What will Masterplan be after the C&D?

[Scribble]

Just what Masterplan posted, however.... If the AG and entire US Govey can't find a loophole in the data protection laws, you will have a hard time convincing me that WOTC is going to do it.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't seen the C&D letter, so how can any of us try to convince anyone else whether or not whatever claim WoTC is making would be upheld in court or not? We don't have any idea what those claims are!

 

[doctorhook]

Suffice to say, we're getting off topic. Thanks to everybody for the info about the legal issues of 4E 3rd party software.* However, it should probably be discussed in another thread from now on. (*Thank you, Kurtomatic, for the concise explanation. I have to wait before giving you XP again...)

Masterplan is now posting on some newfangled thing called "Twitter" () as Masterplan_4E. Among the news:

• Masterplan v9.0 will allow you to still use libraries from previous versions of Masterplan. (Presumably you won't be able to download them directly from D&DI anymore, however.)
• In response to the question, "When are you going to upload v9?" Masterplan responded, "It won't be long!" yesterday morning.
• Two days ago, the first new added feature for v9.0 was finished.
• The "first pass" at the v9.0's headline feature was finished yesterday. Masterplan is inviting people to guess what that feature is.

So, if nothing else, it definitely sounds like Masterplan is still on track. Any guesses on that new headline feature?

 

[Kafen]

Well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't seen the C&D letter, so how can any of us try to convince anyone else whether or not whatever claim WoTC is making would be upheld in court or not? We don't have any idea what those claims are!

I agree with you on the technical level, but the only way WOTC is going to going to break through the laws in regards to that Design Pattern involves Masterplan altering its core design. It's why people design around it. You can build a suite, invest thousands of hours into it, and defend it from the random acts of ends users.

I hope the letter involves a cookie going to them as a deal maker, myself. If it turns out to be simple malice... It's not good PR for WOTC.

 

[malraux]

My lil' Goblin has tons of violations in it.

No.

 

[Kafen]

No.

You know this is not personal for me, right? I am not attacking 4e. It's all technical. If you can make a level 15 psion goblin with the demo Character Builder and import it into iPlay4e without using any books, I will admit you guys have a valid point. You say the DDI terms make such characters legal on iPlay4e. Prove it *basic conditions: no DDI account, no books, and no ToS in question other than the ones present in the demo Builder* It's a fair test of the theory that you guys have going.





Anyways, enough forum warrior stuff... I hope they take the chance to branch out from this and look at Pathfinder. I could handle the change, and it is good to see them active.

 

[malraux]

You know this is not personal for me, right? I am not attacking 4e. It's all technical. If you can make a level 15 psion goblin with the demo Character Builder and import it into iPlay4e without using any books, I will admit you guys have a valid point. You say the DDI terms make such characters legal on iPlay4e. Prove it

No, the point is that you can't use a level 15 psion goblin CB file to do anything. You won't know what the powers do, you won't know what the items do, how the class works, etc. That's why the file itself is legit, because its useless without the DDI or the books. Downloading the file doesn't give you anything other than the names of powers, items, and feats. Of course, you can get the names and levels from DDI without a subscription anyway.

Contrast that with MP. Without the books or DDI, you'll be able to have all the monsters. Not just their names, but their entire stats. or the full description of magic items.

 

[tomBitonti]

Everytime you interact with proprietary DDI data through a third party application (which WotC clearly does care about), the app has a couple of ways of facilitating this. The app can require you to log into DDI with your account credentials every single time you consume that data, or it can hit DDI once, copy that proprietary data locally in some persistent form, and then simply use that local copy for your future consumption needs. The advantages of the second approach potentially include improved performance and features. One of these methods explicitly follows the DDI terms of use, and the other is possibly up for debate. Guess which one each app in question uses.

Hi,

Aren't temporary copies made in the course of transmitting data, including temporary caches, considered fair use?

There are so many example of where "playing" or "presenting" data requires copies of that data as a normal part of using that data. You would otherwise get in trouble for something as simple as caching data for a window which is hidden behind another, or, say, caching the data for a page that is currently not the active page in firefox.

Also, isn't the quantity and purpuse of the copy of data which made very very important as to whther the copy is allowed under fair use? My understanding is that the quantity and purpose of the copy is entire relevant to the decision -- to the point of being presented in a listing of fair use guidelines used in court decisions?

