Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[BadMojo]

While you guys were up all night arguing about this, I met this really hot Brazilian chick at a local cafe bar last night. We're going out for dinner on Thursday. Just thought I'd share.

This single post saved the thread from being hopelessly geeky. You get an e-High Five my friend. Good luck on the date.

Eye of the tiger, baby!

 

[Ourph]

I don't see it that way. For one, it is Wizards' board, and they set the rules in their house, so to speak. Second, the value of their IP is many, many times more valuable than the value of the IP of some random poster. So they want to protect that.

IMO, this is the main problem with the TOU as it stands. If enforced to the letter, fully in Wizards' favor, it could place some posters in a very precarious position. However, the TOU is so far-reaching and so poorly worded (in terms of being contradictory and draconian in its claims) a reasonable court is probably going to invalidate large portions of it in an actual lawsuit. If the point is to insulate WotC against lawsuits, a clearer, more enforceable contract would do it better while also not requiring posters to accept such draconian terms.

 

[Fifth Element]

IMO, this is the main problem with the TOU as it stands. If enforced to the letter, fully in Wizards' favor, it could place some posters in a very precarious position. However, the TOU is so far-reaching and so poorly worded (in terms of being contradictory and draconian in its claims) a reasonable court is probably going to invalidate large portions of it in an actual lawsuit. If the point is to insulate WotC against lawsuits, a clearer, more enforceable contract would do it better while also not requiring posters to accept such draconian terms.

This is a valid point. And ironic as well. The more sweeping and generic a clause is, generally the less likely it will hold up. So yes, WotC could probably improve their wording in order to achieve their goal, but that does not make their goal any less valid, or any less respectful to potential users.

 

[Fifth Element]

No not practical, merely concerned with profit and risk mitigation above all other factors.

I submit that, for a large corporation, profitability and risk management are very practical concerns.

 

[resistor]

Some might quite strongly diagree with that statement.

You'll note that the OGL places more restrictions on the use of the content they're releasing. For example, a clear designation that it came from OGL sources. Additionally, they give themselves the liberty of picking and choosing not just which publications, but which parts of which publications, they want to be open, and which parts they want to remain closed. For example, certain key elements (the XP table) are not open content. In addition, I'm pretty sure they don't agree to indemnify users of the open content.

Such a license with some restrictions on their use of content is precisely what I've been calling for.

In fact, if the terms of use specified that any material posted on the Gleemax falls under the terms of the OGL and that, unless clearly delineated at the beginning of a post, the entirety of the post is considered open.

A similar effect could be achieved by placing it under the one of the many Creative Commons licenses. In fact, you could say that all posts must be released under a CC license, and have the default be one of the permissive ones (that allows commercial use without attribution), but provide a drop-down in the posting box to select one of the others. Most people won't change it, so the developers could still meaningfully participate in the boards by just filtering out posts not under the default license.

 

[RPGRealms]

For example, certain key elements (the XP table) are not open content. In addition, I'm pretty sure they don't agree to indemnify users of the open content.

A common misconception from mis-reading the d20 license. There was nothing stopping you from including an XP table in a d20 product. In point of fact, the license specifically allows it.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I submit that, for a large corporation, profitability and risk management are very practical concerns.

All things have a place, profitability and risk management have theirs, unfortunately major corporations have never understood the concept of "enough." If you're making a profit and your risks are not likely to sink you, you're good. Seeking to force every drop of profit out at all costs and paper over every possible risk is both unethical and ultimately counterproductive. Those behaviors turn people against you and eventually run you under.

 

[RPGRealms]

All things have a place, profitability and risk management have theirs, unfortunately major corporations have never understood the concept of "enough." If you're making a profit and your risks are not likely to sink you, you're good. Seeking to force every drop of profit out at all costs and paper over every possible risk is both unethical and ultimately counterproductive. Those behaviors turn people against you and eventually run you under.

They also tend to have investors that demand that they continually show growth and a profit.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Some might quite strongly diagree with that statement.

EDIT: What resistor said. It's less snarky and more cogent.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

They also tend to have investors that demand that they continually show growth and a profit.

And look what happens when they get too greedy. How many major corporations are having troubles right now? A lot of that is due to investors with unreasonable and unsupportable demands of profitability and growth that their market can't meet. It shows a major flaw in the business model, a moderate boost in short term profits for long term self-destruction. When moderating their immediate demands would create more total revenue and prevent the kind of meltdowns we see in these corporations.