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.
"Three separate law firms reviewed the complaint filed by TSR and assessed it as one of the sort used by a larger company to force a smaller one out of business."
"Three separate law firms reviewed the complaint filed by TSR and assessed it as one of the sort used by a larger company to force a smaller one out of business."
so again I have no real legal know here...
in theory if I were rich (Wait let me day dream) I could sue my local corner store for anything, and if I threw enough money at it force them out of buisness???
Again I know I am unskilled here but it sounds to me to be way false...Even I know there are safe guards where you can have cases thrown out if there is no case...
You need some legal leg to stand on...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
It's that kind of copyright paranoia litigation that people get twitchy about with doomsday scenario theories regarding WotC.
The main doomsday scenario I can think of offhand for Hasbro/WotC becoming very litigious, would be if several OGL products become extremely popular and makes significantly more money than WotC's main rpg product lines of 4E D&D or subsequent editions (ie. 5E).
For example, a scenario of Pathfinder PFRPG becoming the #1 best selling rpg and making more profits than WotC's 4E D&D line of products. Though in this hypothetical scenario, I would guess that Paizo and Hasbro/WotC may possibly settle out of court with Hasbro/WotC acquiring Paizo and rebranding Pathfinder as the new 5E D&D.
in theory if I were rich (Wait let me day dream) I could sue my local corner store for anything, and if I threw enough money at it force them out of buisness???
Again I know I am unskilled here but it sounds to me to be way false...Even I know there are safe guards where you can have cases thrown out if there is no case...
You need some legal leg to stand on...
That certainly won't stop an irrational litigious rich guy from launching frivolous lawsuits against someone. I suppose one could try getting the irrational litigious rich guy's attorneys disbarred for attorney misconduct
of some sort, or countersuing the irrational litigious rich guy and their attorneys for harassment and/or frivolous litigation.
Part of me hopes that this so-called academic journal was recently created as a joke just to showcase this one article. So many folks in the edition war threads are screaming for credentials from anyone who posts any opinion (which is utterly ridiculous in itself on a public message board), I could see teh funny of doing something like this.
"See? The research conclusively shows that 4e sucks!"
If this is the case, then you got me! I've been punk'd!
It is something editorially reviewed, and published under their name. Thus the personal tone and scarcity of references would seem to be acceptable. The inaccuracy and incoherence, on the other hand, would recommend against putting something like this anywhere in a publication that hopes to be taken seriously.
From the website of the journal's organizing body (Organization for Transformative Works):
"The Organization for Transformative Works is run for fans by fans. The directors of OTW's board are all active in fandom, as are the hundreds of other people serving on committees and working as volunteers."
In this context, "Transformative works and cultures" literally means "fanworks and fandom". It is technically an academic journal, for what it's worth, but the online-only journal of a fandom organization doesn't really have any more claim to authority than a plain old blog.
This context is pretty helpful in unpacking the author's agenda in that article, as well -- it certainly explains why the argument is "Fans doing OGL stuff fight the corporate power", because that's right in line with the stated purpose of the journal's parent organization, to help fans do just that. Considering that one of the things the parent organization does is offer legal counsel and assistance to fanfic authors and the like faced with copyright violation suits, it smells a little like "If I advance this particular argument, I'm sure to get this op-ed published", which may or may not be true but is interesting to ponder.
Heck, even "real" academic journals often have little claim to authority. Journals exist so people can get published -- when there aren't enough journals for academics to get published in, they do just make more.
This appears on every thread about the OGL or GSl, and IT'S WRONG IN EVERY FREAKING ONE. GOOD CHRIST, every one of those threads, right after that accusation is made, shows how, oh wait, no, it was actually stated "Hah hah if a developer can reprint the 3e rules and make money, man, go for it." So that's what Monogoose did. And yet people continue to point at it and claim this was badwrong and how WotC hates them for it. Despite that being the opposite of what actually happened.
Read my post in the best light, as you should generally do on message boards, and you'll see the unintended consequence was that they would actually make money doing it. No hate by WotC is implied, just an "oops, we probably shouldn't do that again."