What that is to say, if MasterPlan retains a copy of information which was downloaded from DDI for longer than is necessary for efficient immediate use of the data, that would seem to easily be of a different character than a very temporary cache of the data that was retained only so long as the data was immediately in use, especially if the cache data was removed fairly quickly following the immediate use.

Also, speaking in terms of "data" where the data includes copywritten text seems to be to speak incorrectly. Calling something "data" while omitting the attached copyright seems to be (fairly egregiously) missing a main issue.

This is not to say that having Masterplan removed from use is providing the maximum immediate utility to 4E players. On the one hand, having Hasbro acquire the tool would seem to be win-win, if the tool creates and Hasbro could come to some accommodation. (On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath for that.)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Kurtomatic]

Seriously.

LOL, what the hell! One more time, with this time feeling.

.., iPlay4e stores data in direct violation of the fan site policy.

First, there is no such thing as a WotC "fan site policy". Its a complete 'misoverestimation' of the fansite kit. The licensed D&D fankit is nothing more than a public contract; a license agreement that says if you use any of the assets contained in the kit, you also agree to abide by the rules of the license. EN World is undoubtedly a D&D fansite. I'm willing bet lunch money that EN World violates the fansite kit agreement in a multitude of ways, yet Morrus has nothing to worry about from WotC. Since EN World does not use any of the fankit assets, the agreement simply does not apply to the EN World website, and no actual violations exist. In a similar fashion, the official D&D fankit license has absolutely no bearing on iPlay4e or Masterplan for that matter.

Extrapolating the public fankit contract as general WotC legal policy is the Path of Fail.

The GSL avoids it which forces WOTC into the realm of data laws. Once you reach that point, the simple fact that WOTC allows sites like iPlay 4e to link data in direct violation of its stated fansite policy suggests that it's cheery picking which sites it targets as far as 'intent' goes which speaks volumes once you get to court.

Dude, now you're just making stuff up! In the case of the GSL, I believe it only applies to print products, and like the so-called fan policy, does not apply to either app in question, or any D&D application. Also, anyone is allowed to link to the Compendium without a specific legal agreement, since DDI authenticates access to its own data. Just like this, OMG! I just linked super-duper copyright hell right there; no worries since DDI challenges your access rights before revealing the illicit text. /whew

Regarding "..its stated fansite policy", please see above.

To specifically speak to your claim that iPlay4e only allows non-proprietary data, it is false. I am hosting a character with levels above the free tier on iPlay4e after letting my DDI sub run dry. iPlay4e is now exactly where the file sharing groups stands in the law - the front of a gun barrel.

Hilarity ensues! Okay, I have my PHB, a .7mm mechanical pencil, and my favorite Son of Big Chief. I am creating my new 12th level Elf Ranger. I write down all his stats and the names of all his exploits and feats, but I don't write down the full descriptions of all his power rules, because that would seriously cramp my hand and I can just look 'em up in the Compendium anytime I want anyway. Does my handwritten character sheet violate WotC copyright policy? It clearly has content not available in the free Character Builder demo! If I had instead typed it into Notepad, would that be a problem? How about if I manually typed it out with xml tags, <query>would that be okay?</query>

The .dnd4e file format was carefully designed by WotC devs to only contain the same class of information that I inscribed on my handwritten sheet. For anything else, it links to the Compendium or the CB's local encrypted database. At no time does any .dnd4e file produced by the official CB contain any unlawful carnal knowledge, whether or not I have ever been or will be a DDI subscriber. I can safely attach the CB file for my 30th level Githzerai Monk to my ENW sig, and no one would care. (Seriously, no one! So sad.)

Relax, man; if you think simple character sheets constitute infringement, then you have bigger problems than worrying about Masterplan. Save the tinfoil for your leftovers.

Masterplan only provides software which places enforcement of data rights on the burden of WOTC. If you seriously think that iPlay4e - a site hosting data which WOTC claims as its own under the DDI terms in addition to linking to WOTC data which the fansite terms explicitly prohibit- is safer than a software suite that scrapes data from the cache/end user for a pay service, you are mistaken. The scraping and data collecting software suites have many laws to protect them from companies like WOTC. To be exact, WOTC is entering into the modern world of data storage.

