Hey I just wanted to know how to report sites that illegally share D&D contents such as wiki of sorts that report every race, class and subclass completely free on their bullshit wiki sites.
I'm tired of it 1 cause I paid tons of money on this site to have access to D&D stuffs and just bother me that someone could have almost the same thing on some site just cause some ******* publish it without permission. 2 on those sites often homebrew and old UAs are on pair with official content and some of my players feel entitled to play Mystic or some idiotic homebrew feat cause of those goddammn wikis.
on those sites often homebrew and old UAs are on pair with official content and some of my players feel entitled to play Mystic or some idiotic homebrew feat cause of those goddammn wikis.
If you're the DM, just put your foot down and tell your players that the mystic and homebrew that you didn't make or sanction are not allowed in your campaign. You have every right to restrict official content as you see fit too. I have run games where feats and multiclassing aren't allowed. I have also restricted players to using only the PHB and the Eberron sourcebook for character creation in a campaign. When they sit at your table your word is Law.
Yeah, once a company knows of an issue like this, its pretty common/cheap to put out a Cease and Desist. Hasbro is not a tiny company, and has a vested interest in protecting it's (and its held companies, like WoTC) Intellectual Property
FYI: This website is not owned by WotC. This website is owned by Fandom. Fandom also happens to be the company that owns and operates all of those wiki sites.
2 on those sites often homebrew and old UAs are on pair with official content and some of my players feel entitled to play Mystic or some idiotic homebrew feat cause of those goddammn wikis.
Ok, I think you're saying earlier in your post that your upset with D&D Piracy. It's a thing, and as other posters have pointed out it can be reported and it's up to whether Wizards/Hasbro wants to do anything more than a cease and desist notice.
However, there are portions of the rules, the SRD I think it's called, which are "open source" and free to publish as I understand it and use it for the basis of unofficial homebrew or third party publications. No one can stop someone posting homebrew, though there are some rights to saying "Dungeons and Dragons" or using the D&D ampersand which could be claimed (but again, probably wouldn't go further than a cease and desist letter). This is why some many third party books say "For the world greatest role playing game" or so such verbiage. Old UA is actually freely available on WotC website, they never really take it down. It's just taken down here per an agreement between DDB and WotC. I don't know whether WotC would invest much in pursuing people who are disseminating old UA (like the mystic) which WotC has freely available.
If the content on these website is impacting your game, if you're the DM it's your prerogative to limit your game to the content, official and unofficial, allowed for character options, etc. Maybe it's because I used to teach in a classroom so have developed the diplomatic tact to say "no" when invalidating what someone says "it's on the internet" but I don't know why DMs find saying no to a player wanting to use a PC option that the DM is not familiar with and of dubious origin. If you're a player in a game and you like playing by the "official rules" but the DM is more open to any and all homebrew, there's not much you can do there unfortunately but maybe find another game, unless the DM is finding the homebrew frustrating as well in which case you two can work out some why to vet the problematic character sheets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yeah, once a company knows of an issue like this, its pretty common/cheap to put out a Cease and Desist. Hasbro is not a tiny company, and has a vested interest in protecting it's (and its held companies, like WoTC) Intellectual Property
But the thing is, sending the C&D is often enough to qualify as "protecting your trademark." Hasbro doesn't necessarily have to actually get the wiki shut down, just draw that line in the sand where they declare what's their property. In most cases the C&D is scary enough to get the site shut off, but if the wiki stays up it's not like Hasbro suddenly loses D&D.
I'm not a lawyer but I work for a big insurance company that employs a hefty legal team, and I'm often discussing trademark and copyright law with them as it interfaces with my job. Courts don't hold companies to an unreasonable standard with this, by and large, but rather just want to see that the company is making some kind of effort to protect its stuff. To exaggerate in order to make the point, a court isn't going to say "there were 100 wiki sites stealing your stuff but you only shut down 99 of them, so you lose!" As long as Hasbro is making it known that they consider their trademark in violation, their legal obligations are done.
Now, if a site was actually selling a product or service or otherwise somehow significantly (in Hasbro's estimation) interfered with their (Hasbro's) ability to generate revenue from D&D, or damaged the D&D brand, or something, then the knives would come out. But that's actually a different issue from simply protecting one's trademark.
Yeah, once a company knows of an issue like this, its pretty common/cheap to put out a Cease and Desist. Hasbro is not a tiny company, and has a vested interest in protecting it's (and its held companies, like WoTC) Intellectual Property
But the thing is, sending the C&D is often enough to qualify as "protecting your trademark." Hasbro doesn't necessarily have to actually get the wiki shut down, just draw that line in the sand where they declare what's their property. In most cases the C&D is scary enough to get the site shut off, but if the wiki stays up it's not like Hasbro suddenly loses D&D.
