Question for Scott Rouse re: Retroclones

[Odhanan]

Originally Posted by Philotomy Jurament

The idea behind the retro-clones is that the OGL gives you permission to use open content terms and descriptions (e.g. classes, spell names, monsters, hit points, armor class, etc) and then edit/modify/extend/abridge/adapt/transform/and format them. The specific form into which the retro-clones modify the open content happens to match the algorithms and such used in other games. Since copyright does not apply to such game formulas and rules (only to their presentation), and the retro clones present the formulas and rules with a combination of original description and open content, no legal rights are infringed. (Subsystems or elements which are deemed to be unique expressions, rather than uncopyrightable algorithms/rules are avoided or changed -- this is why there are minor differences between the originals and the retro-clones, in certain areas.)

That's my understanding, anyway.

And your understanding is correct, Jason.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Who gives a crap? Not one person would have been there if it wasn't for Lee testifying in the OJ trial. After 5 ridiculous questions like that, I raised my hand and asked "Do you think OJ killed Nicole Brown?"

Everyone let out nervous laughter. People started moving away from me. People were embarrassed. Even though that's exactly what they all came there to hear. Lee had just been offered 6 million dollars to write a book on that very topic. Everyone was on the edges of their seats, waiting for the answer, as they looked at me out of the corner of their eyes like I had Bubonic Plague.

So he said something polite like "Ah, the 6 million dollar question. I make it a policy never to comment on cases I was involved in beyond what I testified to."

Congratulations. So you succeeded in embarassing the poor man for no reason; you knew he wouldn't answer the question. Well done you; I hope you enjoyed it. I feel for him. You're right, his embarrassment and discomfort is of no consequence compared to your desire to know what he thinks about something he doesn't want to talk about.

I don't know what your motives for such things were/are, but when it's clear you're not going to get a policy statement in response to someone on the internet who just yesterday said they thought it would be hilarious and karmic if people were to pirate WotC's materials (in fact, if you haven't made Scott's ignore list yet, I'd be amazed!), combined with the fact that you went to law school which suggests a certain level of intelligence and are aware of the above, you'll understand why folks are having trouble assigning good motives to the question.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by Melan

I believe this is the right answer. If there had been a clear case vs. OSRIC when it was released in 2006, it would have been killed in 2006 (and mind you, some people did report it to Wizards specifically to get it killed). Three years later, the probability of action seems slimmer and slimmer, while there has been support from several different publishers (including some very good ones from XRP et al), other simulacrum games have been released, etc. etc.

Exactly. Besides, Stuart Marshal himself stated that he was in contact with WotC and OSRIC is still there.

It's interesting how the main attacks to OSRIC came from Orcus of NG (1e feel) and from Troll Lords who produce C&C (a modern successor of AD&D in the minds of its proponents).

[fba827]

i was not reading this thread by title alone (it's addressed to someone else)... but the size of it made me at least wonder/read the first post (note, I have not read any other post beyond the OP).

If the title and OP was worded differently to ask if "anyone knows what the stance is on X, Y, Z ..." it would make more sense (to me) but it's clearly worded for Scott Rouse/WotC/Hasbro.

Or if you thought others would be interested in the answer then getting an answer and posting it for discussion is a different thing entirely.


So now I ask (perhaps out of ignorance, and I accept that), this seems like you are directly asking one person (The Rouse) or at least his organization (WotC/Hasbro) a specific question that really only he/that organization can answer. Would that not be better served as an email to Scott R rather than a thread on a board that is only passivley monitored by their organization?


So, I'm just really confused. It gives the impression (perhaps wrongly!) that the question and intent are not what they seem - but I do my best not to assume that to ever be the case (still mentioning it so that you know how it's being perceived by me, a random univolved stranger who is reading your post).

So, I just wanted to post and say: perhaps this would be better served in an email, you would get an actual authoritative answer/response/lack of response rather than just 'guesses and assumptions' by people here that have no real say or know-how of WotC's legal department.

[JohnRTroy]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

Exactly. Besides, Stuart Marshal himself stated that he was in contact with WotC and OSRIC is still there.

It's interesting how the main attacks to OSRIC came from Orcus of NG (1e feel) and from Troll Lords who produce C&C (a modern successor of AD&D in the minds of his proponents).

I never saw them "attacking" OSRIC. Clark is a lawyer and Steve C. is married to one! They probably did their own legal analysis and erred on the side of caution. Also remember that both of those gents are businessmen and are running for-profit businesses, while OSRIC is more of a fan based thing, so there is more risk if you're a publisher. (And yes, other publishers have used them).

Having concerns about OSRIC is not saying "OSRIC" sucks.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Congratulations. So you succeeded in embarassing the poor man for no reason; you knew he wouldn't answer the question. Well done you; I hope you enjoyed it. I feel for him. You're right, his embarrassment and discomfort is of no consequence compared to your desire to know what he thinks about something he doesn't want to talk about.

