Question for Scott Rouse re: Retroclones

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Hey, ya gotta try man.

Not really, sometimes it can even be counter-productive to try. Discretion, y'know?

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Morrus

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.

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.

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

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.

If I remember right, Scott came on here in response to questions as to whether or not the d20 license was revoked, as the WOTC boards and web page didn't give a clear answer. There were a few threads on it. In other words, there was no clear official policy statement, there were questions as to WOTC's legal position on a matter, and Scott came here to answer those legal questions on behalf of WOTC. So there is sort of a precedent to my asking these sorts of questions here. Of course, it was a while ago, and my memory could be off.


I think even Vic Wertz was not absolutely clear on it, as quoted here:

So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

I think in there it is referenced by peeps that the only real word we got that the d20 license was going to be revoked, and when and how it was to be revoked, was in an interview on another web page with Scott. So 3pp's treated that as notice of a revoked license. Because of an interview on a webpage.

As to what he thinks of me---that's not really as important as the fact that since I posted the thread a day ago 1500 people read it. Surely a good chunk of those people (some of which are their customers, presumably) are interested in an answer to the question. So while he may think I'm the world's largest $!#@#$, the question is still valid, and I and many people think it deserves and answer. That's what these boards are for, right?

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

since I posted the thread a day ago 1500 people read it.

(Don't confuse page views with viewers; every time anyone visits a page that's a page view. Reading the whole thread once will generate 4+ page views, as will hitting refresh or the reload after posting. Repeat visitors generate multiple page views. For a thread this size with today's traffic, it's probably around 200-300 people, some returning to keep reading updates.)

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

(Don't confuse page views with viewers; every time anyone visits a page that's a page view. Reading the whole thread once will generate 4+ page views, as will hitting refresh or the reload after posting. Repeat visitors generate multiple page views. For a thread this size with today's traffic, it's probably around 200-300 people, some returning to keep reading updates.)

So I'm not famous yet?

Interesting though, I didn't realize that. Though the numbers change, the general point remains.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Morrus

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.

Wotc is an entertainment company and it mostly lives and dies by its fan base. I doubt they are that big into casual market penetration so that message boards are irrelevant. If most fans on message boards get upset with Wotc, Wotc will be in trouble. This is difficult to happen on such a scale but it can happen and it does happen on some measure (see Pathfinder). Why it is difficult to happen? Because a large part of the fan base considers itself invested in the game. Not just from a consumer's point of view but from an investor's point of view. M:tG cards being the clearest example. This does not mean though that Scott's job is not to struggle to entertain opinions on the message boards.

[Odhanan]

Originally Posted by Morrus

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)

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

[MichaelSomething]

Originally Posted by Morrus

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.

Also, It's not part of Scott's job description to hang around Enworld answering questions. I believe he does so in his free time. The quote and its link is my source...

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

I am a salary man so I don't get no stinkin' time sheet but when I post at home there is beer in the fridge

To the OP, did you consider posting this question on the WOTC boards? You know, the offical company board? That might help...

[Oni]

Originally Posted by Odhanan

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

I pity the company that is beleaguered by customers, or worse yet non-customers, who believe they are owed something beyond the product they bought or didn't buy, due to some twisted sense of entitlement born of being a fan. Fandom has a disturbing darkside that has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it when things don't go their way. Frankly not all questions deserve a response, or even acknowledgment, it only encourages bad behavior. Fans start to think that acting like possessive jerks gets results.

[Atlatl Jones]

Originally Posted by MichaelSomething

Also, It's not part of Scott's job description to hang around Enworld answering questions. I believe he does so in his free time. The quote and its link is my source...

It's also not Scott's job to make legal decisions for Wizards, let alone decide whether the company is going to litigate. If you recall, Scott could only give answers about the GSL after the legal department set the policy. He could advocate for certain positions internally, but the final decision was not his.

If WotC's legal legal department gets involved, they will have only answer about the retroclones: "No. Cease and desist immediately." The best you're going to get is the company intentionally ignoring the issue because it's not worth it to go after something so minor.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Odhanan

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

Morrus's logic is perfectly sound. Just because a question is asked does not mean that it deserves an answer. A consumer who believes that he is entitled to have every question that he asks of a company answered, regardless of how reasonable (or unreasonable) those questions are, has a completely distorted (and scary) sense of self-importance.

