legally correct and factually correct. So, RE broke journalistic integrity by posting illegal information.
Legal thought, at least in this situation, is that a company's trade secrets trump any reporter's rights. (Not that RE is a reporter mind you.)
An interested public is not the same thing as public interest. The release of WotC's trade secrets serve no public interest whatsoever except for feeding an interested public. And mere "curiosity" cannot be the justification of violating WotC's copyrighted trade secrets. Thank you VERY much.
Jeeze, I go on vacation for like a weekend and the thread seems to have double in size.. wow
Quote from Durthu »
RE is not a journalist, in most cases (as far as I am aware) if a newspaper or magasine posts something illegal, inflamatory or copyrighted then it is the publication that gets sued not the individual.
In the technical sense of the word you could consider Daron a journalist if you consider what he posts a news. But regardless, any person or journalist or otherwise would be held to the same laws as anyone else.
Quote from Durthu »
1 - Is wizards right to go to court? - (my opinion, they are within their rights, but I hope RE is not bankrupted)
Right is such an open word to use. Yes they are right to protect their product, and if going to court is how they think they need to accomplish this, then they are right in most senses of the word. Morally, if they do end up bankrupting Daron then I would not consider then right.
If any of the lawyers are still listening in on this thread, I might pose the statement that Wizards is NOT right to go to court against Daron if you consider something called Laches. I almost certainly believe that Daron will use this in his defense. The idea behind laches is that if an entity is not vigilant and procrastinates with regards to their rights (in this case copyright and trade-secret laws) then they cant assert a legal claim in a civil matter. In many cases, companies have been shown to let a certain activity that they could sue for civilly, go on even though they knew about it. If any of our lawyer buddies are still around, they might be able to shed some light on this subject. All the stuff I have looked at on the net seemed to say that something like 4 or 5 years might be to small of a time frame to claim negligence under the doctrine of laches. Also, I am not sure if it applies to single violations, or if the fact that each publication of information would be considered a separate deal.
Quote from Durthu »
3 - Posts supporting RE (but not arguing about the technicalities of the law)
Regardless of if he is able to technically get off, or not, I still support his rights not to be attacked unjustly. We have all conjectured 600+ times about if he is right or wrong. At this point, my opinions have been stated and as Hannes said, its worthless to go over the same old text again and again. But I will say that if after this thing is over, it comes out that Wizards maliciously went after Daron, even after he offered them whatever they wanted (help finding leaks, agreed not to post spoilers etc) then I would deffinatly support a campaign to raise some money for him.
(I hope that’s enough new ideas for yah Hannes :))
I'm fairly sure laches don't apply (if you've explained them correctly, being something I've not yet heard of), because Wizards aren't protecting themselves from plain-old run-of-the-mill spoilers, but they are going for the prototype playtest cards. And those were up for what, a few weeks?
If any of the lawyers are still listening in on this thread, I might pose the statement that Wizards is NOT right to go to court against Daron if you consider something called Laches.
That is a decent argument. The circuits are split on whether laches is a valid defense against copyright infringement. The closest thing I could find in the 9th Cir (which includes Washington), after an extensive five-minute, search is a somewhat ambiguous quote from a 1986 case, Hearst Corp. v. Stark: "There is authority that mere delay in pursuing a claim is not a bar against a defendant who knew of plaintiffs' asserted rights, or against a deliberate infringer."
So, who knows? Could work, although I think it's also arguable that the playtest cards are a breed apart from cards which have already been printed.
I forgot that this case is solely over the play-test cards and not about any previous spoiler information. The real way Laches could be used is to nullify a C&D order that sought to prevent Daron from releasing any more spoiler information.
I called my mom and told her about this whole thing the best I could, and she's fairly certain that Darron is going to make it out ok. She kept rattling on using these terms that I'm not smart enough to understand, but she made it sound like as long as all he has done is post information that other people have told him, then he should be fine.
Edit edit: Oh, my mommy is a court reporter, so she's around court type stuff like this a lot.
