Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[billd91]

So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?

Hard to say.
I think it's safer to say that the OGL can be in a company's commercial interests or not depending on the company's strategy and how well they can use it to promote their commercial interests. I think it's also safe to say that it's an untraditional RPG publishing model that Hasbro might not have favored or been interested in pursuing as a strategy. I think you could also argue that WotC, once Adkinson was gone, wasn't entirely clear on how to make the most of the OGL either.

 

[Spatula]

Was it tried?

What would a realistic "more fan/consumer friendly resolution" have looked like? I'm having troubling grasping these complaints, along with the "WotC should have hired these people" statements.

I haven't seen the particular sites that got taken down, but I have seen other power card sites. They offer:
* a particular design & layout for 4e powers. WotC already has design/layout people, as far as hiring goes.
* a copy & paste job from the PHB.
* alleged trademark violations. (I haven't seen the site so I don't know how true this is)
* the latest site to be taken down created a sheet that had just the powers you wanted on it. WotC's character builder app pretty much already does this.

Remove the illegal content and you're left with power card templates, which are already out there on the net for fans/consumers. And apparently the site owners felt that absent the protected content that was reproduced without permission, they didn't have much to offer the community.

 

[xechnao]

Hard to say.
I think it's safer to say that the OGL can be in a company's commercial interests or not depending on the company's strategy and how well they can use it to promote their commercial interests. I think it's also safe to say that it's an untraditional RPG publishing model that Hasbro might not have favored or been interested in pursuing as a strategy. I think you could also argue that WotC, once Adkinson was gone, wasn't entirely clear on how to make the most of the OGL either.

I was not asking about the OGL. I was asking about Adkinson's intentions regarding the OGL.

Now my take on the OGL is that it is a "mode" that can be sound to use depending on the conditions of the market. Wotc used it to grow the market. When the market grew up to a certain point it could grow no more or started collapsing on itself Wotc retires the OGL so to take control of that market. Taking control while you are on the OGL mode is harder.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?

No. Ryan Dancy said both that the OGL would raise the tide and float all boats, and that the OGL would protect the game forever against changes that people didn't like. The OGL did increase the pie for everyone, but Hasbro has decided to make drastic changes and has a different opinion of open source. Because of the OGL however 3.x will forever be available to those that prefer it. The OGL achieved both of its goals.

 

[VictorC]

This is clearly not a gray area. Two peoples' web sites got the boot for breaking the law. Wizards is not obligated to let it go or offer jobs to either of the offenders.

To suggest otherwise is crazy, or (and more likely) people just wanting something to bitch about. Really grow up.

 

[xechnao]

No. Ryan Dancy said both that the OGL would raise the tide and float all boats, and that the OGL would protect the game forever against changes that people didn't like. The OGL did increase the pie for everyone, but Hasbro has decided to make drastic changes and has a different opinion of open source. Because of the OGL however 3.x will forever be available to those that prefer it. The OGL achieved both of its goals.

I do not believe that Hasbro has a different opinion of open source (see my post above). Regarding the "protection" of 3e you are talking about then yes this is something that the OGL has achieved. But I do not believe this is so important in the long run. It helped Paizo though versus 4e. Wotc pays some price here but perhaps it is worth it for how the OGL helped it first place.

 

[Alzrius]

This is clearly not a gray area. Two peoples' web sites got the boot for breaking the law. Wizards is not obligated to let it go or offer jobs to either of the offenders.

To suggest otherwise is crazy, or (and more likely) people just wanting something to bitch about. Really grow up.

Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar. They're not obligated to let it go or offer you a job. To suggest otherwise is crazy.

 

[VictorC]

Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar. They're not obligated to let it go or offer you a job. To suggest otherwise is crazy.

True Story, and if I was sent a letter telling me to stop using it. The last thing I would do is throw a completely irrational fit and say that because I'm a fan who buys their products I'm entitled to use their IP how I see fit.

However, seeing as how I don't have a web site offering Victor's bitchin' Tanis face, I don't think it's the same thing. Do you, really?

 

[Fifth Element]

Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar.

Actually, that might be grey. Such a small amount of artwork used may fall under fair use, after all.

 

[DaveMage]

Actually, that might be grey. Such a small amount of artwork used may fall under fair use, after all.

Oh? Where's the line?