The only legit claim they would have is that Masterplan is copying the data into a third party storage system. On this level, the trouble for WOTC starts when they provide it as a pay service which provides for reasonable manipulation of the data in modern devices. There is nothing in the terms of service in DDI that prohibits the caching and storage of data on the end user level because WOTC can't make that claim. The data belongs to the end user at that point due to payment for services. The end users only lose the rights to that data after they stop their sub. So, the blame for this action rests solely on the handlers of the data at this point under the law unless WOTC can prove that Masterplan is supporting the transfer/mass distribution of that data which it does not. Thus, it becomes a matter of enforcement which involves them going after torrent users. People should be urging WOTC to go after the file sharing people - not the software companies. If people are looking to 'cheer' something, it is the point they need to consider.

But hey, I only know American law on the point. I'm sure that Brits along with French have entirely unique laws on the issue. However, WOTC is a US company. American laws provide protection to software companies up until they become a third party to violations of the data the theft laws. In this case, Masterplan openly encourages people to join DDI. Also, they do not host library files. You would have a hard time finding a judge that sides with WOTC at this point inside the US.

You are falling into the trap that many people fall into. You confuse what people 'think' with what the courts rule. Until the courts remove protections from software companies for the actions of end users, the only points you score will be rep points on the forum with the WOTC fans. The judges have to take into account reasonable use and existing data laws which firmly protect companies like Microsoft from people that want to sue because 'their operating system sucks' or 'the hacker used a known security hole to hack my system!'. Sure, Masterplan is not an uber giant with big pockets, but they have the same protections. I have no doubt that WOTC would be refused if they ever send anything like that letter to M$. It's unfortunate that Masterplan is giving into them.

tl;dr

Admin here. I'm pretty sure you can express your opinion without being rude in the process. Next time please do so; and if this is in any way unclear, PM me after re-reading the Rules. ~ Piratecat

Sorry, I am out of time and you got real ranty and boring there towards the end. Suffice to say that you have fallen into the trap many wingnuts fall into. You have just barely enough knowledge of certain topics to make you dangerous, and then you attempt to apply that knowledge to other topics about which you are completely unqualified, and insist that only you know what you're talking about. Of course, it is true only you know what you are talking about, since I can't make heads or tails out that word salad you served up in subsequent paragraphs.

In any case, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, since clearly your mind is made up. Just doing my part for any readers who are honestly confused by the DDI.

Cheers!

 

[Kurtomatic]

Hi,

Aren't temporary copies made in the course of transmitting data, including temporary caches, considered fair use?

There are so many example of where "playing" or "presenting" data requires copies of that data as a normal part of using that data. You would otherwise get in trouble for something as simple as caching data for a window which is hidden behind another, or, say, caching the data for a page that is currently not the active page in firefox.

Also, isn't the quantity and purpuse of the copy of data which made very very important as to whther the copy is allowed under fair use? My understanding is that the quantity and purpose of the copy is entire relevant to the decision -- to the point of being presented in a listing of fair use guidelines used in court decisions?

What that is to say, if MasterPlan retains a copy of information which was downloaded from DDI for longer than is necessary for efficient immediate use of the data, that would seem to easily be of a different character than a very temporary cache of the data that was retained only so long as the data was immediately in use, especially if the cache data was removed fairly quickly following the immediate use.

Also, speaking in terms of "data" where the data includes copywritten text seems to be to speak incorrectly. Calling something "data" while omitting the attached copyright seems to be (fairly egregiously) missing a main issue.

This is not to say that having Masterplan removed from use is providing the maximum immediate utility to 4E players. On the one hand, having Hasbro acquire the tool would seem to be win-win, if the tool creates and Hasbro could come to some accommodation. (On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath for that.)

Thx!

TomB

I tend to agree that WotC is probably bitching about the level of data permanence that Masterplan is using. Clearly, any application, including your web browser, is caching privileged Compendium data when you use it. That's simply par for the course, and nothing would function without that fair use. The likely crux of the matter is the persistence and portability of the privileged data.

Non-incidental, mass harvesting of Compendium data via the API, plus persisting that data in a portable format, seems to be the likely issues. These also let you do lots of cool stuff! So the question is, can Masterplan keep the toys and follow the rules?

 

[mudbunny]

Here is my prediction of what Masterplan will eventually look like.

It will be almost identical to v8.8, but instead of being able to, with two clicks, download significant portions of the compendium, you will instead be presented with a compendium browser that will allow you to filter/sort the compendium. Making adventures would permit you to export those chosen monsters to an adventure file of some sort.