__________________ 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
In this context, "Transformative works and cultures" literally means "fanworks and fandom". It is technically an academic journal, for what it's worth, but the online-only journal of a fandom organization doesn't really have any more claim to authority than a plain old blog.
This is true, but they are using the pretense of being an academic journal. There must be a reason for that.
I'm the editor for the Society for International Hockey Research's Hockey Research Journal. It's basically a journal of hockey history and analysis for fans, by fans (although some of these fans are professional writers). If I were to allow a screed similar to this one to be published, it would not go over well. We're presumably a larger journal, we even have a print edition, but we make no pretense of being an academic journal (no real peer review, etc). But we still have higher editorial standards, apparently.
__________________ 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
"Three separate law firms reviewed the complaint filed by TSR and assessed it as one of the sort used by a larger company to force a smaller one out of business."
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)
Sure, such lawsuits exist and are used, but you have to have some basis for the suit. At the very least, you have to have a coherent allegation of wrongdoing - you must be able to state what the defendant did and why it was illegal to do it. You can't just haul a guy up in front of a judge and say, "He done me wrong."
In this case, you'd have to have a clause in the OGL that you could accuse the defendant of violating, and be able to explain how you claim the defendant violated it. (Not necessarily prove the violation, that's what the trial is for, but you do have to be able to say what the violation was. And I'm fairly sure there are measures available to the defendant to counter claims which are patently false, e.g., you say a book contains a direct transcript of the Mind Flayer entry in the 3E Monster Manual, the defendant can produce the respective books and show that there is no such transcript.)
Last edited by Dausuul; 26th June 2009 at 03:41 PM..
This is true, but they are using the pretense of being an academic journal. There must be a reason for that.
Psst, in my subtext I was hinting that the reason for the journal to exist is "so undergrad and grad student fanfic authors and enthusiasts can get a publishing credit under their names."
I know a bit about academic journals and societies, and many of them are the product of a dozen people that meet annually in someone's living room, and publish yearly if that. Pick any unusual niche subject, and there's as least three competing journals, only one of which has "street cred", but all their names are so close to each other that they all look equally good on a resume.
Academic clout is more about geek politics than anything else, making it remarkably similar to roleplaying. The quality of the work you produce is way less important than who your department sponsor is and such. It's like the old "DM's girlfriend gets to play a half-succubus and start five levels above us, and yet mysteriously no one publicly complains at the table", all over again.
Part of me hopes that this so-called academic journal was recently created as a joke just to showcase this one article. So many folks in the edition war threads are screaming for credentials from anyone who posts any opinion (which is utterly ridiculous in itself on a public message board), I could see teh funny of doing something like this.
"See? The research conclusively shows that 4e sucks!"
If this is the case, then you got me! I've been punk'd!
It's a general problem with the new wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).
Unfortunately, this may discredit open-access journals with a better editing policy, but that's a politics discussion that doesn't belong here.
Last edited by Harlekin; 26th June 2009 at 03:33 PM..
It's a general problem with the now wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).
I agree with you, and I'd also include New Scientist as part of the problem (their editing and editorializing)
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
It's a general problem with the now wave of online-journals that they don't have enough high quality submissions and therefore are often scraping the bottom of the barrel, both for scientific articles and (apparently) for other contributions. There have been several cases recently where automatically generated papers were accepted (CRAP paper accepted by journal - opinion - 11 June 2009 - New Scientist).
Unfortunately, this may discredit open-access journals with a better editing policy, but that's a politics discussion that doesn't belong here.
I think there is a growing problem with self-proclaimed experts online, a lack of editorial policy, and a lack of standards in general. It started with sites like about.com and it continues with newer sites like examiner.com. Even wikipedia.org, which is good online resource, has to remain constantly vigilant. This is not to say that everyone contributing to those sites is a fraud - far from it.
Of course it doesn't help when the established media can't be bothered to do this anymore either. Case in point, The Old Gray Lady herself.
