General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.
Because it could generate more sales of their core products?
I offer free advertising of their products via mine.
What would WotC have to lose?
Only their chance to make the exact same product.
the thing you aren't getting, is what if your product totally and completely sucks?
someone new to the hobby sees it on a shelf, buys it, and it sucks. and they use that as a representative product for dungeons and dragons. and they then assume that all dungeons and dragons products suck as bad as yours does.
that's trademark dilution of the worst kind.
that's why they don't want anything out there with the name dungeons and dragons on it not published by them.
i know the ogl allows free use of certain game elements by the public. this allowed the public to do things like put up their characters and adventures and personal gaming material all over the internet. that's what we fought so hard for in 1994 on usenet.
my concern is that things not covered by the ogl that are in 4e like powers and eladrin, etc., give a right to wotc to prevent you from publishing your own stuff on the web for 4e
i have not read the gsl in any detail, so i don't know what it says in relation to publishing for free your own gaming material. after i post this, i wil read it and see what it says. but still, without a final version, unchangeable as to certain key aspects, i wouldn't trust it.
since i am not going 4e, as opposed to 1994, this time around i dont really give a crap though.
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech.
i couldn't agree more.
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
The important thing, in the context of this conversation, is that the GSL terms are legal (even if some people think they shouldn't be).
What you need to distinguish betwen is a voluntary agreement (a contract) and a crime (an illegal act), and not get the terms confused. A contract is not "illegal" unless it incoudes a criminal act. Now it may prove to be unenforceable, but that's just a practical issue.
Bingo!
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.
Learning that there was a Racial Holy War RPG is the second most disturbing thing I read about today (the first would be the guy getting crushed at the Wal-Mart this morning). Yeah, WoTC needs to protect themselves from something like that.
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
getting 2 feet of shelf space in walmart would be about the best thing that could happen to the hobby long-term. gives it massive exposure, gets new gamers, and attains the implied walmart seal of approval of the product.
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him?
If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). Furthermore, yes it does work - otherwise doctors would be in serious trouble - after all, they do cut you up (that's why it's so important to have the consent of relatives if the patient is in a coma and so on).
That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.
If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). Furthermore, yes it does work - otherwise doctors would be in serious trouble - after all, they do cut you up (that's why it's so important to have the consent of relatives if the patient is in a coma and so on).
That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.
Cheers, LT.
Doctors try to fix you, not abuse you. For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?
Doctors try to fix you, not abuse you. For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?
Yes, though if they're following the law, the process can get pretty involved before it gets to human testing. Where I live, a drug testing company is constantly advertising, looking for human test subjects for new experimental treatments.
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
Location: “Over the Hills and Far Away” - (TDY in Florida - "Home" is Michigan)
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tirian
If you mean by abuse "hurting a person", well sort of - it just wouldn't be abuse any longer (as there's consent). . .
. . .That's of course a bit simplified... but the core idea is the same.
Hurting a person, with consent, limited to just pain, probably legal. Hurting a person, even with consent, that results in real physical harm, probably not.
In other words, hot wax, with consent, probably legal.
Electrocution or cutting in a manner that could potentially, or does, adversely affect or endanger the recipient, probably not.
But laws vary from place to place.
__________________ Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong - Semper Operor Verus
". . . after all, that is why we're here. Kill the last bad guy and then there's cake." - Major General Jack O'Neal
"Don't Just Do It, Just Do It Right!"
"Right, without Reason, is unmitigated Foolishness."
"If you make a mistake, Acknowledge It, then make it Right."
Yes, though if they're following the law, the process can get pretty involved before it gets to human testing. Where I live, a drug testing company is constantly advertising, looking for human test subjects for new experimental treatments.
Exactly. There are legal conditions regarding most types of the most representative contracts of our societies' functionality.
There are also anti trust provisions. Regarding economic activities I doubt there is a universal law that allows one to say "I wont do business with you unless...this and that term..." no matter what. But publishers of entertainment goods are pretty much on their own (as most representatives of innovative initiatives -that is in environments where copyrights and similar may apply).
Exactly. There are legal conditions regarding most types of the most representative contracts of our societies' functionality.
There are also anti trust provisions. Regarding economic activities I doubt there is a universal law that allows one to say "I wont do business with you unless...this and that term..." no matter what.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think that WotC should not be allowed to refuse to allow parties to use their IP? Or not be able to dictate the terms of such use?
