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

[jasamcarl]

While it may be true that WotC's decision was based on a desire to protect their property, there are many, many ways of doing that -- the route they chose immediately removed from circulation hundreds of conversions already made (conversions made *with their permission*, no less) and completely destroyed the momentum that the conversion library had gathered over 2+ years.

I, too, am no lawyer. But I firmly believe that the way they handled the issue was very over the top. It's no surprise that people are unwilling to build the conversion library back up. I'm not willing to put the effort in, not knowing what will happen in two years when WotC change their minds again.

As a non-lawyer, I would imagine that meeting any property protection requirements could have been done simply by requiring a predefined statement on the web page where the conversions are stored. Deleting the entire library and starting again was, in my opinion, an unfair demand.

That would not have done it. Trademark law is set up the way it is for a reason; a company has to take draconian measures, because they act as a demonstration of the owner's commitment to intellectual property and presumably their willingness to invest in it in the future. Not making it retroactive would have opened serious questions as to this commitment, because it would have diluted the identity of both the adventures in question as well as the facets of the D20 trademark that comprise the SRD. The lack of convenience isn't a glitch, but a feature.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

a company has to take draconian measures, because they act as a demonstration of the owner's commitment to intellectual property and presumably their willingness to invest in it in the future.

Completely incorrect. A company has to take *some* action to actively defend its trademarks, but this need not be draconian or heavy-handed, it simply needs to be. And it has nothing to do with demonstrating future intentions, it merely has to do with not abandoning it to "squatter's rights" claimants. Trademark defense actions are essentially re-staking one's territory when a possible claimant comes along.

A company can enter into agreements allowing the use of its trademarks in ways it deems not to be dilutions, and these can be based on simple gentleman's agreements as per the original conversion agreements. As long as reasonable good-faith efforts are made to ensure the continued definition of one's trademarks, then the company has done enough. Requiring a simple declaration of the form "all intellectual property and trademarks used herein belong to WoTC and are used by permission" would have been enough. Draconian measures are simply the easy way out for a company uninterested in investing some time and effort to getting it right and maintaining a little customer goodwill.

 

[dcollins]

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...

I would identify the following:

(1) Title is "ESD Conversion Agreement", when in fact it mostly covers conversions for printed products.
(2) Said to cover "1ST AND 2ND D&D®/ AD&D® EDITION" which is odd phrasing (actual products labelled as "2nd Edition AD&D, et. al.), and seems to leave out Original or Basic-Expert D&D products.
(3) Reference to a d20(tm) System trademark (not d20 System(tm) trademark).
(4) The rambling paragraph which includes "Don’t be fooled by unauthorized conversions you may find all over the Internet..." which is more promotional than a legal agreement.
(5) "Wizards shall be the sole source of the original materials, whether they have been obtained as ESDs, scanned, or otherwise procured.", when WOTC does not actually sell ESDs anymore, but rather now SVGames.com is the legal seller.
(6) "You must clearly identify the ESD that has been converted, and it is customary to provide a link to the Wizards Web page where the ESD may be downloaded." when (a) most prior D&D products are not available as ESDs, and (b) again there is in fact no Wizards Web Page where they are sold.
(7) "You are only granted permission to convert the ESD" again contradicts paragraph 1 in which print publications are allowed for conversions.
(8) Specific claim that "the d20 System logo and d20 are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used with permission.", wherin it explicitly distinguishes between a d20 System logo and a d20(tm) trademark.
(9) Specified link to conversion policy, http://www.wizards.com/d20/conversionpolicy.asp no longer valid.
(10) Requirement to include a link to a http://www.wizards.com page for the ESD which does not exist.
(11) Requirement to include a copyright notice of “[insert title here], © [ insert copyright date from the product you are converting ] Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” even if the product itself has a printed copyright notice not by WOTC (e.g., printed copyright notice likely TSR).
(12) Ability to terminate license at any time, along with a requirement to destroy all copies anyone possesses immediately upon termination. Certainly this is a part of some legal agreements (specifically, confidentiality agreements), but very undesirable in this case.

 

[jasamcarl]

<deleted in light of recent research>

 

[jasamcarl]

Completely incorrect. A company has to take *some* action to actively defend its trademarks, but this need not be draconian or heavy-handed, it simply needs to be. And it has nothing to do with demonstrating future intentions, it merely has to do with not abandoning it to "squatter's rights" claimants. Trademark defense actions are essentially re-staking one's territory when a possible claimant comes along.

A company can enter into agreements allowing the use of its trademarks in ways it deems not to be dilutions, and these can be based on simple gentleman's agreements as per the original conversion agreements. As long as reasonable good-faith efforts are made to ensure the continued definition of one's trademarks, then the company has done enough. Requiring a simple declaration of the form "all intellectual property and trademarks used herein belong to WoTC and are used by permission" would have been enough. Draconian measures are simply the easy way out for a company uninterested in investing some time and effort to getting it right and maintaining a little customer goodwill.