I'm not a lawyer but I work for a big insurance company that employs a hefty legal team, and I'm often discussing trademark and copyright law with them as it interfaces with my job. Courts don't hold companies to an unreasonable standard with this, by and large, but rather just want to see that the company is making some kind of effort to protect its stuff. To exaggerate in order to make the point, a court isn't going to say "there were 100 wiki sites stealing your stuff but you only shut down 99 of them, so you lose!" As long as Hasbro is making it known that they consider their trademark in violation, their legal obligations are done.
Now, if a site was actually selling a product or service or otherwise somehow significantly (in Hasbro's estimation) interfered with their (Hasbro's) ability to generate revenue from D&D, or damaged the D&D brand, or something, then the knives would come out. But that's actually a different issue from simply protecting one's trademark.
I was not saying that Hasbro would "lose" D&D or WotC if they didn't...but the existence of piracy sites that host otherwise paid/licensed/copyrighted content for free is affecting Hasbro's ability to generate revenue, much in the same way a music or movie piracy site affects musician's and movie studio's ability to generate revenue. What I was saying was that it is not uncommon for companies to enforce their own copyrights via cease and desists, so if the OP were to report said sites to WoTC, then that would be the likely (first) course of action they would take.
2 on those sites often homebrew and old UAs are on pair with official content and some of my players feel entitled to play Mystic or some idiotic homebrew feat cause of those goddammn wikis.
If you're the GM, just tell them no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Note that while a wiki giving access to everything for free, even though WotC wants you to pay for it on every site where you use it, is definitely a reason for WotC to pursue legal action, the presence (or lack thereof) of homebrew and UA material actually has no bearing on this. Homebrew is by definition freely distributable unless its creator charges for it (which typically only happens with 3rd-party content), and the UAs are all open beta playtests that WotC themselves freely distribute.
That said, it's important to note that all homebrew is by definition unofficial material, and all UA material is equally unofficial (with the possible exception of the Modern Magic one, which IIRC was essentially a semi-official homebrew used by one or more WotC employees but that they didn't feel was viable for full "official content" status). The DM can freely restrict content to only official material printed in the actual books at their discretion, and you are under zero obligation to allow your players access to anything & everything they find on the Internet. You may want to lay down a rule that only characters built solely from official material (and/or allowed homebrew/3PP, if any) are permissible in your game, and make it clear that this is non-negotiable. And that no, "some wiki on the Internet said so" does not override the actual books.
To echo some previous comments: yup, take a breather, have a proper session zero to lay out what is allowed and what isn't and a lot of problems go away or will at least get cut off at the knees. The bootleg content on wikis can be annoying, but it's nothing new. Scans of books and cracked .pdfs have been around almost as long as we've had the Internet. I acknowledge your frustrations, but it's not worth it to let them eat away at your enjoyment of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
For Point 1, that's kind of a you problem. You shouldn't be opting to remove other people's options just because you personally never got it, and I personally believe information like this should be a free commodity. For Point 2, a simple solution is to talk it out with them, and explain which classes and content isn't allowed.
DMs have the right to place restrictions on what classes, species, and subclasses are available in their games. If you don't like the restriction or you feel that they're being to arbitrary or unfair, you don't have to play in the game.
FYI: This website is not owned by WotC. This website is owned by Fandom. Fandom also happens to be the company that owns and operates all of those wiki sites.
Fun Fact. Fandom used to own DND Beyond
Fun Fact. At the time the post you're replying to was written, Fandom still owned D&D Beyond.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey I just wanted to know how to report sites that illegally share D&D contents such as wiki of sorts that report every race, class and subclass completely free on their bullshit wiki sites.
I'm tired of it 1 cause I paid tons of money on this site to have access to D&D stuffs and just bother me that someone could have almost the same thing on some site just cause some ******* publish it without permission. 2 on those sites often homebrew and old UAs are on pair with official content and some of my players feel entitled to play Mystic or some idiotic homebrew feat cause of those goddammn wikis.
Thanks for your help
https://cs-directory.com/wizards-of-the-coast-email/
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They have taken down other wikis and sites hosting their content for free, they do defend their copyright.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
If you're the DM, just put your foot down and tell your players that the mystic and homebrew that you didn't make or sanction are not allowed in your campaign. You have every right to restrict official content as you see fit too. I have run games where feats and multiclassing aren't allowed. I have also restricted players to using only the PHB and the Eberron sourcebook for character creation in a campaign. When they sit at your table your word is Law.
