I want this thread to stop growing. This thread isn't about convincing other people that you are right, it's about discussion r_e's update about the lawsuit. Adding your opinion, then moving on. There is no prize to win here. Either stop it now or I'll close it.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like what you want should simply be a locked thread that is only updated when R_E has an update. If you are inviting opinion and discussion, then you're inviting what you say you don't want. It's wonderful if people simply leave posts of support and encouragement, but as soon as someone posts an opinion as to whether the lawsuit is right or wrong, or when someone makes an extreme statement, it's only natural that people will argue about it.
Why not break off the unwanted discussion into a debate thread and leave this one exclusively for news?
That said, I'm refraining from responding to croctotheface according to your request. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about but now that he has explained his statement more it is clear our disagreement is over semantics more than anything else. And I apologize for my tone.
EDIT: Reply to post below: Ah, I see what you're saying now. Discussion and debate is fine, but you do not want bickering. Fair enough.
No. Users can come here and post their opinion, but that doesn't mean 1/4th of all posts should be by the same four users quoting every word that isn't at their gusto.
Close the thread if you feel the discussion is going nowhere. Something which I highly suggest doing. This is obviously an issue where circular conversation is going to happen.
Now that's an interesting angle! It's possible, but very unlikely. If someone was able to prove WotC was responsible for leaking playtest cards and then turned around and sue R_E over it, R_E would be able to eat them for breakfast. It'd be a huge risk on WotC's part and not very smart.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
It is however possible that WotC leaked the cards to someone under an NDA who they suspected of leaking information. And when that someone leaked it to RE, and RE posted it, WotC had the source and RE caught red handed.
The problem with the ‘Wizards conspiracy’ theory is that Wizards already had way more than enough evidence to get Daron without the playtest cards. I think that an intentional internal release would be more likely. It does seem like they are trying to fix some of their internal problems with this whole lawsuit thing.
I would think that for a large company faced with the problem that Wizards is faced with, you could approach it two ways. You could try to find the leakers internally by changing subtle wording, or card title or casing cost on specific cards and see which versions of those cards get leaked, and then proceed to test each person you suspect of being the leaker by giving them things like these prototype pictures etc. The other way is you could just use Hasbro’s lawyers to sue someone like Daron. This strikes fear into anyone else out there thinking about posting spoilers, as well as gets them some valuable information about who the insiders might be.
Also, does anyone have a link to actual legal filings regarding Daron’s case? I think you can download them from PACER, but I was just wondering if any of the lawyers had copies.
The problem with the ‘Wizards conspiracy’ theory is that Wizards already had way more than enough evidence to get Daron without the playtest cards. I think that an intentional internal release would be more likely. It does seem like they are trying to fix some of their internal problems with this whole lawsuit thing.
I would think that for a large company faced with the problem that Wizards is faced with, you could approach it two ways. You could try to find the leakers internally by changing subtle wording, or card title or casing cost on specific cards and see which versions of those cards get leaked, and then proceed to test each person you suspect of being the leaker by giving them things like these prototype pictures etc. The other way is you could just use Hasbro’s lawyers to sue someone like Daron. This strikes fear into anyone else out there thinking about posting spoilers, as well as gets them some valuable information about who the insiders might be.
Also, does anyone have a link to actual legal filings regarding Daron’s case? I think you can download them from PACER, but I was just wondering if any of the lawyers had copies.
Mill, most likely wizards would do such a thing to see who INTERNALLY was causing leaks, not R_E. If indeed some of the leaks were plants to catch those violating their NDAs (A likely possiblitiy), then itd be kind of a jerky thing for WOTC to sue R_E.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Mill, most likely wizards would do such a thing to see who INTERNALLY was causing leaks, not R_E. If indeed some of the leaks were plants to catch those violating their NDAs (A likely possiblitiy), then itd be kind of a jerky thing for WOTC to sue R_E.
Right, Wizards already knew R_E was the destination of all the leaks for years and years. If some of the leaks were plants, they might not have totally exposed who the leaks were coming from. In that case, the next step would be to sue R_E because he could help give them some information, or at least a better idea of who the sources were. This is clear because they name 10 John Does, so they don’t know who some of these guys are. If I were Hasbro’s lawyers I would use the high money amount as a scare tactic for sure.
I'm sure the high dollar amount they asked the court for is a scare tactic. They want to scare R_E into trying to settle with them, and if he does so, they gain tremendous leverage on him to give up the names of John Does 1-10.
In my first Thoughtcast I discuss this matter in great detail.
Now that's an interesting angle! It's possible, but very unlikely. If someone was able to prove WotC was responsible for leaking playtest cards and then turned around and sue R_E over it, R_E would be able to eat them for breakfast. It'd be a huge risk on WotC's part and not very smart.
