Why We Should Work With WotC

[FormerLurker]

Infinitely many, in theory. There are probably infinitely many hypothetical OGL products that merely infringe on their new policies by including an owlbear somehow.

How many have you actually outlined and plan to write? How many books have you published?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Then there is a very good chance you get nothing. Are you willing to accept that?

I want to know how they think they'll achieve that though. The "deauthorization" lie is the least favored even by the lawyers here who somehow think that WotC might be able to get out of this mess. Of course, for most practical purposes, they’d just need to convince places like Kickstarter and DrivethuRPG to respect it, but that would only open up the market share for other services like that. They’re relying entirely on FUD here, it seems.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Then there is a very good chance you get nothing. Are you willing to accept that?

I mean, we get nothing either way. We aren't really "negotiating" with a corporation; there are no tables where we can trade offers. Either Wizards accedes to the threats of the crowd, or they ignore it. If they go through with 1.2, no compromise means anything because they have the tools to unilaterally crush that entire agreement with no legal recourse. Compromise or lose, we get the same relationship with Wizards:

 

[FormerLurker]

I want to know how they think they'll achieve that though. The "deauthorization" lie is the least favored even by the lawyers here who somehow think that WotC might be able to get out of this mess. Of course, for most practical purposes, they’d just need to convince places like Kickstarter and DrivethuRPG to respect it, but that would only open up the market share for other services like that. They’re relying entirely on FUD here, it seems.

It's not a "lie." It's a dubious legal move.
And it's really only that if they don't win: there's lots of lawyers on both sides who can argue one way or another. It'd come down to a judge. WotC wouldn't be attempting this if they weren't certain they had decent odds in court.

Not that they need to defend it. By allowing Paizo to keep selling old products and giving them ample time to get out ORC and release their future content under that, they've guaranteed Paizo doesn't need to go to court or fight.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

WotC wouldn't be attempting this if they weren't certain they had decent odds in court.

Why wouldn't they? They are the ones benefiting from sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt. Nobody is going to sue them proactively to stop them from this. Just look at your own response now. You're not only accepting this abuse, you're actively arguing that we should "negotiate".

 

[FormerLurker]

Why wouldn't they? They are the ones benefiting from sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt. Nobody is going to sue them proactively to stop them from this. Just look at your own response now. You're not only accepting this abuse, you're actively arguing that we should "negotiate".

Fear? Uncertainty? Abuse?
C'mon of it. You don't get to play the victim card. This hasn't impacted you in the least.

Even the actual 3rd Party Publishers are getting out on top with more attention to their products and the potentially more open ORC license.
So far, this has been a net positive to the Open Gaming movement.

And, yeah, I'm arguing we should negotiate. Because I want this to end well. And it's not going to end with the 1.0a OGL still in effect. We need to work to a realistic outcome rather than clapping real hard and saying "I do believe in OGLFairies."

 

[MoonSong]

That's a brilliant plan. If EnPublishing can't retract their contribution from the OGC commons "post-deauthorization", neither can WotC. There would be precedent against it.

It would work even better if it was about something OGC that doesn't have WotC in the copyright notices.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

So far, this has been a net positive to the Open Gaming movement.

I disagree. There's a lot of orphaned content lost in that licensing structure now. If they can "deauthorize" the whole thing, we're not allowed to use any of it. And we're not allowed to use any of it under a new structure like the ORC either, unless the updated OGL expressly allows that.

And, yeah, I'm arguing we should negotiate. Because I want this to end well. And it's not going to end with the 1.0a OGL still in effect. We need to work to a realistic outcome rather than clapping real hard and saying "I do believe in OGLFairies."

I would probably accept an armed robbery as a fait accompli too. But they're not pointing a loaded gun at anyone. They've just gone to great lengths to convince people that they do, with some very unsavory techniques of psychological manipulation involved to achieve that. It saddens me to see that it's working so well.

 

[raniE]

Then there is a very good chance you get nothing. Are you willing to accept that?

I don’t think that chance is that high, but yes. Hasbro needs me. I don’t need Hasbro.

 

[raniE]

It's not a "lie." It's a dubious legal move.
And it's really only that if they don't win: there's lots of lawyers on both sides who can argue one way or another. It'd come down to a judge. WotC wouldn't be attempting this if they weren't certain they had decent odds in court.

The idea that a company wouldn’t do a thing if that thing was stupid really needs to die. It is entirely divorced from reality. Companies do stupid naughty word all the time.

Not that they need to defend it. By allowing Paizo to keep selling old products and giving them ample time to get out ORC and release their future content under that, they've guaranteed Paizo doesn't need to go to court or fight.

You do know there are more entities than Paizo and Hasbro in the world, right?