I forgot that this case is solely over the play-test cards and not about any previous spoiler information. The real way Laches could be used is to nullify a C&D order that sought to prevent Daron from releasing any more spoiler information.
WoTC is also charging him in regards to Guildpact spoiler information.
Some of it, but not all of it. (otherwise I and others would be named too)
It is just to 'build a case' but their previous 'ignorance' of him is R_E's biggest defense, IMO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I wonder if wizards will fire a small group of veteran and newer playtesters in order to get the message across as well?I doubt such a job has a union,so possibly they could also do that to get the point across company wise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
After speaking with someone who has worked in CCG playtesting, and who has proven quite efficient at plugging leaks...
First, companies often give out deliberately differently-worded cards. These function as 'tells' that show which playtest group got which card. I don't know if this applies here, but it might be speaking well for Wizards. If they know who the John Does are, but are themselves willing to wait until Daron gives them up, it means they're trying to give Daron a way out of this mess.
Second, it seems rares that playtesters have any damn respect for their NDAs. Finding a good playtester is like finding a hunk of gold - finding a group of them even moreso. I'm going to guess public individuals like Anthony Alongi and Peter Jahn are both good playtesters; they kept their mouths shut on most subjects until they were allowed to talk.
It is just to 'build a case' but their previous 'ignorance' of him is R_E's biggest defense, IMO.
Right, but its only a valid defense if there is proof that they knew about it for along time and did nothing about a certain violation. I think why they are using the Guildpact spoiler in the suit is so he cant say that laches applies, because the violation was so recent. There are cases on the books where a single violation occurred over 30 years ago and judges ruled that laches did not apply.
Quote from Jiyor »
I wonder if wizards will fire a small group of veteran and newer playtesters in order to get the message across as well?I doubt such a job has a union,so possibly they could also do that to get the point across company wise.
Wizards would not have named the John Does if it was not interested in purging the leakers from its company. Unions would not matter in this case as each employee signs a Non-Disclosure Agreement that, if violated, is grounds for immediate termination. This is a 2-pronged attack that will make internet users not want to post leaked information for fear of a lawsuit, and that will make people working for Wizards afraid to leak any info for fear of being fired.
Quote from Talen_Lee »
If they know who the John Does are, but are themselves willing to wait until Daron gives them up, it means they're trying to give Daron a way out of this mess.
They would not have gone so hard after Daron if they knew exactly who all the leakers were. Also, I am sure that Daron does not know who a lot of his sources exactly are. He can provide records such as emails and such, and can point Wizards in the right direction of many of the leakers, but I doubt if he just has a list in his head of 10 guys he knows are all his sources.
Well, if that particular scene played out above, there would be a lot of "Objection, irrelevant," "Objection, leading," and "Objection, calls for speculation."
As far as the actual points being made in the courtoom scene:
I think it's clear that the players who like spoilers outnumber the players who do not. That does not make players entitled to spoilers.
As far as whether the set sells better with spoilers out there, as others have said, we really don't have the kind of data we'd need to figure out the answer to this question. However, to me, it makes sense that if Wizards' goal is to maximize profits, they would spoil the sets differently if it made them more money. Assuming that they are acting rationally here, they filed suit because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Regarding the idea someone brought up about how the GP prereleases were only well attended because people came out to protest--that wasn't serious, was it? I mean, I can only speak for the local prereleases, but nobody was there protesting. Nobody, zero, in any of the locations anyone I know attended. I think it's a lot more likely that, I dunno, Ravnica was a popular set? That strikes me as a much more logical reason people would come out to the prerelease.
C
Actually, it is not clear at all (that most players like spoilers). I believe Maro has posted that their own studies show the reverse to be true.
The thing is, that ONLINE poll is going to be biased towards the kind of players who read MTG.com (the only site with official spoilers), who are much more likely to be pro-spoiler (unlike more casual players).
There are a lot of players to whom Ravnica is still news.