I don't know what your motives for such things were/are, but when it's clear you're not going to get a policy statement in response to someone on the internet who just yesterday said they thought it would be hilarious and karmic if people were to pirate WotC's materials (in fact, if you haven't made Scott's ignore list yet, I'd be amazed!), combined with the fact that you went to law school which suggests a certain level of intelligence and are aware of the above, you'll understand why folks are having trouble assigning good motives to the question.

Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets.

I also have no regrets when at similar events in my undergrad years I asked Jean Kirkpatrick former ambassador to the UN during the first gulf war whether if she thought the war was legal under the US Constitution, nor do I have regrets after asking Faye Vincent, former Commissioner of Major League Baseball about the hypocrisy of kicking Pete Rose out of baseball when keeping guys who used drugs like Howe. They get paid to be there, big money, because of their connection to the issues I asked questions about. I state these as examples, and not as a way to bring up taboo topics into the conversation. If they are inappropriate feel free to delete them.

I have nothing against Scott. He is a good guy by all reports. He seems to be on the side of gamers. He is the only person to ask the question of though. If you like I could change the title of the thread to replace Rouse with Leeds, but it would still be Rouse who answers.

Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.

WOTC is not just the company that owns the intellectual property called Dungeons and Dragons, they are also the caretakers of a hobby that thousands enjoy every day. In that regard, they have a different level of responsibility which, to the extent that they are not carrying out that responsibility while paying attention to the bottom line, they seem to land themselves in hot water.

I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.

That's my take on it. Those are my motives. To the extent I don't like how WOTC has handled D&D lately, that surely taints my approach as to how touch-feely I am when I ask the questions. I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers. I used to think the hobby needed them to survive, but I am not so sure now. I would feel bad about people losing their jobs though. I know how that feels. I would also feel bad for people whose version of the game is no longer supported. I know how that feels too. As to my comments on the hilarity of their site getting cloned or hacked, so be it. I honestly don't care, and I think it would be karmically fitting. I'm not going to lie about that. *shrug*

Understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the bulk of the creative folks at WOTC. We're all gamers. It's the business end of the company that I have a problem with. Scott speaks for them. The question goes to them.

It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.

[Charwoman Gene]

So The SRD lets me talk about Trolls, and how they regenerate, and I can use the algorithm loophole to access rules.

So I add my own Ideas like them feeding off flames instead of being hurt by them, or changing their terrain from "Any Swampland" to "Teh Internet" and maybe give them the At-Will powers of appeal to false authority by putting signs around there neck that directly attempt to make themselves seem more intelligent or matter more by hanging a sign around their neck saying "Bob the Giant", trying to make people respect them, pointing out that These gaming creatures are not worthy of respect, why would they bother pointing out that they were a giant other wise.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

I never saw them "attacking" OSRIC. [...]
Having concerns about OSRIC is not saying "OSRIC" sucks.

I'm not 100% positive about what Steve said, but I'm certain that Clark used some heavy language against OSRIC in a thread here on ENWorld about one year ago. Being a fan of NG (and to a lesser extent also of TLG) I was somewhat disappointed with this stances, but this hasn't prevented me from still buying product from them that I liked.

[Shadeydm]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets. ...(snip)

Well said sir, kudos to you, and fwiw I don't think you did anything wrong in this thread but then again I'm not offensive imagery removed. Let's say it meant... hmm.. "biased.".

[Odhanan]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets.

I also have no regrets when at similar events in my undergrad years I asked Jean Kirkpatrick former ambassador to the UN during the first gulf war whether if she thought the war was legal under the US Constitution, nor do I have regrets after asking Faye Vincent, former Commissioner of Major League Baseball about the hypocrisy of kicking Pete Rose out of baseball when keeping guys who used drugs like Howe. They get paid to be there, big money, because of their connection to the issues I asked questions about. I state these as examples, and not as a way to bring up taboo topics into the conversation. If they are inappropriate feel free to delete them.

I have nothing against Scott. He is a good guy by all reports. He seems to be on the side of gamers. He is the only person to ask the question of though. If you like I could change the title of the thread to replace Rouse with Leeds, but it would still be Rouse who answers.

Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.

WOTC is not just the company that owns the intellectual property called Dungeons and Dragons, they are also the caretakers of a hobby that thousands enjoy every day. In that regard, they have a different level of responsibility which, to the extent that they are not carrying out that responsibility while paying attention to the bottom line, they seem to land themselves in hot water.

I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.

That's my take on it. Those are my motives. To the extent I don't like how WOTC has handled D&D lately, that surely taints my approach as to how touch-feely I am when I ask the questions. I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers. I used to think the hobby needed them to survive, but I am not so sure now. I would feel bad about people losing their jobs though. I know how that feels. I would also feel bad for people whose version of the game is no longer supported. I know how that feels too. As to my comments on the hilarity of their site getting cloned or hacked, so be it. I honestly don't care, and I think it would be karmically fitting. I'm not going to lie about that. *shrug*

Understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the bulk of the creative folks at WOTC. We're all gamers. It's the business end of the company that I have a problem with. Scott speaks for them. The question goes to them.

