Did WotC Effectively KILL the En World community's conversion process?

[Mark]

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply otherwise - I was simply stating that most of the intellectual property will probably never be published in an updated form again as a fact. Not saying that it should ever be published again, just not practical, no money in it - no blame intended. Just that it probably won't, and that's that.

Something that is merely probable is, by its very nature, not a "fact"...

 

[spunky_mutters]

What I meant was that trademarks are generally the only type of IP requiring active policing by the holder to maintain. Copyright can be policed on a strictly optional basis without prejudicing your chances of defence further down the line. That said, you never really know how these things are going to fall out in court, so it's probably not worth their money to even have to worry about the IP from their back catalogue getting out in the open (and then wanting to resurrect something from it later).

 

[rounser]

Something that is merely probable is, by its very nature, not a "fact"...

You're right - it's not a fact. But if WotC ever republishes the entirety of D&D intellectual property in a form updated to a new edition, I will eat the door to my residence.

 

[Mark]

What I meant was that trademarks are generally the only type of IP requiring active policing by the holder to maintain. Copyright can be policed on a strictly optional basis without prejudicing your chances of defence further down the line. That said, you never really know how these things are going to fall out in court, so it's probably not worth their money to even have to worry about the IP from their back catalogue getting out in the open (and then wanting to resurrect something from it later).

I suspect that the trademarks and copyrights would be so bound up together in the package of a conversion that it would be very difficult to defend one without, by default, defending the other in the case of conversions. It's why I stuck with using property as my terminology. Perhaps not the proper "legal" way of approaching the discussion...but I'm no lawyer...

 

[spunky_mutters]

Yeah, actually this is starting to make we want to go to sleep. That's probably a good thing. I think it all comes down to there being not enough money in it for them to put in the resources to come up with another solution.

 

[Mark]

You're right - it's not a fact. But if WotC ever republishes the entirety of D&D intellectual property in a form updated to a new edition, I will eat the door to my residence.

If that day comes I hope you have the good fortune to have just closed with a gingerbread man...

I suppose the point of defending properties such as those in question is not because all of it is deemed re-publishable, but rather that it needs to be defended in case any given part of it may or may not be re-publishable.

I do not own a flash light because I always need it for light. I own a flashlight because I sometimes need light and I know that it sometimes gets dark.

 

[dcollins]

WotC put time and manpower into creating a legal way in which folks could pursue conversions.

The additional thorny issue is that the supposed agreement to cover conversions is very poorly written, with a lot of questionable claims in it. It was written and released on the same week as a number of departures at WOTC, which make some suspect it wasn't fully proofread.

The most obvious error is the reference to a d20(tm) trademark instead of a d20 System(tm) trademark. A representative at one point tried to rationalize this, but it doesn't bear up under scrutiny.

 

[S'mon]

I think, perhaps, that copyright law deserves the frown in this case - on the surface of it, I think that losing your copyright if you "don't defend it" leaves a lot to be desired, as far as laws go. Sounds like a overly simple attempt at a blanket solution to a complex problem.

It's not true - you can't lose copyright by not defending it, even in the USA. It's Trademarks that can be lost by not being defended.

 

[Mark]

The additional thorny issue is that the supposed agreement to cover conversions is very poorly written, with a lot of questionable claims in it. It was written and released on the same week as a number of departures at WOTC, which make some suspect it wasn't fully proofread.

The most obvious error is the reference to a d20(tm) trademark instead of a d20 System(tm) trademark. A representative at one point tried to rationalize this, but it doesn't bear up under scrutiny.

Thorny in what way? What claims are questionable? Were the departures inclusive of members of their legal department? It sounds like you are correct about the trademark mis-claim, but aside from that can you be specific?

Perhaps with some real dialog rather than sweeping statements that are not supported a new document can be garnered...

 

[green slime]

Mark, that is true. It isn't really the fault of WotC. Somewhere, it is the fault of a legal monkey.

But as I can't even suggest changes in the document, as to how to put it all together smoothly, people lose interest in creating a document that is suitable for others to read. I was looking forward to converting several modules.

Converting for home use is dead easy. Actually formatting and making that information accesible to others is a chore. Home use just needs a few odd scratches here or there in the sidelines, and can be adjusted by a decent DM on the fly. By making a list of encounters available and calling it a module, it is asking a less experienced DM to place their campaign on the line.

Pity that the leeway isn't there. I understand the reasons, but I don't like them.