If players who actually _read_ spoilers are split somewhat over whether they like them, imagine the players who don't read them's opinions.
I'm not saying it's worth less because it's a game, I'm saying that it's meant to be enjoyed vecause it's a game. Wizards is preventing us from enjoying it by being asses about this whole lawsuit thing. They should care about the people who play the game and how we feel. Wizards should be thrilled that we support their game and they should let us do what we want with it as long as we keep paying for the cards. Hype is a good thing for sales. People don't get hyped up about stuff if they don't know what it is. If you give the countergument of, "well, couldn't knowing all the cards discourage sales if people don't like the cards?", then that's Wizards' fault for making crappy cards and they should suffer the consequences for that mistake.
Wizards would do better if they weren't asses. People would support them more. Sure, it's their property, but they would be able to do better if they supported spoilers. They should respect us as their supporters instead of trying to herd us around like sheep. We're willing to be nice to them and not call them anal-retentive, stinking, filthy, foul vermin and corpulent, indulgent, egotistical, bitter, uncompromising, unkind, rulesmongering scoundrels. All they have to do is be nice to us.
Note: Sorry about all the adjectives. I was just trying to be creative
Dude, "crappy cards" are not the problem. Legions is the most popular set of all time, remember? Wizards _knows_ much of their market wants bad cards (terrible cards) that are useless in competitive play.
The problem is that players get bored with their shiny new toys. They HAVE to keep producing new stuff to keep people interested. Spoilers let people get bored sooner.
Would you REALLY prefer to have a complete itemized list of your Christmas presents given to you in February the year before?
First of all read about 90% of these post all in one night.....:o.
I hate to say this put R_E is gonna end up taking one for the team. The best he can hope for is the judge takes into consideration his finacial sitiation. For this reason until the trial is over everyone that wants to donate to him should hold off. If he profitted from this situation it would look really bad to the judge.
I have to say though I can see hasbro's POV, and this is a very effective statement from them. The rumor mills about new sets are effectivly all killed by taking out one of the leaders.
as for PatentAttorney saying that banners and avatars are also copyright infringments. I think that it would be very difficult to win that case in court. Mainly for two reasons there would be an out cry of cencorship (regardless of fact). And it would be dentermental to any company to rid itself of all that free advertisement.
But that being said if Wizards starts selling avatars for web posting or banners then I would cease immediatly using my free one. An example is since they sell pictures for your cell phone wallpaper. Capturing a picture formatting yourself for your cell is asking for trouble. As long as you aren't causing the company to lose potential income they are likely to overlook little things like that.
as for PatentAttorney saying that banners and avatars are also copyright infringments. I think that it would be very difficult to win that case in court. Mainly for two reasons there would be an out cry of cencorship (regardless of fact). And it would be dentermental to any company to rid itself of all that free advertisement.
I don’t think that they could really do this. The only people that Wizards could legally go after are people who use images from their cards to make money. If all you are doing is using images for a non-commercial signature, then I believe that falls under the fair-use doctrine. A court ruled that placing thumbnail or inline images on a website does not undermine the potential market for sale or licensing of those images. (see Kelly vs Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003)). Note that the main factors in that rulling were that the thumbnails were of much smaller and poorer quality than the original photos, and the images served to index the originals and helped the public access them. So technically Wizards could argue signatures were violations.
Many sites license the images they use from Wizards for no money at all, but heck, has anyone tried to get permission for their signature from Wizards?
Quote from Talior »
But that being said if Wizards starts selling avatars for web posting or banners then I would cease immediatly using my free one. An example is since they sell pictures for your cell phone wallpaper. Capturing a picture formatting yourself for your cell is asking for trouble. As long as you aren't causing the company to lose potential income they are likely to overlook little things like that.
This is something that I doubt Wizards would ever be able to control, nor even know it is happening. If I download a picture, connect my phone to my computer, and transfer that image to it for use as wallpaper, how is Wizards ever going to know I violated their copyright? It’s still wrong, yet, but as a matter of common sense, I don’t really think they could ever FIND people that are doing such a thing.