It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.

Kudos to you for this post.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

I'm not 100% positive about what Steve said, but I'm certain that Clark used some heavy language against OSRIC in a thread here on ENWorld about one year ago. Being a fan of NG (and to a lesser extent also of TLG) I was somewhat disappointed with this stances, but this hasn't prevented me from still buying product from them that I liked.

The exact quote was:

You reap what you sow - GSL.

Tree, would you quite it please.

OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal.

Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.


Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
Necromancer Games: 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel

_______


And thanks for the kudos for my other response, guys. Sorry about the ranty nature and length of it.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

The exact quote was

Yes, there was that post, but also this one. The "worse" part (from my POV, naturally) was

You just know it is wrong. Its like Napster

Where OSRIC is compared to illegal file sharing.

[lrsach01]

From WotC's point of view, it might be a case of plausible deniability. If they don't know about something, they don't have to act on it. OSRIC might be below the level concern for WotC and if they don't say anything public about it, they might not have to "do" anything about it. By leaving things nebulous, WotC doesn't have to address a flee and BIGGER names will avoid (too much to lose of the giant awakens). Frankly, if you (joe) want to provoke something, you need to do it a way that someone at the company answers the question in a public forum. ENWorld is not that type of forum. It's too easy to ignore this type of discussion... or at least deny reading it. Something like a public QnA session at GenCon WOULD be. Or even better, in a court setting of some sort.

[Ourph]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

Also remember that both of those gents are businessmen and are running for-profit businesses, while OSRIC is more of a fan based thing, so there is more risk if you're a publisher.

Where is this "it's a fan thing" coming from? OSRIC is, and always has been, about people creating and selling 1e compatible adventures and supplements. The very first OSRIC adventure ever published was released by Expeditious Retreat Press, one of the bigger and better known 3PPs in the RPG industry. They remain one of the most active publishers of OSRIC material. Are you seriously suggesting that XRP is a "fan operation"??

[Oni]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.

Some opportunity this is. The opportunity to do something they could do anytime they felt like it? You aren't giving them anything. And it's not much of an opportunity anyway when any kind of statement could come back to haunt them, and most assuredly no matter what is said will be twisted into more fuel for the disgruntled. I suspect you know that as well.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Oni

Some opportunity this is. The opportunity to do something they could do anytime they felt like it? You aren't giving them anything. And it's not much of an opportunity anyway when any kind of statement could come back to haunt them, and most assuredly no matter what is said will be twisted into more fuel for the disgruntled. I suspect you know that as well.

Like others have said, they have had a few years to do it and have not yet. The opportunity cmes through the "uncomfortableness" this thread may cause in them. They can choose to support the hobby in the uncomfortable moment, or the bottom line. Hence the opportunity which didn't exist before due to the lack of anyone every asking the question directly.

As to it coming back to haunt them through people being disgruntled---I can't see who would be disgruntled if WOTC said "Go ahead and develop the retroclones, they are hereby declared to be not violative of our IP rights. You ave a license to sell them and develop for them."

[Lord Xtheth]

I'm not anything close to a WoTC fat cat, but with past occurances in mind I can assume the official statement would be to send a "Cease and desist" notice, pending further legal action.

It makes the most sense to me, and enough websites have vanished this way that I think it's been proven.

Though I do agree with you Joe, sometimes it is nice to ask a question just to see if it'll get answered.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

The opportunity cmes through the "uncomfortableness" this thread may cause in them.

I think you overestimate exactly how much that is. I'd put it somewhere below zero actually.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

I think you overestimate exactly how much that is. I'd put it somewhere below zero actually.

Hey, ya gotta try man.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.

I think you are mistaken as to Scott Rouse's job. His job isn't to say "how high?" whenever joethelawyer says "jump"! It isn't to make binding legal statements on the internet in response to random posters who just yesterday were crowing how karmic it was that their products get pirated.

I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.

You aren't "offering" them anything. If they choose to make any policy statements, they will do so according to their own procedures. They won't do so on a thread on the internet, and nor should they.

I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers.

Yes, Joe. That's clear. We all gathered that.

It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.

IF it "deserves" an answer (which is a premise I don't agree with in the first place - they don't owe you an answer), you aren't the person who deserves that answer. Any legal relationship betwene a company and WotC is a private relationship; you aren't privy to that and, again, nor should you be.

If you produce an OSRIC-like system, then contact WotC directly. A third party callng them out on a random thread on teh intrawebs? Not so much.

The thing is, you know this, Joe. You say you're a lawyer, right? Does your company make legal policy on random messageboards when someone on the internet posts a thread demanding that they do so? No, of course not.