Not really. Assuming the leaked info was meant to go through the leakers, and was supposed to stop with them, it is STILL not legal for them to pass it on, and it has the same criminal intent.
I'm sure the high dollar amount they asked the court for is a scare tactic. They want to scare R_E into trying to settle with them, and if he does so, they gain tremendous leverage on him to give up the names of John Does 1-10.
In my first Thoughtcast I discuss this matter in great detail.
It is a scare tactic. It's the statutary amount - it's designed to scare everyone who might think of infringing into not infringing. This is the de rigeur.
Not to break up the cheerful convo you've got going here, but here is a mild distraction from the seriousness of this topic. It's @misetings, so don't cry to me if you scroll the thread + find your eyes bleeding
Would you say that the owner was financially hurt in Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. (the "Charlie Chaplain case")? In that case, there was no Fair Use. If you say that the owner *was* financially hurt in that case, then why was Wizards not financially hurt in this case?
I don't know what RancoredElf can prove... maybe he could tell us. How would he go about "proving" that the posting was strictly for informational purposes? How would you go about proving such a thing?
Referring to the "transformative factor," which I think you allude to in referring to "informational purposes," how would RancoredElf argue that the images of the cards that he posted have been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? What value did RancoredElf add to the original? These are all things that RancoredElf will have the burden of showing if he pursues the Fair Use defense.
Don't you think that Wizards will allege that RancoredElf was financially enriched by the posting of the images? Maybe by the increased traffic to his site resulting from the posting? If they do allege this, would you argue that they are wrong?
No, Wizards does not have to prove that they have been financially hurt. The $90,000 is statutory damages, which Wizards can pursue in lieu of actual damages per 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1). For actual damages, Wizards would have to present proof of harm to their finances and/or RancoredElf's gross revenue. Not so for statutory damages. The judge might even find that RancoredElf's actions were willful (due to the copyright notice being printed on the posted images), and increase Wizards' award to $150,000 per infringement, for a grand total of $450,000--not including attorney's fees, of course.
Yes, you are misunderstanding that Wizards has to show that they are being hurt financially. They don't.
EDIT: For those who are interested, here is a link to a fine article that discusses statutory damages and how they differ from actual damages and lost profits:
Just a question for patent attorney or hal, The article quoted here seems to imply that Statutory damage seems to be an alternitive means of punishment for copyright infringment cases, but the defendant can choose to be charged for the amount that Wizards can accually prove that they were damaged financially. It seems to me that this amount would be much much much less than 90,000 - 450,000 for obvious reasons. Also as a side note a statatory damage case would have to be a jury case correct? Does the jury have a say in the amount or does the judge decide then the jury passes or fails it... Seems this case could have some serious "jury appeal" too it. Also it seems that the "max" i.e. 90,000 is rarely awarded and certianly a Canadian Judge awarding "max" damages on behift of a American plantiff in this case is a small chance... It also seems these statutory damage have been increased so mainly for dealing with the profit of big business i.e. people who can afford these type of things and it would hardly be applipcal to such a small time offense.
Maybe i'm being a little optimistic here as im not a lawyer or anything like that but im interested in the feedback here....
I'd be morbidly terrified that if Daron attempted to go for a lesser charge on that grounds, they'd trot out 5 years of spoilers and charge him the minimum (100 bucks, I think?) per card. But that's obviously a worst case scenario and might well total up to less than the 90,000.
I also haven't seen the photograph, so I'm basing my response on what you're telling me.
Well, if RE didn't black out the copyright notices, I guess that might be a fact that helps him... maybe. But is there evidence either way that RE wasn't the person who blacked out the copyright notices? Even if he didn't, don't you think that a reasonable person would know that these are prototype magic cards, and magic cards typically are copyrighted? Didn't RE represent these on the site as being prototype magic cards? Maybe he can use these allegations to avoid a finding of *willful* infringement (though I doubt it), but I don't think he's going to escape a finding of infringement altogether. If I was Wizards, and if I was deposing RE, I would probably ask RE whether the person who gave him the photograph told him that it was a photograph of prototype magic cards. If RE says "yes," then I've got RE. If RE says "no," then I ask RE why in the heck he posted a picture of those cards.
Text is also copyrightable subject matter. I'm sure you've read many books which were merely words--no pictures--and I'm sure you know that those books were copyrighted.
I contend that a photograph of the cards *is* a "reproduction." If I photograph the pages of a copyrighted book and then post the photos, have I escaped liability? Is the poor author of the book left without a remedy because I was "sneaky" enough to photograph, rather than photocopy, the pages? Why should a photograph be treated different than a scan or a photocopy?
You seem to be saying that text alone, without pictures, isn't "literary." That just makes me scratch my head. I would say that "literature," which is made up of words, is "literary" per se. Do you really want to argue otherwise?