Yeah, once a company knows of an issue like this, its pretty common/cheap to put out a Cease and Desist. Hasbro is not a tiny company, and has a vested interest in protecting it's (and its held companies, like WoTC) Intellectual Property
FYI: This website is not owned by WotC. This website is owned by Fandom. Fandom also happens to be the company that owns and operates all of those wiki sites.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok, I think you're saying earlier in your post that your upset with D&D Piracy. It's a thing, and as other posters have pointed out it can be reported and it's up to whether Wizards/Hasbro wants to do anything more than a cease and desist notice.
However, there are portions of the rules, the SRD I think it's called, which are "open source" and free to publish as I understand it and use it for the basis of unofficial homebrew or third party publications. No one can stop someone posting homebrew, though there are some rights to saying "Dungeons and Dragons" or using the D&D ampersand which could be claimed (but again, probably wouldn't go further than a cease and desist letter). This is why some many third party books say "For the world greatest role playing game" or so such verbiage. Old UA is actually freely available on WotC website, they never really take it down. It's just taken down here per an agreement between DDB and WotC. I don't know whether WotC would invest much in pursuing people who are disseminating old UA (like the mystic) which WotC has freely available.
If the content on these website is impacting your game, if you're the DM it's your prerogative to limit your game to the content, official and unofficial, allowed for character options, etc. Maybe it's because I used to teach in a classroom so have developed the diplomatic tact to say "no" when invalidating what someone says "it's on the internet" but I don't know why DMs find saying no to a player wanting to use a PC option that the DM is not familiar with and of dubious origin. If you're a player in a game and you like playing by the "official rules" but the DM is more open to any and all homebrew, there's not much you can do there unfortunately but maybe find another game, unless the DM is finding the homebrew frustrating as well in which case you two can work out some why to vet the problematic character sheets.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
But the thing is, sending the C&D is often enough to qualify as "protecting your trademark." Hasbro doesn't necessarily have to actually get the wiki shut down, just draw that line in the sand where they declare what's their property. In most cases the C&D is scary enough to get the site shut off, but if the wiki stays up it's not like Hasbro suddenly loses D&D.
I'm not a lawyer but I work for a big insurance company that employs a hefty legal team, and I'm often discussing trademark and copyright law with them as it interfaces with my job. Courts don't hold companies to an unreasonable standard with this, by and large, but rather just want to see that the company is making some kind of effort to protect its stuff. To exaggerate in order to make the point, a court isn't going to say "there were 100 wiki sites stealing your stuff but you only shut down 99 of them, so you lose!" As long as Hasbro is making it known that they consider their trademark in violation, their legal obligations are done.
Now, if a site was actually selling a product or service or otherwise somehow significantly (in Hasbro's estimation) interfered with their (Hasbro's) ability to generate revenue from D&D, or damaged the D&D brand, or something, then the knives would come out. But that's actually a different issue from simply protecting one's trademark.
I was not saying that Hasbro would "lose" D&D or WotC if they didn't...but the existence of piracy sites that host otherwise paid/licensed/copyrighted content for free is affecting Hasbro's ability to generate revenue, much in the same way a music or movie piracy site affects musician's and movie studio's ability to generate revenue. What I was saying was that it is not uncommon for companies to enforce their own copyrights via cease and desists, so if the OP were to report said sites to WoTC, then that would be the likely (first) course of action they would take.
If you're the GM, just tell them no.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Note that while a wiki giving access to everything for free, even though WotC wants you to pay for it on every site where you use it, is definitely a reason for WotC to pursue legal action, the presence (or lack thereof) of homebrew and UA material actually has no bearing on this. Homebrew is by definition freely distributable unless its creator charges for it (which typically only happens with 3rd-party content), and the UAs are all open beta playtests that WotC themselves freely distribute.
That said, it's important to note that all homebrew is by definition unofficial material, and all UA material is equally unofficial (with the possible exception of the Modern Magic one, which IIRC was essentially a semi-official homebrew used by one or more WotC employees but that they didn't feel was viable for full "official content" status). The DM can freely restrict content to only official material printed in the actual books at their discretion, and you are under zero obligation to allow your players access to anything & everything they find on the Internet. You may want to lay down a rule that only characters built solely from official material (and/or allowed homebrew/3PP, if any) are permissible in your game, and make it clear that this is non-negotiable. And that no, "some wiki on the Internet said so" does not override the actual books.
To echo some previous comments: yup, take a breather, have a proper session zero to lay out what is allowed and what isn't and a lot of problems go away or will at least get cut off at the knees. The bootleg content on wikis can be annoying, but it's nothing new. Scans of books and cracked .pdfs have been around almost as long as we've had the Internet. I acknowledge your frustrations, but it's not worth it to let them eat away at your enjoyment of the game.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DMs have the right to place restrictions on what classes, species, and subclasses are available in their games. If you don't like the restriction or you feel that they're being to arbitrary or unfair, you don't have to play in the game.
Fun Fact. At the time the post you're replying to was written, Fandom still owned D&D Beyond.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.