Database of Feats

[Michael Morris]

Hello all. I've begun work on a database of feats (which should in all likelihood be followed by a database of spells at the least). This database will be integrated with the messageboards in a couple of ways, one of which will be the ablity to link a feat simply putting its name between UUB codes, like so.

{feat}Name{/feat}

The database will be populated by the community supporters here at EN World - registered users will be able to see the SRD items in the database but will be unable to view any custom items submitted by users or submit any of their own. The submission works using the same underpinnings as normal posts (essentially the feats forum is a post forum with extra message fields for prerequisites, comments, etc.)

Now to the sticking point. How should, or for that matter 'should' the database contain the open gaming content of books? Before you give an answer, please read over some of the ideas running in my head over this.

First, it's not my wish to adversely impact anyone's income. If anything I would hope the feats database would allow publishers free advertising for their products. Also, I would like it to serve the purpose of being an undisputable open content version of the materials. So, here then is a chance for publishers to outline precisely how they wish their materials to appear if reprinted.

Now, for some ideas on insuring such a database doesn't undercut anyone. One or more of these might be used in varying combinations.

[h3]Passwording[/h3]
The most complicated way is to have the user provide some proof that they own the book before viewing the material. This password would be something like "Open your book to page 123 and enter the 3rd word at the top of the 3rd paragraph." Alternately, the user could be required to enter the book's UPC code (the number beneath the bar code on the book for those unfamiliar with the term).

Problems:
Against a dedicated hacker this is more gesture than effective measure, but then again so is everything. A technical problem is that an extra datafield will have to be added to the users database (not so much of a problem, but it will require a shutdown of the server for about an hour to implement - updating 13,000 user fields is not a walk in the park).

[h3]Hobbled System[/h3]
Set the database up so that a given user can only look for X feats in a given time period before the system won't provide more feats. Note that I'm tempted to allow registered users to take 3 peaks / day anyway to encourage more community supporter accounts.

Problems:
More annoyance than barrier, and alts wouldn't be affected unless IP tracking is employed.

[h3]Subscription System[/h3]
This third setup, similar to vbulletin.org, put's the burden of sorting out who should and shouldn't view the files to the publishers in the following manner: Each publisher would maintain users list either at ENWorld or on their own machine that contains the user ids of those they want to have access to the feats from their products. Payments beyond those required to have a community supporters account are left up to the publishers.

Problems:
Pricing would be a sticky issue for many, and the larger publishers would have a pricing advantage over their peers. Also, arguments might erupt in cases where one publisher has reprinted another's work under the OGL and pricing is different.

[h3]Moratorium Approach[/h3]
My personal favorite approach, possibly because I think it would be the most effective but also because I know it's the easiest of all these to implement is a simple moratorium approach. Simply - no feats will be reprinted here until 6 months have passed since their release.

Problems:
The real patient community supporters are getting a bargain of sorts. However, many of them I feel may choose to make a purchase based on what they see here.

[h3]Legal Issues[/h3]
I am not a lawyer, but I am keenly interested in what steps must be taken to make sure that this database will comply with the OGL license.

Well, brainstorm over - I'm going back to coding on this thing.

 

[Yair]

I am not a publisher, nor a layer. However, I don't see how can you establish the OGC-status of submissions.
Unlike a published book, posts have no real "parent"; you cannot charge someone with violation the copyrights of someone if he posts a feat that is not OGC, or posts an OGC feat without proper Section 15 indication. With a (potentially) huge number of posters, some of which don't care at all about legalities or will simply make mistakes, and without the legal incentive to do things legally, I believe mistakes can easily creep in to the database. How can you verify that all submissions are legal OGC? That's an awful lot of work (potentially), that carries a legal responsibility.
A person can also change a feat. Suppose I submit a feat that has been published from antoher author, but I changes something. This is not the publisher's feat anymore, *I* own the copyrights to it (only subject to OGL terms, of course). What will be its status in your schemes?

Even if all the posters try to do right, there will still be problems and disputes, as there are problems and disputes regarding the interpretation of the OGL (which will persist until decided by the courts, I believe). For example, suppose I wanted to post the "Lace Spell: Elemental Energies" feat from Monte Cook's Book of Eldritch Might. His OGC declaration goes something like "all material wholly derived from OGC is OGC" [this is not a quote]. The name isn't *wholly* derived from the OGC; should I post it under another? There are bound to be disputes overl what *is* wholly derived from the OGC. Worse yet, at least some parts of the feat description (if not all of it) can be said to be "derivative work under copyright law" from OGC, which the OGL specifically says should be OGC.
If a publisher (re)published these feats, he should be ready to be prosecuted by Monte, and (probably) will consider his wording very seriously and make sure he is within the law (if he decided all that, plus possible trial costs, are worth his time). Are you willing to defend the posts of the myriad ENWorld posters in court?

I may be wooried about nothing. I doubt any publisher will actualy sue.
I don't think a board-based feat database can become a verfiable source for OGC, but I would love to be proven wrong.
I do think it can become an excellent source for gamers looking for feats, however.

For the record, I am for the Moratorium approach, but I am not a publisher so that doesn't count.

 

[Bretbo]

Don't know if this is in line with your idea, but you could contact the publisher of each product that has Feats you want to include and get their permission. It may not even be necessary, but it would at least be polite.

 

[Michael Morris]

I am not a publisher, nor a layer. However, I don't see how can you establish the OGC-status of submissions.

I'm not sure on this since many publishers have been very vague on their IP declarations. This is something that Clark would surely know more about.