17 U.S.C. 102 expressly lists 8 categories of subject matter that can be copyrighted. The first of these is "literary works." Besides these, there are listed "musical" works, and "pictorial and graphic" works. Clearly, then, the statute contemplates that there are copyrightable subjects other than "musical" and "pictorial and graphic" works. "Literary works" do not need to be "musical," nor do they need to be "pictorial" or "graphic."
I don't think that the case would be much different if the text alone had been published on the website.
I think that you are right about this being a civil matter rather than a criminal one (although, according to 17 USC 506, there could additionally be some criminal proceedings in store), and I think that you are right about the standard of proof that will be required.
I hope that answers your questions.
Maybe of topic here but isn't the value of a literary work ie a book the act of reading it? The law righfully protects this from copyright as reading is its value... A point of my arguement that im not sure on I'm going to ask first... Is posting the lyrics of a Song illegal according to this rule because the law seems to apply the music. Because if it is indeed legal I dont believe "pictoral" or "graphic" or "literal" apply to this case at all because the intrinsic value of a magic card is not its art or the rules text but the pysical presence of the card for deck building playing... I.e. one can not take a picture of a magic card then bring it to a tourniment and be allowed to use it ( So having the picture or knowledge of the card is not a replacement for owning the accual card, Where as viewing a piece of artwork or reading a book does replace it completely...)
I hope thats not too confusing for you to mill through am I missing anything their im sure theirs miles of laws i have no knowledge about that have something to say about this...
I'd be morbidly terrified that if Daron attempted to go for a lesser charge on that grounds, they'd trot out 5 years of spoilers and charge him the minimum (100 bucks, I think?) per card. But that's obviously a worst case scenario and might well total up to less than the 90,000.
I beleive they would only be able to charge him for precieved losses for the 3 prototype cards, as the spoilers are not under suit here...
I think I've posted maybe 2 times on these forums. I've vaguely followed you, RE, since the early times at MTGNews. I've rarely posted and even rarer been known by anyone, but I have traded with you once.
You seem like an absolutely stellar guy, who does nothing but increase Magic sales by getting dozens of people more into the game, and talking about M:tG. Wizards of the Coast is out of their mind in this sort of situation (or their representatives are, anyways).
I won't be purchasing another Wizards product unless I hear this has been resolved correctly, which at this point, involves your attorney, Jay, being compensated for his time, and all of the "restrictions" they've attempted to put on you being removed.
Hoping for the best for you and your family, from me and mine,
~Darius099
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Oracle Text" »
Lich's Mirror has no effect if you concede the game. If you concede, you'll lose.
Quote from "Me" »
I read that and all I could think was that somewhere, at a PTQ or Prerelease or maybe even Worlds, some dude with schizophrenia arguing with himself about conceding caused an Oracle update.
Just a question for patent attorney or hal, The article quoted here seems to imply that Statutory damage seems to be an alternitive means of punishment for copyright infringment cases, but the defendant can choose to be charged for the amount that Wizards can accually prove that they were damaged financially.
Hey Revant,
Actually, that's about the opposite of what the article was saying. It states, "Statutory damages are available in all copyright cases should the plaintiff so desire. They may be awarded to the plaintiff even though the actual market harm may be quite small, or difficult to calculate with certainty."
Actually, that's about the opposite of what the article was saying. It states, "Statutory damages are available in all copyright cases should the plaintiff so desire. They may be awarded to the plaintiff even though the actual market harm may be quite small, or difficult to calculate with certainty."
It's the plaintiff's choice, not the defendant's.
-H
Kinda figured it wouldnt be that easy heh. But still the judge does decide the final amount not the plantiff and it requires a jury correct? Seems like it would take a mighty mean judge+jury to fine the full amount in lue of all the of the story...
I think it's funny how there are people who's sole reason for being members of Salvation appearently is to watch this thread and respond to and shoot down anyone posting who supports Daron.
My wish, and this is because I prefer poetically humorous outcomes, is that the lawsuit should be declared a nuisance and that Wizards should be ordered to give R_E four of every Magic card printed from now on for the rest of his life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
what happens when I post
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like what you want should simply be a locked thread that is only updated when R_E has an update. If you are inviting opinion and discussion, then you're inviting what you say you don't want. It's wonderful if people simply leave posts of support and encouragement, but as soon as someone posts an opinion as to whether the lawsuit is right or wrong, or when someone makes an extreme statement, it's only natural that people will argue about it.
Why not break off the unwanted discussion into a debate thread and leave this one exclusively for news?
That said, I'm refraining from responding to croctotheface according to your request. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about but now that he has explained his statement more it is clear our disagreement is over semantics more than anything else. And I apologize for my tone.
