Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

Yeah as a MTG fan ive been on the fence about full boycotting WOTC for years but they hadn't quite gotten me there. This'll probably change things which will suck because i love both D&D and MTG.

It might finally make me build all those EDH decks I haven't gotten to with the cards I already own, instead of jumping on the exciting new one.

(If they make a Sigarda, Host of Herons, Mayael, or Kaseto with good art I will have to get it... and I might cave on the LotR ones...)
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Alexander Macris of Autarch has a very grim post on therpgsite WOTC, SRD, Gettin' Lawyerly

I wish you were right, but unfortunately I believe you are wrong.
:(


By the misfortune of having studied law, I have a wide network of attorneys in my contacts. I already consulted with one of the top IP lawyers in the United States about this issue and the situation is grim. The attorney I spoke to is personally familiar with Hasbro and he said that Hasbro's litigation war chest is absolutely huge and they are out for blood. He said to expect them to litigate to win back their IP rights with a courtroom battle lasting 3-4 years. I asked him if I could fight back with a $100,000 GoFundMe and he literally laughed. He said it would cost $500,000 simply to get through pre-trial motions and $2-3M to see it through to completion. Hasbro will utterly bury any opponent in motions. The expense alone makes it impossible for anyone at all to fight this except the likes of Paizo. He stressed this over and over in the call: It doesn't matter how good my argument is because I will never get to make that argument. I'll be bankrupt before then.

Moreover, Wizards doesn't even need to litigate. It just needs to persuade Kickstarter and DriveThruRPG that the bread is buttered on their side. Then they can simply have my game, Pundit's game, anyone's game they don't like, shut off from the crowdfunding and distribution we need to be viable. They can do the same on YouTube, just as music companies and Nintendo do, on anyone they want to tread on. We already know how platforms behave in the face of corporate bullies. It will happen in our industry, too, if we're not careful.

I asked what my options were, given this dire situation, and he said "try not to let them notice you." Well, they've already noticed me. "Release anything you can before the new license drops." Well, what about my future product? "Never use the OGL and SRD again in the future and hope they don't care enough to sue you anyway."

The attorney I spoke to is a gamer, has impeccable credentials, and is a trusted friend of 20 years; he has no reason to lie to me or dissuade me. So, based on the advice of the best expert I know, I believe the situation is quite dire. I wish it were a case of crying wolf, but there is literally a wolf and it's here to feast.

I wish I had better news but that's the cold splash of water I got in my face yesterday.


If this is accurate, it implies WoTC-Hasbro really are set on the nuclear option, and that they would rather destroy the 3PP ecosystem created by the OGL than see it continue to use 'their IP'. I think this would destroy the RPG industry as we know it and set things back to something more like the 1990s. The reputational damage to WoTC would be even greater than what TSR suffered. I think the actual economic effect on WoTC would be almost as devastating as that suffered by their victims. The parrallel of Russia's invasion of Ukraine comes to mind.
OK, look, this was ALWAYS the case! Hasbro, big company with probably tons more lawyers than the entire RPG industry put together. US is a Lawyerarchy, has been for many decades, at least. Publishing a new OGL may be a discrete legal move that signals the initiation of a war on the Community, but the stockpile of weaponry was always there.

Something most people do not really appreciate about ALL Open Source type licenses, is they are all controlled by someone. It is not logically possible to have it any other way. There has to be a provision for revision, the real world doesn't stand still and agreements must evolve. Someone must be privileged to make those revisions, otherwise you don't really have a single stable license to agree on and anyone can morph it into anything. The best you can ever get is something like the GPL where the FSF is a trusted set of community representatives with no iron of its own in the fire. We can generally trust them not to produce the GPLv4 as some sort of monstrosity that betrays the Community's values. Unfortunately the OGL lacks any sort of similar stewardship. Many people have noted this and many of us have long been hesitant to use OGL for that reason.

I mean, again, OGL isn't actually the central issue here, Lawyerarchy is really the central issue. In the US WotC is backed with lots of money and whatever the heck they say, that is how it is. The guy with the lawyers MAKES THE LAW. I mean, this is a game forum, there's nothing more that should really be said here!
 


Don’t be a slave to the cult of the new. Vote with your wallets if this offends you.

Just talking is worthless. And I would submit that a lot of people grabbing 3rd party’s stuff are not usually the casuals—-and are maybe represented by ENWorld better than other places.

Also keep talking about it on public fora like this one. Word gets around.

And if they don’t listen and bend don’t buy in.
 

I'm not as sure about the commercial implications for WotC. I'm not denying that there are some sales made by them that are driven/supported by 3PP materials, but I have doubts about how big this is as a proportion of the overall recent growth of D&D.

If Hasbro wants to "win back their IP rights" is this really directed at Paizo's present position? Or any other 3PP? Or at controlling further growth that they envisage flowing from the anticipated success of the movie? To me, it makes more sense as a future-oriented concern than vindictively trying to destroy the present ecosystem.
Well, IF this is true, then why would they even hint that their position is that everyone MUST accept the new NOGL and use it? I mean, if they're happy with the EXISTING 'ante-bellum' situation, they need not wage a war! If they simply want to stop people from 'minting an NFT', well then yes they may want a new license GOING FORWARD, but it would also in that case behoove them to state "yeah, we have no interest in all you guys that are doing this existing 3PP stuff over there, if you keep doing what you're doing now, we will assume that OGL 1.0a covers it, but if you try to use that to 'mint an NFT' then we'll sic our dogs on you!"

Now, maybe their messaging is just crap, and this IS what they are trying to say, hard to know... If so its all a big stink about nuthin' and we can relax. We shall see, but the second they come after an existing publisher that isn't doing something new, then we know! The other problem being, even if they don't do that now, the mailed fist has been revealed, and it may be hard for them to put it back in the velvet glove very convincingly... Maybe still possible though as of today.
 


This is a case of bad generalship plain and simple. The executive at Wizards are fighting the last war and failed to consider how the battlefield works today. If they were good generals then they would be aware that by restricting people's use of the original content they created is a lines that when crossed will ignite a firestorm of criticism and a collapse of the value of their goodwill.
Yup! you have hit the nail on the head. Heck even in '08 when they released the GSL it was a bad move.
 

Remove ads

Top