Glade Riven
Adventurer
They want to use the threat of a lawsuit but it's pretty obvious they really, really don't want to end up in court over the OGL (which is why they keep including "you can't sue" language).
2 books (on dndbeyond) = 60 dollars.
12*7 = 84 dollars.
This is 144 dollars. Not that bad.
15 Million * 144 would be enough to make everyone at hasbro happy.
This makes only 3% of your total expenditures?
144/0.03 = 4800
IF your wife finds out, your done.
If you don't respect your customer base you quickly find you don't have much of a customer base.
Glade Riven said:...the problem is the executives brought in the last 5-ish years. They don't seem to understand what business they are in.
Nah, they know - I was just kidding. I think they figure my Dwarven Forge problem is a lot cheaper than me buying a new sportscar or something.2 books (on dndbeyond) = 60 dollars.
12*7 = 84 dollars.
This is 144 dollars. Not that bad.
15 Million * 144 would be enough to make everyone at hasbro happy.
This makes only 3% of your total expenditures?
144/0.03 = 4800
IF your wife finds out, your done.
Depends on what you mean by fighting it.But I'd argue that it's still important to fight for it.
The more I read from attorneys, here and on other sites, the less certain about that I become. Because as I understand it, here's what has to happen for a court battle to take place:If you mean fighting the claim that 1.0a can be deauthorized, that is for the courts. Paizo already made it clear they're ready for that battle, so it will happen
They've had a year where most of their films didn't make money or barely broke even after marketing.
Avatar 2: $2B and counting - The only real hit they've had because never bet against James Cameron. Also he's still working under an older 21st Century Fox contract and has more independence than other Disney-owned production teams.
Doc Strange 2: $955MM - Made money, barely due to marketing costs
Black Panther 2: $840MM - Broke even due to marketing costs.
Thor 4: $770MM - Maybe broke even due to marketing costs.
Spider-Man: No Way Home: $1.9MM - very successful but had to split with Sony.
Every one of these movies was expected by Disney to make a billion.
Disney has also been over-spending money on streaming and lost a lot of the tertiary market by burning licensing deals and DVD residuals by focusing on their streaming platform.
In a post-Spiderman: No Way Home paradigm. Or Top Gun. Or Avatar 2: Way of Water. All the movies that failed to break a billion were greenlit under Iger. Who is now back in charge? Which is weird.In the pre-pandemic paradigm.
Sure, it's really unlikely that a court battle will ever take place over this. But the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) around the possibility of a court case is enough to dissuade any small publisher from trying to use the OGL as is. WotC doesn't need to take it to court; they just have to maintain the potential implicit threat to do so.The more I read from attorneys, here and on other sites, the less certain about that I become. Because as I understand it, here's what has to happen for a court battle to take place:
1) WotC goes ahead and officially declared the OGL v1.0a to be revoked/de-authorized as of a specific date.
2) Some publisher declares "damn the torpedoes!" and keeps publishing new content under it.
3) WotC sends them a cease and desist letter. [Optional]
4) The publisher files for declaratory judgment. [Optional]
5) WotC files suit against the publisher for copyright infringement.
6) The publisher counters, saying that they're not infringing on WotC's copyright because they're publishing under the OGL v1.0a.
7) WotC points out that they de-authorized/revoked the OGL v1.0a, so the license is invalid, and thus the publisher's stuff infringes their copyrights.
8) Either a judge or a jury decides who's right.
9) Appeals are filed; if accepted, go back to step 5 and repeat.
Now, steps three and four are, as noted, optional; I'm given to understand that the whole "declaratory judgment" thing is basically a step that doesn't legally force anyone to do anything.
What's more notable is how unlikely steps 2 and 5 are; most publishers aren't going to want to operate in an environment where they're essentially courting a lawsuit with a multinational corporation, while Hasbro doesn't seem to care nearly as much about a tiny publisher (and compared to them, all other TTRPG publishers are tiny) doing their own thing; they're in it for the VTT subscriptions/micro-transactions.
So we might not get the court battle that a lot of people are expecting.
Yes, I think everyone knows CC can't be backtracked at this point. The problem is the two decades worth of material under OGL licence that can't be used under CC, but also can't be safely used under OGL.Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.
It's a better case, but never discount a lawyer's ability to find loopholes, especially when you've got a team in your pocket.Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.