Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Marius Delphus]

The complained-of provision is in the TOU to guard Wizards against the following scenario:

• Fan posts rules tweak, new rules idea, or new story idea on Gleemax
• Wizards publishes a book containing a similar rules tweak, new rule, or story development
• Fan sues WOTC for stealing idea

It is not in the TOU to permit Wizards to "steal" message board posters' ideas.

 

[Delta]

It is not in the TOU to permit Wizards to "steal" message board posters' ideas.

That's simply outright wishful thinking.

By posting or submitting any text... you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards... (license) to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish... the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

 

[Simon Atavax]

man, it happens all the time. let's face it. we are JUST consumers. we have to be thankful for what they give us. forget about your rights. you haven't got any, unless you can buy them. the idea of democracy is an illusion.

I thought I voted in the last election, but now that I think about it, it was probably a hallucination.

 

[MerricB]

That's simply outright wishful thinking.

You misread the post. Marius wasn't saying it couldn't happen, he's saying it's not why it was included. That language is there to protect Wizards more than to enable them to steal your ideas.

Cheers!

 

[resistor]

The complained-of provision is in the TOU to guard Wizards against the following scenario:

• Fan posts rules tweak, new rules idea, or new story idea on Gleemax
• Wizards publishes a book containing a similar rules tweak, new rule, or story development
• Fan sues WOTC for stealing idea

It is not in the TOU to permit Wizards to "steal" message board posters' ideas.

While I completely agree that this is the intent, the power you're actually giving them is significantly more than that. I, for one, am uncomfortable relying on unenforceable promises of good faith when I'm giving up significant rights.

Let's consider a parallel in the US Bill of Rights: the requirement of a warrant for the search and seizure of property. In a highly summarized form, it says "The police may search and seize your property after obtaining a warrant through the appropriate means, by demonstrating that doing so will aid in the pursuit of criminal activities".

Of course, the police want to be able to search and seize property when they're solving crimes. And if you ask them, I'm sure they'd (completely honestly) say that that's their intent. But would you feel comfortable if the Bill of Rights just said "The police may search and seize your property"?

The basic idea, which is also an important lesson in computer security, is that no entity should be granted more power than it needs to perform its function. The police don't need arbitrary search-and-seizure, so we don't give it to them, because we fear that it could be taken advantage of in the future.

Similarly, WotC doesn't NEED the rights that the license gives them. If they want to protect themselves from certain eventualities, then the license should grant them the minimal set of rights needed to protect themselves, nothing more.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am certain that WotC has no intent of using these powers in a harmful or malicious way. But I still think the principle of least privilege, as it is called in computer security, is an important one. As such, I will not be visiting Gleemax unless there is a change in the TOU.

 

[Will]

Similarly, WotC doesn't NEED the rights that the license gives them. If they want to protect themselves from certain eventualities, then the license should grant them the minimal set of rights needed to protect themselves, nothing more.

How, exactly, do you suggest they do that?

 

[resistor]

How, exactly, do you suggest they do that?

That's not my problem, is it?

In all seriousness, if your computer worked that way, our problems with virii and spyware would be hundreds of times worse than they already are. In fact, a lot of Windows' historical problems with security were due to a lack of least-privilege in the design. Making a program that works with maximal privilege is easy; making one that works with lesser privileges takes more work.

It's the same things with licenses. Claiming broad rights is the easy cop-out solution. You don't want to pay a lawyer to write up a license that actually claims the rights you really need, so you just claim everything. Other people have already pointed out how MySpace's TOU now only claims a limited license for the purpose of maintaining the site, demonstrating the feasibility of rewriting a TOU to only claim the rights necessary for the protection it's intending to grant.

Returning to the police analogy I gave above, I'm sure many policemen's lives would be easier without all the hassle of warrants. I'm sure the police would, in many circumstances, be able to operate more efficiently. But the added protection against the abuse of power is worth it.

Doing things the right way takes work.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

virii

The gods of Latin and English ask you politely to stop torturing them.

...

That is all.

 

[Will]

That's not my problem, is it?

It is in the sense that you're the one making the claim that there is a solution.

My claim is that when you face something as nebulous as ideas and writing, the only way to ensure your right not to get sued by someone claiming you stole their posted ideas is to state any posted ideas can be yours.

Your claim is that there is surely another way to do it. But you have no idea what it is. Perhaps it's like OS security or police arrests.

I don't think 'this idea was derived from this other idea' is anything like security; it's nebulous, it's sticky to deal with.

And, honestly, I doubt any such claim would hold up in court -- really, I suspect it's more a matter of the bad blood and people screaming about how WotC is 'ripping off' so-and-so's clever idea of ice demons.


The thing most people don't get, though, is the same thing that came up during the WotC setting search -- ideas are cheap. It's doing something with an idea that is important.

Also, mechanics aren't covered by IP laws. I could come up with a system that used all of D&D's mechanics, just written completely differently. I'd probably get some heavy-handed legal letters and a lot of people snorting at me, but it's legal.

Conversely, WotC could come out with E6, use all the feats posted in ENWorld, and so on. As long as the language isn't the same, they have the right to do it.

 

[meleeguy]

A forum system, whereby...

How, exactly, do you suggest they do that?

Consider a forum system (and by extension a gaming system) with privileges built around "roles" instead of "groups". External User, Internal User, I/E Designer, Moderator etc.

Internal Designers cannot see External User posts that they flag as copyright retaining.