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think that WotC should not be allowed to refuse to allow parties to use their IP? Or not be able to dictate the terms of such use?
The functionality of copyright and similar is a matter of debate that can go as deep as the discussion on liberal and programmed economy. But as things stand right now, I think, Wotc is doing nothing questionable. On the contrary it seems it is behaving as promoted by the current legal environment. Of course if Wotc or whoever would ever become a monopolistic propaganda machine then people should voice concerns on not only such a behavior but on the very situation of its status.
Last edited by xechnao; 29th November 2008 at 04:12 AM..
For example could you sign a contract with a doctor that he experiments on you something unconventional with unknown aftereffects in exchange of say money?
That's what medical trials are for. In fact, you can get paid to take experimental drugs in the testing phase. If the side effects of the drug cause problems, you could sue, unless you signed a waiver stating you signed away that ability because you knew the drug was experimental.
Not to mention that every procedure has to have a first. Take for instance the first open heart transplant. Or the first pig heart to human transplant.
Because it could generate more sales of their core products?
I offer free advertising of their products via mine. But the whole advertising has shifted now and people have to pay to have a product in their programs now instead of the way it used to be where the product owner had to pay to GET into the programs...
What would WotC have to lose?
But that's their decision to make. They have to make the call whether the possibility of additional sales (a) exists and (b) is worth it.
Quote:
What the hell do I owe WotC anyway? I have said it before, and will say it again. I don't care about WotC. I owe them nothing, they have never done a thing for me.
You owe them nothing. They owe you nothing. Why is this even a question? Where is this anger coming from? What have they done to you that is so terrible, other than sell you some stuff that you (apparently) liked?
Quote:
I was one of the many people that kept TSR hanging on by their teeth to not go into bankruptcy and foreclosure that allowed WotC to buy them and make D&D afterwards, and even bought WotC/TSR products. I think they owe me!
Don't be ridiculous.
Quote:
So what I am offering is less marketing costs and accounts payable for WotC, with an increase in accounts receivable and sales due to the increased interest in the product for D&D that only they can make and sell.
OK, that's your counter-offer. They have to decide whether it translates into real profits or not. I suspect they believe it doesn't affect their bottom line that much, but I can't speak for them; you apparently beleive otherwise, and it would be interesting to compare your data to theirs to see where the conflict lies.
I suspect - with all due respect - that the conflict lies with them having data and you just having an opinion you plucked out of the air. In which case, if they asked me, I would strongly advise them t go with their data and not justanobody's opinion on the intrawebs.
You asked what WotC has to lose. Without some sort of conditions and limitations on the use of their IP, there is nothing stopping you from producing Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4E, or RaHoWa, which stands for Racial Holy War, the RPG.
The last thing scares me, but again I ask, was book of erotic fantasy OGL or STL?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus
I suspect - with all due respect - that the conflict lies with them having data and you just having an opinion you plucked out of the air. In which case, if they asked me, I would strongly advise them t go with their data and not justanobody's opinion on the intrawebs.
But then, I'm sensible like that.
But we cannot talk about illegal activities, and if I sold an adventure to people for 1st edition without proper written consent from TSR, it would be in violation of ENWorld policy for me to say so wouldn't it?
A question for you Morrus, since you're in this thread and it has tangentially come up. How do you feel about the lack of a web site license for 4e material? I might have missed it, but I don't see anything in the 4e GSL allowing for your hosting on this site material which has elements contained in the 4e SRD. Theoretically they could ask you to take that material down. Whether you or some other member created it. And if I remember internet law, as someone who exerts control over the content of the website, you could be held to be liable for any claims of IP infringement if you do not cooperate and take it down. In the 4e FAQ, they mention some form of website license granting limited rights. Judging by the delay in the GSL, it might be a while until such a license comes into being. Meaning, if they played it that way, they could ask you to remove an awful lot of material.
What's your take on it?
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
The last thing scares me, but again I ask, was book of erotic fantasy OGL or STL?
But we cannot talk about illegal activities, and if I sold an adventure to people for 1st edition without proper written consent from TSR, it would be in violation of ENWorld policy for me to say so wouldn't it?
Hypothetically speaking of course...
I have no idea what that means or how it relates to my post.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