In the case of Wizards actually licensing their images for use in banners and as avatars, I think it would cost them to much time and money to go after the people who just continued to use their current unlicensed banners. I would think that the first people Wizards would go after would be websites that use their art throughout their sites. Take MTGNews.com for example. They have many pieces of art, as well as mana symbols etc. Their legal disclaimer says that all artwork and such are copyrighted by Wizards, but does that mean they are licensed to use the art? I think part of the law states that you cant alter the original. Most everyone’s signatures (including mine) usually contain altered, or combined, or cropped, or cut-out versions of the original art.
Regardless of some of details, copyright laws states that unless covered under fair-use you must ALWAYS get the permission from the entity that holds the copyright before you use it, or you are breaking the law.
as for PatentAttorney saying that banners and avatars are also copyright infringments. I think that it would be very difficult to win that case in court. Mainly for two reasons there would be an out cry of cencorship (regardless of fact). And it would be dentermental to any company to rid itself of all that free advertisement.
Not really. You're not advertising the game - you're using the art. The art doesn't link to their official website, it doesn't explicitly say 'Magic: The Gathering', it doesn't give them credence as the owners of the art... really, if Wizards decided to beat you up over this, they'd win. Almost guaranteed.
The thing is, they wouldn't. It's not worth their time.
I still believe the entire reason for this lawsuit goes much deeper than someone simply posting spoilers of an un-released product. Someone leaked prototype materials, the source most likely someone from inside the WotC development team, and WotC wants to know who. Filing suit against R_E is the most effective way of uncovering the source.
Here is the thing try to convince any Judge to make that step in censoring the internet. If he finds in the favor of hasbro his judgement is going to be so wishy washy that is will beg to get apealled. Censorship isn't a fun subject to get involved in. And in the court of public opion they would get slaughtered.
R_E should try to get as much publicity about this as possible throw around words like censorship. And should cart out the family. He may not have much of a chance when it comes to the law. But in the court of public opion he can win. Make hasbro look like the money hungery company heartless company.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As cool a scene as that would be.
If you use Frank Karsten`s Online Tech to see how popular a specific deck is, I just made it twice as efficient. You`re welcome.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/fk23 (read the end)
And Flores is apparently jelous....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf130 (read the first real paragraph)
Well, if that particular scene played out above, there would be a lot of "Objection, irrelevant," "Objection, leading," and "Objection, calls for speculation."
As far as the actual points being made in the courtoom scene:
I think it's clear that the players who like spoilers outnumber the players who do not. That does not make players entitled to spoilers.
As far as whether the set sells better with spoilers out there, as others have said, we really don't have the kind of data we'd need to figure out the answer to this question. However, to me, it makes sense that if Wizards' goal is to maximize profits, they would spoil the sets differently if it made them more money. Assuming that they are acting rationally here, they filed suit because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Regarding the idea someone brought up about how the GP prereleases were only well attended because people came out to protest--that wasn't serious, was it? I mean, I can only speak for the local prereleases, but nobody was there protesting. Nobody, zero, in any of the locations anyone I know attended. I think it's a lot more likely that, I dunno, Ravnica was a popular set? That strikes me as a much more logical reason people would come out to the prerelease.
C
Distribution is distribution. Even if RE has made no profit on the information, posting it is illegal re-distribution.
Journalistic integrity doesn't count. Journalists cannot reveal trade secrets in their articles. Journalists who do, break journalistic integrity. Journalistic integrity means you report information which is both legally correct and factually correct. So, RE broke journalistic integrity by posting illegal information.
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=03210517570977
Legal thought, at least in this situation, is that a company's trade secrets trump any reporter's rights. (Not that RE is a reporter mind you.)
An interested public is not the same thing as public interest. The release of WotC's trade secrets serve no public interest whatsoever except for feeding an interested public. And mere "curiosity" cannot be the justification of violating WotC's copyrighted trade secrets. Thank you VERY much.