Unlike a published book, posts have no real "parent"; you cannot charge someone with violation the copyrights of someone if he posts a feat that is not OGC, or posts an OGC feat without proper Section 15 indication. With a (potentially) huge number of posters, some of which don't care at all about legalities or will simply make mistakes, and without the legal incentive to do things legally, I believe mistakes can easily creep in to the database. How can you verify that all submissions are legal OGC? That's an awful lot of work (potentially), that carries a legal responsibility.

First off, we're not talking about all posters here - we're talking about the community supporters only. Registered users (the vast majority) will not have access to the ability to post feats. No user will be able to edit feats they didn't post. And if there is a problem in accuracy / the workload gets to be a bit much, it will be a simple matter to trim down the number of folks who have editting priveledges in the database, or even posting priveledges.

As for a legal responsibility - not necessarily. It has been established by the courts that messageboards and online publishers have the right but not the responsibility to edit posts for content. Any legal ramifications for posting material that isn't open content therefore lie with the poster alone. This isn't to say we're going to sit back and let someone post every feat from The Complete Warrior or some such - at the very least I forsee a warning from the moderators and possibly a revokation of posting privledges in that database.

I need to stress that since this database is integrated with Vbulletin the administration and moderators will have at their disposal each and every tool to edit posts and sanction users in the feats database that they now have elsewhere on the site. If you post large amounts of text from any book here, you could get in trouble with the moderators. The feats database will be no different from normal posts in that regard.

Incidently, as far as the Vbulletin program is concerned the feats database will just be another forum that happens to have a couple of extra fields (feat type, brief description, prereqs, etc).

A person can also change a feat. Suppose I submit a feat that has been published from antoher author, but I changes something. This is not the publisher's feat anymore, *I* own the copyrights to it (only subject to OGL terms, of course). What will be its status in your schemes?

Be aware that when you make a post to any messageboard you are, thru the act of posting, granting the owners of the messageboard the right to distribute that content. ENWorld, for better or worse, doesn't specifically outline its rights in this regard in the Terms of Service - probably to avoid seeming a bit draconian. It isn't unusual for messageboards to claim the right to distribute the material you submit to them in any form and for any purpose they deem fit in order to legally cover their tails.

Any change that Russ chooses to make to the ENWorld TOS (or Rules of Conduct) are his decision - but be aware he has the right make the decision to make such a change at any time.

If a publisher (re)published these feats, he should be ready to be prosecuted by Monte, and (probably) will consider his wording very seriously and make sure he is within the law (if he decided all that, plus possible trial costs, are worth his time). Are you willing to defend the posts of the myriad ENWorld posters in court?

Again, the 9th circuit court has already made it clear - ENWorld (and any other messageboard) has the right, but not the responsibility to edit your posts. You, and you alone, bear ultimate responsibility for what you post should it be in violation of the law.

I may be wooried about nothing. I doubt any publisher will actualy sue.
I don't think a board-based feat database can become a verfiable source for OGC, but I would love to be proven wrong.
I do think it can become an excellent source for gamers looking for feats, however.

For the record, I am for the Moratorium approach, but I am not a publisher so that doesn't count.

This thread is here to open a dialogue with the publishers regarding the nature of this database before it goes online. If I wasn't interested in what they had to say, I'd just get Russ' green light and launch it as soon as it was ready. However, our publishers are a valued member of our community and I certainly wish to conduct a service such as this one in a manner they find both amicable and acceptable.

 

[Nellisir]

The database will be populated by the community supporters here at EN World - registered users will be able to see the SRD items in the database but will be unable to view any custom items submitted by users or submit any of their own.

By community supporter you mean paid membership? And registered user means unpaid membership?

Thanks
Nell.

 

[Michael Morris]

By community supporter you mean paid membership? And registered user means unpaid membership?

Thanks
Nell.

Yes. The plan is for the databases to join the search feature, custom user titles, etc. on the lisk of paid membership perks.

 

[Conaill]

Sounds very ambitious. And possibly legally risky. Yes, 9t circuit court blah blah... but if some companies start to complain and threathen legal action, you do *not* want to have to deal with that sort of crap.

Anyway... Just to get this started, it may be wise to restrict the right to enter data to a *very* limited set of people, possibly just the admins at first. I would start by putting in all the SRD feats (shouldn't take too long since you have them in digital forma anyway), and then contact one or two publishers that you think would be very open to support this development - ideally ones you think may be willing to give you an electronic copy of their feats.

That way, when you make the database available it'll still be read-only, but will already have all of the SRD, plus a number of non-SRD feats available. That will enable you to drum up interest from users *and* from other publishers. And in the meantime, you can work out the kinks regarding user-submitted feats.

From your first post it seems like you've put a lot of thought into how to restrict read-access to the database. Do you think that will even be necessary? The DB itself will be much smaller than the whole ENWorld forums DB, so performance should not be a problem. And implementing a password or subscription service to access *open* content would rub an awful lot of people the wrong way.

A moratorium may be useful to keep some publishers happy, but if they publish under the OGL, they don't really have any legal leg to stand on. It's more of a courtesy towards the publishers - but also a major drawback for the users! Ideally you'd want this DB to become so popular that the publishers realize it's in their best interest to submit their feats. Which is why you should try to start with the full SRD plus one or two OGL-friendly publishers right from the beginning.

 

[Conaill]

Hope we haven't scared you away from doing the database. I do think it could be a tremendous resource for the community! (Just in case that didn't come through in my previous post.)

 

[kingpaul]

Netbook of Feats, version #10

 

[smetzger]

Netbook of Feats, version #10

Wahooo, Wahoo, I got feat of the month... It's my Birthday... It's my Birthday.