Or for a company that doesn't think most customers care enough to justify the expense. Its a service that only a few are likely to use. And yes, there are ambiguities in trademark law that are opened up once you start differentiating between sights. Its easier just to define one clear, rigid standard, otherwise one's intentions are in doubt, notably for those who are downloading or creating conversions, if not for the courts.

 

[D'karr]

To answer the original question of this thread...

Yes, WotC effectively killed the conversion process.

How?

Because in essence they said, "Don't adjust anything that doesn't make sense in the original. Your job is to make a straight conversion with no regards for how balanced it might be."

Then why in the hell even put an effort into making a conversion? If a room had 20 hill giants in a first edition module it was still going to have 20 hill giants in the conversion. No matter whether that particular encounter would be balanced for a party of 4 or not. So you were forced to make a conversion into something that most of the time made no sense from a 3e balance standpoint.

Whoever decided to use your work would have to once again make a conversion to match the 3e philosophy. So why bother? It was just wasted effort.

WotC should have promulgated a conversion philosophy that allowed the person converting the freedom to balance the encounters to fit 3e. In other words follow the spirit of the encounter instead of the letter of it.

How could this have been handled better? The converter could have still provided the original encounter numbers as published (the letter of the conversion). However, the person converting could then make a suggestion of how to balance that encounter to handle 3e balance (the spirit of the conversion).

Unfortunately the way WotC decided to work this out essentially hobbled the whole approach.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Or for a company that doesn't think most customers care enough to justify the expense.

You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to. Whatever their reasons, it's purposely avoiding doing the "right" thing (even if for only a small segment of their customers, I grant) based on other factors than what's best for the customer. When a company chooses their own interests over my own, I sit up and take notice.

Doesn't make them evil and deserving of hatred, but it doesn't make them our buddies from whom we should forgive all wrongs, either. This could have gone down a lot easier for all involved had other decisions been made.

 

[jasamcarl]

You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to. Whatever their reasons, it's purposely avoiding doing the "right" thing (even if for only a small segment of their customers, I grant) based on other factors than what's best for the customer. When a company chooses their own interests over my own, I sit up and take notice.

Doesn't make them evil and deserving of hatred, but it doesn't make them our buddies from whom we should forgive all wrongs, either. This could have gone down a lot easier for all involved had other decisions been made.

Your not one of those people who equates the 'right' thing with their own interests are they? How would that have been morally more sound than using the resources to create products which large numbers of people are actually willing to PAY for? The key to the market system is that in the end, both agents benefit. If Wotc were to cow down to a small minority in making descicions in resource allocation, they would not in the end be able to provide product for the much wider market, who have conclusivly proven their preference by purchasing new 3e product. And without clear signs of profit, wotc couldn't help Hasbro gather the capital neccessary to make it a viable publicly traded company. And without that type of support, you wouldn't see the high production quality and circulation that in turn provides the network extranality, etc, etc.

Let's just say that when the 'right' thing is defined by a small minority of consumers in any given market and doesn't make good business sense, it probably isn't really the right thing, either by the definition of the public at large or, in the long run, the market that is being served...

Peace..

 

[Mark]

OK. I'm seeing the following suggestions being offered as potential changes to the conversion policy. If I have missed any, please let me know.

(1) Title is "ESD Conversion Agreement", when in fact it mostly covers conversions for printed products.

I am not sure but I believe that refers to the electronic output, rather than what form the original is in. I may be wrong.

(2) Said to cover "1ST AND 2ND D&D®/ AD&D® EDITION" which is odd phrasing (actual products labelled as "2nd Edition AD&D, et. al.), and seems to leave out Original or Basic-Expert D&D products.

That is odd. This might be better delineated as a list, rather than trying to encompass all of the potential conversion sources with a phrase, perhaps with a "catch all" phrase added to the end that better sums up the intent. That should make it more clear. Can you help by compiling a suggested list to replace their unclear phrasing?

(3) Reference to a d20(tm) System trademark (not d20 System(tm) trademark).

That is something they need to clean up no matter how much further they make adjustments to the conversion policy. It would seem to be in their own interest to do so, and is worthwhile to include on the list of adjustments we are suggesting for this list.

(4) The rambling paragraph which includes "Don’t be fooled by unauthorized conversions you may find all over the Internet..." which is more promotional than a legal agreement.