Dude, read the thread. This has been covered over and over again.
C
No more discussing of questions that have been covered half a gazillion time.
In the technical sense of the word you could consider Daron a journalist if you consider what he posts a news. But regardless, any person or journalist or otherwise would be held to the same laws as anyone else.
Right is such an open word to use. Yes they are right to protect their product, and if going to court is how they think they need to accomplish this, then they are right in most senses of the word. Morally, if they do end up bankrupting Daron then I would not consider then right.
If any of the lawyers are still listening in on this thread, I might pose the statement that Wizards is NOT right to go to court against Daron if you consider something called Laches. I almost certainly believe that Daron will use this in his defense. The idea behind laches is that if an entity is not vigilant and procrastinates with regards to their rights (in this case copyright and trade-secret laws) then they cant assert a legal claim in a civil matter. In many cases, companies have been shown to let a certain activity that they could sue for civilly, go on even though they knew about it. If any of our lawyer buddies are still around, they might be able to shed some light on this subject. All the stuff I have looked at on the net seemed to say that something like 4 or 5 years might be to small of a time frame to claim negligence under the doctrine of laches. Also, I am not sure if it applies to single violations, or if the fact that each publication of information would be considered a separate deal.
Regardless of if he is able to technically get off, or not, I still support his rights not to be attacked unjustly. We have all conjectured 600+ times about if he is right or wrong. At this point, my opinions have been stated and as Hannes said, its worthless to go over the same old text again and again. But I will say that if after this thing is over, it comes out that Wizards maliciously went after Daron, even after he offered them whatever they wanted (help finding leaks, agreed not to post spoilers etc) then I would deffinatly support a campaign to raise some money for him.
(I hope that’s enough new ideas for yah Hannes :))
Starcity Games Featured Writer
Let this be our mantra – "There is more to the world than me.”
So, who knows? Could work, although I think it's also arguable that the playtest cards are a breed apart from cards which have already been printed.
I forgot that this case is solely over the play-test cards and not about any previous spoiler information. The real way Laches could be used is to nullify a C&D order that sought to prevent Daron from releasing any more spoiler information.
Edit edit: Oh, my mommy is a court reporter, so she's around court type stuff like this a lot.
WoTC is also charging him in regards to Guildpact spoiler information.
Some of it, but not all of it. (otherwise I and others would be named too)
It is just to 'build a case' but their previous 'ignorance' of him is R_E's biggest defense, IMO.
Twitter
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
First, companies often give out deliberately differently-worded cards. These function as 'tells' that show which playtest group got which card. I don't know if this applies here, but it might be speaking well for Wizards. If they know who the John Does are, but are themselves willing to wait until Daron gives them up, it means they're trying to give Daron a way out of this mess.
Second, it seems rares that playtesters have any damn respect for their NDAs. Finding a good playtester is like finding a hunk of gold - finding a group of them even moreso. I'm going to guess public individuals like Anthony Alongi and Peter Jahn are both good playtesters; they kept their mouths shut on most subjects until they were allowed to talk.
Starcity Games Featured Writer
Let this be our mantra – "There is more to the world than me.”
Right, but its only a valid defense if there is proof that they knew about it for along time and did nothing about a certain violation. I think why they are using the Guildpact spoiler in the suit is so he cant say that laches applies, because the violation was so recent. There are cases on the books where a single violation occurred over 30 years ago and judges ruled that laches did not apply.
Wizards would not have named the John Does if it was not interested in purging the leakers from its company. Unions would not matter in this case as each employee signs a Non-Disclosure Agreement that, if violated, is grounds for immediate termination. This is a 2-pronged attack that will make internet users not want to post leaked information for fear of a lawsuit, and that will make people working for Wizards afraid to leak any info for fear of being fired.
They would not have gone so hard after Daron if they knew exactly who all the leakers were. Also, I am sure that Daron does not know who a lot of his sources exactly are. He can provide records such as emails and such, and can point Wizards in the right direction of many of the leakers, but I doubt if he just has a list in his head of 10 guys he knows are all his sources.
