Has Anyone Listened to the Opening Arguments Podcast on the Gizmodo coverage?

I'm a regular listener of this podcast, so their poor take on the situation left me cold. However, they are regularly willing to admit when they are wrong, so I hope they talk to someone, or someone talks to them, who knows better about the OGL and its history.
I urge you to read the “Tweets and Replies” section of the podcast’s own Twitter page from the past week. Both before and after the podcast aired.

These guys knew exactly what they were doing. And good god, their arrogance and contempt for us might possibly exceed WotC’s.

Even if you usually avoid Twitter, if you’re a regular listener of the show you owe it to yourself to go see with your own eyes what people told them in advance as well as after the episode aired, and how they responded.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Even if you usually avoid Twitter, if you’re a regular listener of the show you owe it to yourself to go see with your own eyes what people told them in advance as well as after the episode aired, and how they responded.
It's been pretty wild - every criticism/note in this thread is reflected there, and the OA hosts are just absolutely unable to accept any of it. They're genuinely tetchy about it, and what's particularly funny is the situation has moved on so far their contribution is essentially completely irrelevant, entirely because they decided to do a hit piece (ironically whilst complaining about a hit piece) on a journo, rather than doing an actual legal analysis of the situation.
 

yukigono

Explorer
I urge you to read the “Tweets and Replies” section of the podcast’s own Twitter page from the past week. Both before and after the podcast aired.

These guys knew exactly what they were doing. And good god, their arrogance and contempt for us might possibly exceed WotC’s.

Even if you usually avoid Twitter, if you’re a regular listener of the show you owe it to yourself to go see with your own eyes what people told them in advance as well as after the episode aired, and how they responded.
I'm well aware of their twitter responses. I responded to them on the post for the actual episode. Same handle as on here.

I want to emphasize that this is unusual behavior for them.
 

I'm well aware of their twitter responses. I responded to them on the post for the actual episode. Same handle as on here.
OK. I assumed otherwise because you wrote that you hoped they would talk with someone who more fully understands the OGL and its history—whereas it seems clear to me from their Twitter that it was already far too late for that from the moment they first tweeted the upcoming episode's topic, because they were entirely unwilling to engage on good-faith terms with anyone about it.
I want to emphasize that this is unusual behavior for them.
I'll have to take your word for it. Before now I had listened to something like one and a half episodes and really didn't care for their style. But those episodes weren't on topics I already understood well, and this one is—so I confess that, for me, they've now lost all credibility.
 

darjr

I crit!
Well, them not knowing about the movie or TV show doesn't bode well for either.

It's not just them Linus tech tips only found out about the movie during their OGL 1.1 talk and disparagement. They had no clue about the tv show and never mentioned it on the show.
 


ThorinTeague

Creative/Father/Professor
[I am not a lawyer and my opinion is not expert]

Let's roleplay through a little pretend scenario─that's kind of what we do around here right?

Let's pretend, just for fun, that OA was right. WoTC does in fact have the legal right to revoke the ogl by exploiting some fxxking bxxlshxt legal linguistic trap that the authors could never have anticipated. OK. Congratulations, WoTC, you legally voided the OGL. Give yourselves a great big public pat on the back. Doing so accomplishes.... what... exactly? Digging themselves deeper, or what? Ok, no one can publish game material under a license they never needed to begin with. I mean (and this is not good, mind you), the worst that would happen is that publishers would have to pulp inventory and get some projects out of the pipeline, but then it's business as usual because they just take that page out and keep doing what they were doing.

Let's pretend that they're right about game mechanics, which some say are uncopyrightable, and some are not. okay, actually I agree with OA on this one point. Don't get excited, folks, I'm not dousing my torchfork +2 of self righteousness or anything like that. But that law was written in reference to board games, mostly--like you can't say rolling one or more dice and moving that number of squares on a board is your intellectual property, because that would be preposterous (but hey, like, apparently that doesn't bother law folk sometimes...) OK. So. We're talking about a system of hundreds of variables and how they interact with one another between attributes, species, and occupations. And that is, I think, specific and unique enough to be protected.

But wait, that's a patent, not a copyright. And TSR nor WoTC ever patented any of that. But just for fun, let's pretend they did. 1000's of publishers used those mechanics in their own publications and sold it for decades (this was going on before OGL in the 70s, 80s, 90s, fyi, good to know history), pulling in all that sexy profit TSR/WoTC never saw. In the decades between 1976 and 2023, why was this never pursued? Why suddenly now?

I mean come on man. The fxxking balls. Everyone in the world has known what that license means for the past 22 years. And it's not like the authors of the document are gone or even staying silent. The people who wrote the OGL 1.0a are publicly and repeatedly proclaiming that the OGL was NOT and IS NOT revocable. It wasn't meant to subsidize competition... buuuut.... they didn't pursue Paizo in 2008 because.... why, exactly? Oh right, because they were high on crack the whole time, I forgot.

Yeah, maybe there is some horseshxt legal loophole to exploit in there, and WoTC can pretend that's a victory and pat themselves on the back for shutting it down, but, it would be a pyrrhic victory at best. I mean it's not like you can do much worse on PR--it's already incinerated, but that would torch it even further. And they're going to feel that in the wallet, which is the rub here. Even if they win their slimy legal victory, they damage public opinion even further, and that's fewer people buying their products, and more people buying someone else's products. So to that I say, whatever. ORC is already here, it's moot, and I would be really astonished to see this preposterous argument work in court anyway, at least not without paying off the judge. Oh yeah, right, this is WoTC, what was I thinking.

[I am not a lawyer and my opinion is not expert]
 


I mean, you don't have to know about the movie or the game proper to understand what's going on - as long as you do your research on the OGL, the context of its publication and maybe even public written statements by Wizards (either in its corporate capacity or by Dancey individually speaking as VP) on the topic - which it sounds as if Open Arguments did not, much to their discredit.
 

darjr

I crit!
I mean, you don't have to know about the movie or the game proper to understand what's going on - as long as you do your research on the OGL, the context of its publication and maybe even public written statements by Wizards (either in its corporate capacity or by Dancey individually speaking as VP) on the topic - which it sounds as if Open Arguments did not, much to their discredit.
I dunno if this was meant for me.

Just replying because I have said things like "they didn't even know about the movie or tv show".

I say that not as disparagement on the presenters but to point out that the OGL debacle looks to be bigger news than either the movie or tv series.

Which frankly is surreal.
 

Remove ads

Top