Not responding to unreasonable questions or outrageous demands isn't "corporate arrogance," it's how most businesses are run. It's why they make those signs that say "Owner retains the right to refuse service." It's why, if you start a fight in a bar, you'll be thrown out. It's why attempting to return stolen merchendise to a department store will gert you arrested.

The bottome line is that the customer is not always right and, frankly, when a customer makes unreasonable demands or acts in an inappropriate manner, they shouldn't be surprised when the world reacts as if they've acted unreasonably — of course, they almost always are, as their perception is enitirely self-centered, rather than grounded in reality.

Rewarding socially unacceptable behavior isn't the answer. If people ask an unreasonable question, they shouldn't expect an answer.

[S'mon]

WoTC legal are well aware of OSRIC; Stuart Marshall the author has been in conversation with them about it back in 2006. They didn't threaten to sue him. Nor did they give him authorisation.

FWIW, I teach copyright and contract law, I have looked at OSRIC, and it seems very tightly designed so as not to infringe copyright or breach the OGL. Other retroclones may have minor, technical or trivial copyright infringements of non-OGL material (which BTW would not necessarily lead a judge to award damages or injunction, at least in UK law), but OSRIC looks watertight to me. I don't think Orcus can have looked at it carefully in terms of the OGL and copyright when he made his statement.

My impression is that the author of OSRIC is a serious person, WoTC would be ill advised to bring a lawsuit against him that would probably fail (note he's in the UK and our law is not as plaintiff friendly as US law) and set an unwelcome precedent for him. And WoTC/Hasbro legal are not idiots like the TSR in-house lawyers, they know this too. Where they have taken action, it has been for file-sharing or for trademark infringement, both of which are much simpler to litigate than OGL/copyright. The OGL was specifically designed to prevent WoTC lawyers suing people, IMO no smart lawyer is going to want to go in for an OGL lawsuit except where there has been trade mark use by the OGL licensee.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by MichaelSomething

Also, It's not part of Scott's job description to hang around Enworld answering questions. I believe he does so in his free time. The quote and its link is my source...

It is part of his job. Interacting with the public on behalf of the image of his company. Same way as it was part of the developers' and designers' job to offer podcasts and blogs for marketing reasons. As for the free time argument? This is nonsense. Scott is not a manual labourer.

[Keefe the Thief]

Originally Posted by Odhanan

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

Come on. It really depends on the question. This is a question with serious legal implication that no sane businessman would answer on a messageboard. And additionally this thread has serious shades of being a "hey blue!1!!" post at the WoW forums.
Also, Joe, for you not caring about Wotc and their success you sure post a lot of threads about them lately.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by S'mon

WoTC legal are well aware of OSRIC; Stuart Marshall the author has been in conversation with them about it back in 2006. They didn't threaten to sue him. Nor did they give him authorisation.

FWIW, I teach copyright and contract law, I have looked at OSRIC, and it seems very tightly designed so as not to infringe copyright or breach the OGL. Other retroclones may have minor, technical or trivial copyright infringements of non-OGL material (which BTW would not necessarily lead a judge to award damages or injunction, at least in UK law), but OSRIC looks watertight to me. I don't think Orcus can have looked at it carefully in terms of the OGL and copyright when he made his statement.

My impression is that the author of OSRIC is a serious person, WoTC would be ill advised to bring a lawsuit against him that would probably fail (note he's in the UK and our law is not as plaintiff friendly as US law) and set an unwelcome precedent for him. And WoTC/Hasbro legal are not idiots like the TSR in-house lawyers, they know this too. Where they have taken action, it has been for file-sharing or for trademark infringement, both of which are much simpler to litigate than OGL/copyright. The OGL was specifically designed to prevent WoTC lawyers suing people, IMO no smart lawyer is going to want to go in for an OGL lawsuit except where there has been trade mark use by the OGL licensee.

If someone under the OGL violates a copyright or trademark, (assuming the entity whose IP was violated wanted to clear this up through OGL channels) the first step would be to notify the offender and give them thirty days to fix the problem. If that did not happen, the interaction during this period might well strengthen any subsequent lawsuit.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Odhanan

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

No; customers "deserve" a certain level of customer service and support regarding their transaction with the company in question. Purchasing a product doesn't entitle you to an answer to any question you desire, and it especially doesn't entitle you to demand that WotC formulate legal policies on an internet messageboard.

