Yes. Almost no one thinks WoTC are behaving decently or morally. I think on therpgsite you're more likely to see posts along the lines of "Let the (RPG) world burn - a new and better world will arise from the ashes!" - but no one thinks WoTC is in the right, and very few people think this strategy of theirs will ultimately benefit them. Even if they do destroy the 3PP world, they'll be left sitting atop a heap of ruins and in a much worse position than they were before.
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
- Thread starter DavyGreenwind
- Start date
Yes. Almost no one thinks WoTC are behaving decently or morally. I think on therpgsite you're more likely to see posts along the lines of "Let the (RPG) world burn - a new and better world will arise from the ashes!" - but no one thinks WoTC is in the right, and very few people think this strategy of theirs will ultimately benefit them. Even if they do destroy the 3PP world, they'll be left sitting atop a heap of ruins and in a much worse position than they were before.
jgbrowning
Hero
Question: is this case that is complicated enough to where such expensive legal maneuverings could be done? Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of depth to it? It honestly doesn't seem that complex.
joe b.
I only know the English legal system. Here I don't think it would cost millions of pounds to reach a judgement on revocability of the OGL 1.0, and WoTC would probably lose, and be saddled with the other side's legal costs. I assume Macris' lawyer friend is telling the truth as he sees it. Lawyers do tend towards the pessimistic side though.
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
Is it possible for the UK to enforce the OGL 1.0a, and indy publishers elsewhere do their business via UK?
The OGL 1.0 has no choice-of-jurisdiction clause. This is why OSRIC was authored and first published in the UK - WoTC would have had to sue the author, Marshall, in the UK. This looks to apply equally to EN Publishing (as far as I know). AFAICT, UK companies and sole traders (like several friends of mine) who use the OGL in the UK would have to be sued in the UK.
I don't think it looks good for existing US based publishers. AFAICT they agreed the OGL in the USA and would need to go before a US court. Where the Law would be on their side AFAICT, but Macris' friend thinks they can be buried in Lawfare before ever getting to court.
It is conceivable that the OGL could be held revocable in some jurisdictions and non-revocable in others. Personally I think it's unlikely it would be held revocable in a US court, or at least I don't think that finding would survive an appeal, but (a) I'm not a US Contract lawyer and (b) it sounds like WoTC's strategy is to not actually go to a court judgment, but rather use 'the process is the punishment' to intimidate 3PPs.
In future, should OGL works be authored and first published in a jurisdiction like England less amenable to lawfare than the USA? That seems like a reasonable tactic to me; but if you are a US based publisher I don't think that is a foolproof defence to lawfare attacks. In lawfare the claims can be spurious, the point is to inflict pain. I don't see anything stopping WotC lawyers from claiming the case should go before a US court and inflicting pain that way. Maybe not millions of $, but enough to hurt.
Last edited:
The thing about the OGL 1.0 is that it was specifically designed to protect against future attacks from the kind of bad actor that WoTC now appears to be. This puts 3PP in a very strong legal position - at judgement. But in the US legal system it's almost impossible to protect against lawfare attacks. And that's what WoTC appear to be counting on.
I wonder how much a crowd funded "Save the OGL" effort would garner now? It looks to me like that the OGL will die unless someone bites the bullet and goes to court on this.
TheSword
Legend
Can I ask how 3pp increase core D&D sales? I get that they are good for consumers because it gives us alternatives and choices…. But are you suggesting that people come to D&D through 3pp and not the other way around? Or is it that 3pp sustain people playing 5e and then prolong future buying from WOC.
I haven’t bought anything from WOC for 2 1/2 years and test spend £20-£30 a month on average on 5e and D&D. All from 3rd parties, roll20 marketplace, Paizo, a couple of Patreons etc. With the exception of Roll20 which has its own license agreement with WoTC, all my purchases would be totally unaffected by the change to the licence.
jgbrowning
Hero
And it's this that has me wondering about the timing. If lawfare is the intended process for the "revoke it" idea, what is the reason as to why WotC is no longer discussing it? [[EDIT: somehow I ended up saying the opposite of what I meant to say. I meant to say "If lawfare is the intended process for the "revoke it" idea, what is the reason as to why WotC is still discussing it?]] It was intended for release on January 4, and if they had already committed to that view, there isn't a reason I can see for the delay in discussion.
PR reasons maybe? But if lawfare was already the intended, the PR ramifications would have already been prepared beforehand. Incompetence is always an option (Glass Onions), but it really seems to me beyond incompetent to have not run a "how's this going to affect our PR" before releasing such an industry-changing announcement.
joe b.
Last edited:
jgbrowning
Hero
I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a crowd-funding for the legal costs for Paizo, of which almost the entire OGL community would gladly support. It would be a huge boon for Paizo as they are, IMO, being effectively forced to go to court if the "revoked" aspect is not relented upon. But again, i'm not a lawyer.
joe b.
Similar Threads