That's their privelege, of course, as the owners of the property and is a way while allowing conversions to re-emphasize that only conversions following policy are acceptable. Is it really a problem for this to be included when they are being kind enough to allow conversions at all? They do not legally have to allow conversions, and I think its a bit much to dictate the terms to them under which that will happen. I'd have to suggest to let this particular battle drop regarding this section of the policy.

(5) "Wizards shall be the sole source of the original materials, whether they have been obtained as ESDs, scanned, or otherwise procured.", when WOTC does not actually sell ESDs anymore, but rather now SVGames.com is the legal seller.

Regardless of who is selling them, WotC is still the source (owner of the property), if I take the meaning of this correctly. If I am wrong, or you do not think this can be read in that way, please let me know.

(6) "You must clearly identify the ESD that has been converted, and it is customary to provide a link to the Wizards Web page where the ESD may be downloaded." when (a) most prior D&D products are not available as ESDs, and (b) again there is in fact no Wizards Web Page where they are sold.

I think this one is tricky. WotC needs to be the conduit whereby people eventually can find the source material for a conversion, even if they do not do this well. The conversion will be around for quite some time, probably, and their contracts with re-sellers of ESDs can change over that time. It would likely be good for them to have things point to the conversion policy page and for that page to include links to whatever the current page that has downloads, or links to downloads, or whatever, but this, again, is in their province to determine. It's worth keeping on the list of suggested adjustments, I think, but in the end has little to do with our own goal of making conversions easier.

If the concern is that the end user of a conversion have the opportunity to track down the source material, this is best accomplished through them now, and in the future as those downloads can change locations over time. This could use some rewording so the end user doesn't start with the belief that a single click will have them finding the original material. It could be more clear.

(7) "You are only granted permission to convert the ESD" again contradicts paragraph 1 in which print publications are allowed for conversions.

See above.

(8) Specific claim that "the d20 System logo and d20 are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used with permission.", wherin it explicitly distinguishes between a d20 System logo and a d20(tm) trademark.

I see and agree this needs to be cleaned up and I think they would have to agree as well.

(9) Specified link to conversion policy, http://www.wizards.com/d20/conversionpolicy.asp no longer valid.

That, also, is something they need to clean up no matter how much further they make adjustments to the conversion policy. It is in their own interest to do so, but is certainly something that can be on this list of suggested adjustments.

(10) Requirement to include a link to a http://www.wizards.com page for the ESD which does not exist.

As per above, they do need a page that directs people to the original material which I would suggest is best accomplished with the single conversion page having links (updated as needed) to whereever those can be downloaded.

(11) Requirement to include a copyright notice of “[insert title here], © [ insert copyright date from the product you are converting ] Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” even if the product itself has a printed copyright notice not by WOTC (e.g., printed copyright notice likely TSR).

This seems to be the proper way to do things, though we'd have to ask a lawyer. When something is converted it probably does need to re-assert the copyright and do so in deference to the current copyright holder.

(12) Ability to terminate license at any time, along with a requirement to destroy all copies anyone possesses immediately upon termination. Certainly this is a part of some legal agreements (specifically, confidentiality agreements), but very undesirable in this case.

I think this is another one of the things that is their privelege and probably something they have to legally include. The policy is "their current policy" and I doubt they want to set it up to force anyone purchasing the rights (possibly happening in the future) to also follow that policy. They are being generous with their property and I do not think it behooves anyone to dictate the manner in which they legally protect their property or the way that property might be affected if they choose to sell it. We are not asking them to devalue their property while allowing us to use it. Unless you have a strong argument for why this change behooves everyone involved, I'd have to suggest this is a non-issue for people making conversions.

Remember, we're not telling them how to make policy, we're suggesting some adjustments to the policy that make it easier to make viable conversions.

...promulgated a conversion philosophy that allowed the person converting the freedom to balance the encounters to fit 3e. In other words follow the spirit of the encounter instead of the letter of it.

Along with the "grandfathering of previous conversions provided they follow policy", this seems to be the biggest sticky point in the conversion policy. Giving something to the public that they cannot find useful is not a gift at all, I suppose. What sort of language (remembering it would need to be eventually cleaned up by lawyers and made contractually binding in its final form) would you suggest for this point?

Any other points to make? I have to repeat what I wrote above "Remember, we're not telling them how to make policy, we're suggesting some adjustments to the policy that make it easier to make viable conversions." Let's keep that goal in mind while working toward a list of suggested adjustments so that we can affect a positive change and have those suggestions taken seriously. We'd rather they look on us as partners in a joint effort than see us as demanding fans who are asking for something for nothing.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I think the WotC threw the biggest monkeywrench in the conversion process by not putting some basic core monsters (mind flayers, beholders, etc.) in the SRD. Because of this, people can't use the monsters in the conversions of modules, and any of the many modules which include them are thus missing large parts or unable to be converted at all.