Actually, it is not clear at all (that most players like spoilers). I believe Maro has posted that their own studies show the reverse to be true.
The thing is, that ONLINE poll is going to be biased towards the kind of players who read MTG.com (the only site with official spoilers), who are much more likely to be pro-spoiler (unlike more casual players).
There are a lot of players to whom Ravnica is still news.
If players who actually _read_ spoilers are split somewhat over whether they like them, imagine the players who don't read them's opinions.
Dude, "crappy cards" are not the problem. Legions is the most popular set of all time, remember? Wizards _knows_ much of their market wants bad cards (terrible cards) that are useless in competitive play.
The problem is that players get bored with their shiny new toys. They HAVE to keep producing new stuff to keep people interested. Spoilers let people get bored sooner.
Would you REALLY prefer to have a complete itemized list of your Christmas presents given to you in February the year before?
I hate to say this put R_E is gonna end up taking one for the team. The best he can hope for is the judge takes into consideration his finacial sitiation. For this reason until the trial is over everyone that wants to donate to him should hold off. If he profitted from this situation it would look really bad to the judge.
I have to say though I can see hasbro's POV, and this is a very effective statement from them. The rumor mills about new sets are effectivly all killed by taking out one of the leaders.
as for PatentAttorney saying that banners and avatars are also copyright infringments. I think that it would be very difficult to win that case in court. Mainly for two reasons there would be an out cry of cencorship (regardless of fact). And it would be dentermental to any company to rid itself of all that free advertisement.
But that being said if Wizards starts selling avatars for web posting or banners then I would cease immediatly using my free one. An example is since they sell pictures for your cell phone wallpaper. Capturing a picture formatting yourself for your cell is asking for trouble. As long as you aren't causing the company to lose potential income they are likely to overlook little things like that.
anyway my 2 cents.
I don’t think that they could really do this. The only people that Wizards could legally go after are people who use images from their cards to make money. If all you are doing is using images for a non-commercial signature, then I believe that falls under the fair-use doctrine. A court ruled that placing thumbnail or inline images on a website does not undermine the potential market for sale or licensing of those images. (see Kelly vs Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003)). Note that the main factors in that rulling were that the thumbnails were of much smaller and poorer quality than the original photos, and the images served to index the originals and helped the public access them. So technically Wizards could argue signatures were violations.
Many sites license the images they use from Wizards for no money at all, but heck, has anyone tried to get permission for their signature from Wizards?
This is something that I doubt Wizards would ever be able to control, nor even know it is happening. If I download a picture, connect my phone to my computer, and transfer that image to it for use as wallpaper, how is Wizards ever going to know I violated their copyright? It’s still wrong, yet, but as a matter of common sense, I don’t really think they could ever FIND people that are doing such a thing.
In the case of Wizards actually licensing their images for use in banners and as avatars, I think it would cost them to much time and money to go after the people who just continued to use their current unlicensed banners. I would think that the first people Wizards would go after would be websites that use their art throughout their sites. Take MTGNews.com for example. They have many pieces of art, as well as mana symbols etc. Their legal disclaimer says that all artwork and such are copyrighted by Wizards, but does that mean they are licensed to use the art? I think part of the law states that you cant alter the original. Most everyone’s signatures (including mine) usually contain altered, or combined, or cropped, or cut-out versions of the original art.
Regardless of some of details, copyright laws states that unless covered under fair-use you must ALWAYS get the permission from the entity that holds the copyright before you use it, or you are breaking the law.
The thing is, they wouldn't. It's not worth their time.
Starcity Games Featured Writer
Let this be our mantra – "There is more to the world than me.”
R_E should try to get as much publicity about this as possible throw around words like censorship. And should cart out the family. He may not have much of a chance when it comes to the law. But in the court of public opion he can win. Make hasbro look like the money hungery company heartless company.