In the digital age, we need to emphasize critical thinking skills more in our schools.
I just want to say that my opinions are probably a little more snarky today than usual because my air conditioner died last night and humidity makes me cranky.
I also want to add that roguerouge is one of the best eggs at EN World and my opinionated comments in this thread are in no way directed at rr.
Law is law. Not sorcery. You can't just make stuff up and then sue someone for it and drive them out of business just because you're richer than them.
The part of a lawsuit that is the most expensive, and which is most subject to improper tactical use, is discovery. There are multiple ways to get a lawsuit dismissed prior to discovery, particularly if the lawsuit isn't plausible.
There are situations where someone will drop out of a lawsuit or settle because proceeding is too expensive. These do NOT tend to be situations where the lawsuit was completely fraudulent. The person who dropped out of the suit might choose to characterize things that way, but they're an interested party. There is also a tendency to characterize a decision to settle a lawsuit as being motivated by financial concerns rather than actual wrongdoing when admitting wrongdoing would harm you publically. If you feel that you are being frivolously sued, consult with an attorney. You will find either that you have remedies available to you, or that the suit is not in fact frivolous.
This... verges on the political. Ok, its overtly political. But it shouldn't be partisan in any way:
I believe strongly that popular civic education is a must in a democratic society. I simply do not believe that the right to vote can be exercised well by a person who does not understand at least the basics of the government in which his vote is exercised.
Everyone has things about their country that they wish they could change. But if they do not understand the origins of what they intend to change, of they misattribute fault to the wrong political actors due to a lack of civics knowledge, or if they fail to understand the context in which political decisions or rules arise, they will not be able to use their right to vote to effectively bring about the policy outcomes they desire.
They will use their vote to punish politicians for actions for which they are not responsible, while leaving the actual responsible parties unharmed. They will bring about unintended consequences as they change matters they don't understand. And even worse, this is often a spiraling descent into utter failure, as voters fail to understand their own ultimate responsibility for the unintended consequences of previous elections, and flail about in a desperate effort to change something, anything, that will bring about the outcomes they want.
A person who doesn't understand even the basics of the functioning of the three branches of government, both in theory and in the actual, practical political reality of how they really work in real life, is like a caveman trying to operate a punchcard computer without a manual. Buttons will be pushed, lights will blink, things will happen, but they will not correspond to the operator's wishes.
Courts are not some magical device to bankrupt people you don't like. Lawsuits are not pure acts of financial attrition. To the extent that a fear legal matters can intimidate people into surrendering rights which they did not need to surrender, it is the popular conception of courts as evil black holes into which good people are dragged to their ruin that is most frequently responsible.
You know it ain't over until somebody mentions the fat lady who spilled hot coffee on her leg and sued McDonalds.
...Which was actually not really a case of the tort system run amok as it was corporate cover-ups and payoffs. For being an iconic case in tort reform, it sure doesn't look like an abuse of the legal system once you look into it.
You're right. Law is not sorcery. It and the courts, however, are subject to all the foibles of humanity. People will and do use the law and manipulate courts for their own aims even out of proportion to their pretext for using the law in the first place.
Patent trolls file claims, often dubious, in order to try to get a quick settlement out of companies that would rather not pay the financial costs of discovery and risk the dangers of damages. Corporations, or other bodies with deep pockets, use financial attrition against opponents whose claims may be just but who don't have the financial endurance to keep litigating.
So it's not exactly any wonder that the courts have a negative popular reputation. Either we hear about stories involving the issues above or, when some person actually gets a well deserved damage award perhaps with punative damages, spin control will take over and pundits will lament that the penalized corporation will now have to lay people off or will only pass on the cost of the damages to the consumers anyway.
That said, even a negative view of corporations and the courts makes it hard to conclude that Hasbro/WotC really has much of a leg to stand on to force a withdrawal of the OGL or sue anybody under it. The stakes simply aren't large enough for them to spend too much effort in finding or manufacturing a pretext. Give the D&D IP rights to a holding company that has no other business model and I think we'd see some action in this regard.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
27
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