EDIT: Reply to post below: Ah, I see what you're saying now. Discussion and debate is fine, but you do not want bickering. Fair enough.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
need web design and other services check us out.
http://www.webstudio914.com/
Superannuated canines are immune to indoctrination and innovative maneuvers.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I would think that for a large company faced with the problem that Wizards is faced with, you could approach it two ways. You could try to find the leakers internally by changing subtle wording, or card title or casing cost on specific cards and see which versions of those cards get leaked, and then proceed to test each person you suspect of being the leaker by giving them things like these prototype pictures etc. The other way is you could just use Hasbro’s lawyers to sue someone like Daron. This strikes fear into anyone else out there thinking about posting spoilers, as well as gets them some valuable information about who the insiders might be.
Also, does anyone have a link to actual legal filings regarding Daron’s case? I think you can download them from PACER, but I was just wondering if any of the lawyers had copies.
Mill, most likely wizards would do such a thing to see who INTERNALLY was causing leaks, not R_E. If indeed some of the leaks were plants to catch those violating their NDAs (A likely possiblitiy), then itd be kind of a jerky thing for WOTC to sue R_E.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Right, Wizards already knew R_E was the destination of all the leaks for years and years. If some of the leaks were plants, they might not have totally exposed who the leaks were coming from. In that case, the next step would be to sue R_E because he could help give them some information, or at least a better idea of who the sources were. This is clear because they name 10 John Does, so they don’t know who some of these guys are. If I were Hasbro’s lawyers I would use the high money amount as a scare tactic for sure.
In my first Thoughtcast I discuss this matter in great detail.
Not really. Assuming the leaked info was meant to go through the leakers, and was supposed to stop with them, it is STILL not legal for them to pass it on, and it has the same criminal intent.
Sting operations are legal. 'nuff said.
Starcity Games Featured Writer
Let this be our mantra – "There is more to the world than me.”
Just a question for patent attorney or hal, The article quoted here seems to imply that Statutory damage seems to be an alternitive means of punishment for copyright infringment cases, but the defendant can choose to be charged for the amount that Wizards can accually prove that they were damaged financially. It seems to me that this amount would be much much much less than 90,000 - 450,000 for obvious reasons. Also as a side note a statatory damage case would have to be a jury case correct? Does the jury have a say in the amount or does the judge decide then the jury passes or fails it... Seems this case could have some serious "jury appeal" too it. Also it seems that the "max" i.e. 90,000 is rarely awarded and certianly a Canadian Judge awarding "max" damages on behift of a American plantiff in this case is a small chance... It also seems these statutory damage have been increased so mainly for dealing with the profit of big business i.e. people who can afford these type of things and it would hardly be applipcal to such a small time offense.
Maybe i'm being a little optimistic here as im not a lawyer or anything like that but im interested in the feedback here....
Starcity Games Featured Writer
Let this be our mantra – "There is more to the world than me.”
Maybe of topic here but isn't the value of a literary work ie a book the act of reading it? The law righfully protects this from copyright as reading is its value... A point of my arguement that im not sure on I'm going to ask first... Is posting the lyrics of a Song illegal according to this rule because the law seems to apply the music. Because if it is indeed legal I dont believe "pictoral" or "graphic" or "literal" apply to this case at all because the intrinsic value of a magic card is not its art or the rules text but the pysical presence of the card for deck building playing... I.e. one can not take a picture of a magic card then bring it to a tourniment and be allowed to use it ( So having the picture or knowledge of the card is not a replacement for owning the accual card, Where as viewing a piece of artwork or reading a book does replace it completely...)
I hope thats not too confusing for you to mill through am I missing anything their im sure theirs miles of laws i have no knowledge about that have something to say about this...
I beleive they would only be able to charge him for precieved losses for the 3 prototype cards, as the spoilers are not under suit here...
You seem like an absolutely stellar guy, who does nothing but increase Magic sales by getting dozens of people more into the game, and talking about M:tG. Wizards of the Coast is out of their mind in this sort of situation (or their representatives are, anyways).
I won't be purchasing another Wizards product unless I hear this has been resolved correctly, which at this point, involves your attorney, Jay, being compensated for his time, and all of the "restrictions" they've attempted to put on you being removed.
Hoping for the best for you and your family, from me and mine,
~Darius099
Hey Revant,
Actually, that's about the opposite of what the article was saying. It states, "Statutory damages are available in all copyright cases should the plaintiff so desire. They may be awarded to the plaintiff even though the actual market harm may be quite small, or difficult to calculate with certainty."
It's the plaintiff's choice, not the defendant's.
-H
PoP Website
Magic Workstation
H/W list
OLD H/W list
GB Pauper T2 Rock Harvest v9b1
BR Pauper T2 Toolbox v2d5
Watcher of SPDC 1.07
Kinda figured it wouldnt be that easy heh. But still the judge does decide the final amount not the plantiff and it requires a jury correct? Seems like it would take a mighty mean judge+jury to fine the full amount in lue of all the of the story...
Yes, copying/posting of song lyrics violates copyright.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Maybe they're Wizards employees in disguise!