Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[jgerman]

I have to say though, since White Wolf came out with its guidelines saying "your characters are derivative IP and we own them" just a couple months ago, I don't have that same safe feeling WotC won't do the same.

Just because they say it, doesn't make it so.

For that matter just because WotC sends a C&D, doesn't mean they're correct... even if the site gets taken down. Whether or not either of these recent people/sites/whatever were actually infringing on WotC's copyright isn't for WotC or the alleged infringer to decide. It's up to a court. It's certainly not as black and white as people make it out to be despite how often the phrase "it's clear that" gets used by both sides. In both of these cases, it's a non-issue. WotC accused someone of infringing on their copyright and rather than fight both sites gave up (or were forced to by their ISP).

The legal options to challenge claims of copyright infringement exist, whether they're worth pursuing for the "little guy" and how much bullying big corporations engage in to get their way are another story.

 

[Dausuul]

For that matter just because WotC sends a C&D, doesn't mean they're correct... even if the site gets taken down. Whether or not either of these recent people/sites/whatever were actually infringing on WotC's copyright isn't for WotC or the alleged infringer to decide. It's up to a court. It's certainly not as black and white as people make it out to be despite how often the phrase "it's clear that" gets used by both sides.

Ooookay... would you explain how posting big chunks of the Player's Handbook online, in a manner competing directly with WotC's own products, is not blatant copyright infringement?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(I am a lawyer. I'm not an IP lawyer. Please keep that in mind.)

I stopped reading this thread at page 19. If anybody's covered my points below since, I apologize.

If people are really interested in why it's a bad idea to allow the violation of copyright, beyond the diminishment of the IP's value, look up "estoppel," "waiver, implied," and "adverse possession" in a decent legal dictionary or good legal website.

These are very compelling legal arguments in nearly any context -- the first two especially, though the latter is particularly applicable to property concepts -- and while I can't say for certain that they apply to copyright enforcement, I'd be surprised if arguing for one or all wouldn't make a good case, in the event that WotC knowingly allowed copyright violations.

One other thing I'll mention just as a point of interest:

The thing about copyright law (and other facets of intellectual property law) is that it always lags behind technology. Up until 15 or 20 years ago, that wasn't a huge deal ... being 10 years behind technology didn't mean much. But now? Being 10 years behind technology is immense. You really never know, in IP litigation, when a judge is going to finally recognize that the gap between "how technology is actually used" and "how IP law assumes technology will be used" is -- relatively speaking -- getting wider and wider, and try to shrink it.

That's not a risk that the holder of a valuable IP is going to relish taking. (What are the implications of this in practice? Well, trying to figure out the answer to that is what makes it interesting ... )

Anyway, I agree with the people that say WotC is just making a smart business decision. I also agree with the people for whom this behavior diminishes WotC in their eyes. It surprises me how many people -- on both sides -- don't seem to recognize that these aren't mutually exclusive positions.

WotC is not the White Knight it used to be. Folks can make their purchasing decisions with that in mind.

 

[Cor Azer]

WotC is not the White Knight it used to be. Folks can make their purchasing decisions with that in mind.

To be fair, I don't think WotC was ever a White Knight. They make make games, and they likely enjoy playing games. But they are a business looking to make money - they purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.

And I agree about the lack of mutual exclusion. I think WotC were smart to call potential infringers on their actions, but it still sucks that it that a more fan/consumer friendly resolution wasn't possible (I do also realize the business and logistical barriers to such actions though).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[WotC] purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.

Again, these aren't mutually exclusive. (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")

I think WotC were smart to call potential infringers on their actions, but it still sucks that it that a more fan/consumer friendly resolution wasn't possible

Was it tried?

 

[xechnao]

Again, these aren't mutually exclusive. (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")

I can not see it the way you are seeing it. A roleplaying game like D&D means different things to different people. So "saving a game" is not something we can objectively agree upon its meaning here. But they did manage to make money out of it or so it seems.

 

[jgerman]

Ooookay... would you explain how posting big chunks of the Player's Handbook online, in a manner competing directly with WotC's own products, is not blatant copyright infringement?

I didn't make a claim either way. I'm sorry I'm not going to tilt at your strawman. I haven't seen either site nor am I a judge, and neither are you. Nor is anyone else that's taken part in this discussion.

Copyright infringement issues are not always black and white, particularly when fair use comes into play.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Only if the 'new' model worked.

Did the OGL work for WotC or did it hurt WotC?

The only reason I can fathom for the about turn in policy is that the whole open movement ultimately didn't work for WotC.

It reminds me a lot of the Apple clone wars. Apple opened up the hardware side to licensing and it ended up costing Apple far more than it could ever possibly make them. They tried, they failed, and now they're more successful than ever despite closing the platform up again and being utter tight fanny's.

Its not whether the OGL worked or not, that can be debated forever. It is more whether the execs currently in charge think it worked or not. Since the effects of the OGL are so difficult to put hard numbers too personal opinion and personal business philosophy are what will end up carrying the day.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

To be fair, I don't think WotC was ever a White Knight. They make make games, and they likely enjoy playing games. But they are a business looking to make money - they purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.

Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy.

Now of course the WotC of today is in no way the same WotC of 10 years ago.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A roleplaying game like D&D means different things to different people. So "saving a game" is not something we can objectively agree upon its meaning here.

We can't objectively agree that WotC saved D&D as a brand? Really? I mean, love 3E or hate it, D&D was all but dead when WotC bought TSR, wasn't it?