There are some questions which it would be good form for WotC to answer on a board like this (questions about upcoming products, for example); there are other questions, such as this one, where is would be appalling bad business practice for them to do, and completely unprofessional. They'd have to be insane to answer this question here.

No company operates like this, including WotC.

[jaerdaph]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Purchasing a product doesn't entitle you to an answer to any question you desire, and it especially doesn't entitle you to demand that WotC formulate legal policies on an internet messageboard.

Speak for yourself, Morrus. If I do not know how much WotC spends on paperclips annually, subtotaled by standard and jumbo sizes, I cannot fully enjoy their products to full potential.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, since the issues it raises were well and truly thrashed into the ground three years ago, but I just want to add to certain points of fact.

Originally Posted by S'mon

WoTC legal are well aware of OSRIC; Stuart Marshall the author has been in conversation with them about it back in 2006. They didn't threaten to sue him. Nor did they give him authorisation.

I was, in fact, never in direct correspondence with WOTC legal.

I did receive an email from Rich Redman, then Brand Licensing Manager, but not a lawyer. He wanted me to cease distribution of OSRIC. His grounds were that OSRIC was not compliant with the D20 license.

I wrote back to Mr Redman and explained that OSRIC didn't pretend to be compliant with the D20 license, and was in fact entirely reliant on the OGL.

Mr Redman apologised for not adequately doing his homework and then said he wanted me to cease distribution of OSRIC anyway. His basic point was the duck test: OSRIC looks like 1e, it quacks like 1e, so in his view it must be wrong to distribute it.

I replied highlighting various points of fact and various representations WOTC had already made, both in public and in private correspondence.

Mr Redman said this was beyond him and he would get WOTC legal to contact me.

This was in August 2006 and I'm still waiting for their email. I suspect they've figured it out, though, and will never pursue the matter.

The subtext behind OSRIC, and all the other retro-clones, is around computer gaming. You see, there's a duck test there too: a lot of computer games are, in their underlying concepts and algorithms, very similar.

Representatives of computer games companies are very interested in the possibility of a precedent that would establish, in US copyright law, exactly what constitutes a "rule" and what constitutes "artistic presentation". Any lawsuit involving OSRIC and WOTC could establish important precedents.

What that would almost certainly mean is an awful lot of money in amicus curiae. I don't particularly want to go there, and I think it likely that WOTC don't want to go there either.

Originally Posted by S'mon

My impression is that the author of OSRIC is a serious person

OSRIC is Serious Business.

Originally Posted by S'mon

WoTC would be ill advised to bring a lawsuit against him that would probably fail (note he's in the UK and our law is not as plaintiff friendly as US law)

Just to explain that to non-British readers, one key difference is in rules of procedure. In Britain the loser pays the winner's legal costs, which means you have to win your case on the legal merit of your argument; you can't just spend the other side into submission.

[Hairfoot]

Joethelawyer was perhaps a bit presumptuous in calling for Scott Rouse in particular, but I have no truck with this "careful or WotC might hear you" approach.

If the clones are potentially a target for Hasbro's legal department, I want to know now, because the only reason they're not throwing cease-and-desists around is because they don't see a threat to Hasbro profits.

"Big Brother will destroy your game if it becomes popular" is not a reasonable or tolerable situation for people to game under.

[xechnao]

Speak for yourself, Morrus. If I do not know how much WotC spends on paperclips annually, subtotaled by standard and jumbo sizes, I cannot fully enjoy their products to full potential.

Oh come on. This has nothing to do with it and no one is on the right here. The matter or the debate is mostly political and highly relevant. The way I understand it, this has been the interactive forum of the 3pp industry. What matters should rise, on what form and style, how tough the debate should be it is all political and relevant.

[Piratecat]

P&P, thanks for that clarification.

If I were going to make a guess - and that's all this is, a guess - WotC took a look at this and said "we think it's an infringement, but what does a lawsuit trigger? Disappointed fans and poor PR, all to shut down people who aren't making significant money from the game and who love D&D. Lots of downside, very little upside." So they've chosen to delay legal action in the hopes that it flies under the radar until something changes that forces them to address it.