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

[Mark]

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.

That's a bad break but it is their property and I can understand them wanting to protect certain things more than others. It's not like just anyway can go out and make movies about Superman and distribute them for free. It's their right to hold on to their cash cows (whatever they perceive as such) and if they didn't they'd cease to be a viable company for very long.

 

[Morrus]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dcollins
(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.

Yikes. Assuming I understand this parapgraph correctly (and I'm not sure I do), I disagree.

This is the single most important issue with the policy, because this fact makes the policy valueless. It's a wasted piece of paper while WotC can end it at any time. Nobody will bother using the policy.

Case in point: nobody, in fact, *has* used the policy. The conversion library has about 10 items in it since this policy, whereas prior to the policy it had hundreds.

I don't think that anytinhg else about the policy really matters - it's all about semantics. We all know WotC's intention; we'll all abide by it whether we think they're in error or not. But we won't waste our time working on something which can be deleted at a moment's whim.

 

[Mark]

Yikes. Assuming I understand this parapgraph correctly (and I'm not sure I do), I disagree.

This is the single most important issue with the policy, because this fact makes the policy valueless. It's a wasted piece of paper while WotC can end it at any time. Nobody will bother using the policy.

Case in point: nobody, in fact, *has* used the policy. The conversion library has about 10 items in it since this policy, whereas prior to the policy it had hundreds.

I don't think that anytinhg else about the policy really matters - it's all about semantics. We all know WotC's intention; we'll all abide by it whether we think they're in error or not. But we won't waste our time working on something which can be deleted at a moment's whim.

You have mentioned this previously. I see what you are saying but it seems it would be impossible to maintain a resale value on their property if they do not have the ability to remove any restrictions placed ion that property by third-party agreements such as a conversion policy. I sympathize with your desire to have conversions be perpetually licensed but I do not see a solution being offered in your posts. I do not think that WotC would be willing to completely relinquish control of the future of their property. Do you have a suggestion for a way to remedy this while understanding and being sympathetic to WotC's right to control their property for future sale?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

You have mentioned this previously. I see what you are saying but it seems it would be impossible to maintain a resale value on their property if they do not have the ability to remove any restrictions placed ion that property by third-party agreements such as a conversion policy. I sympathize with your desire to have conversions be perpetually licensed but I do not see a solution being offered in your posts. I do not think that WotC would be willing to completely relinquish control of the future of their property. Do you have a suggestion for a way to remedy this while understanding and being sympathetic to WotC's right to control their property for future sale?

So change the paragraph to state that individual conversions can be revoked only when WotC (or the current rightsholder) decides to either republish the original or publish a new adventure based in part or in full upon the original. If they fail to republish within 1 year of notification the conversion can be reposted.

 

[spunky_mutters]

It's not about their right to future licensing, or hindering their ability to make money off of their IP. The problem is that you are required to destroy all copies of the conversion. Period. It is generally accepted that you can licence something for a limited time, or for a specific product (and Wizards has allowed use of some of their 'reserved' IP (mind flayers, etc.) in d20 products (presumably because they were already in channel when the cuts were made). The requirement to terminate all copies with extreme prejudice is distinctly unwarranted from a licensing perspective. It looks like they are covering their butt for the time when everything is distributed electronically. They don't want to have perpetual access to fan-made supplements from 10 years back to hinder their ability to sell stuff based on the IP. I think it's a little much, but what do you do.

 

[HeavyG]

I agree that it killed all possibilities of ever spreading a usable conversions. Whether they are right or wrong from their POV doesn't change that IMO.

There is no way you can convert everything straight up without modifying things. And it's easy to improve on an adventure now that there are more and maybe more approrpiate monsters and other material to put in.

For example, my Bloodstone series conversion has upwards of 200 pages of Word documents. You better believe that I added some things. Like for instance, in the original module, you had stuff like army rosters saying such army has 3 15th level magic-users. I gave them stats and little backgrounds. Oooh, big no-no.

 

[Mark]

So change the paragraph to state that individual conversions can be revoked only when WotC (or the current rightsholder) decides to either republish the original or publish a new adventure based in part or in full upon the original. If they fail to republish within 1 year of notification the conversion can be reposted.

Sounds like the beginning of a reasonable compromise that they might be willing to consider.

It's not about their right to future licensing, or hindering their ability to make money off of their IP. The problem is that you are required to destroy all copies of the conversion. Period. It is generally accepted that you can licence something for a limited time, or for a specific product (and Wizards has allowed use of some of their 'reserved' IP (mind flayers, etc.) in d20 products (presumably because they were already in channel when the cuts were made). The requirement to terminate all copies with extreme prejudice is distinctly unwarranted from a licensing perspective. It looks like they are covering their butt for the time when everything is distributed electronically. They don't want to have perpetual access to fan-made supplements from 10 years back to hinder their ability to sell stuff based on the IP. I think it's a little much, but what do you do.

I'm notr sure you can ever force someone to destroy a personal copy of something. Isn't that language meant to forbid all future distribution of unauthorized copies?

I agree that it killed all possibilities of ever spreading a usable conversions. Whether they are right or wrong from their POV doesn't change that IMO.

There is no way you can convert everything straight up without modifying things. And it's easy to improve on an adventure now that there are more and maybe more approrpiate monsters and other material to put in.

For example, my Bloodstone series conversion has upwards of 200 pages of Word documents. You better believe that I added some things. Like for instance, in the original module, you had stuff like army rosters saying such army has 3 15th level magic-users. I gave them stats and little backgrounds. Oooh, big no-no.

How would you propose a future conversion policy remedy that situation?

 

[MerricB]

It's not the conversion policy itself which bothers me unduly - if WotC had said "all new conversions from now on must adhere to this new policy" I'd have been happy. It was the way in that the policy retroactively applied to all current conversion, requiring the deletion of, literally, hundreds of conversions and 2-3 years of hard work. I think it showed a lack of respect for the community.

It is worth remembering the context of the original change in policy: several people had the entire text of the original product in their conversion, except for the new material.

WotC had to be strict in this matter because of that.

WotC didn't have the resources to check all the conversions to see if they were OK. It's expensive, and it brings in no profit. So, they had to create a policy that protected their property and they had to get rid of the old conversions because some of them had the copied text problem.

Incidentally, whilst copyright is not extinguished with the copied text, the value of the product is decreased if it is available freely online - and you would be mistaken if you think that these products are no longer potentially profitable, for Hackmaster uses them as the basis for many of their modules.

I did not purchase the Hackmaster version of "Against the Giant" because I have the original AD&D version. If a 3E conversion copy had been freely available from the 'net, the desire to buy the HM version may well be reduced as well for those who had acquired it in such a manner.

I regret that the policy isn't more flexible, but I do believe that WotC were forced into it by some extremely questionable conversions.

Cheers!

 

[scadgrad]

Well maybe it's the small-minded, artistic-type brain that I was given, but it would seem to me that if a company is willing to freely distribute its game system (to all of those who agree to play by the rules), than allowing a few conversions of OOP modules should be relatively easy & painless.

I'm not going to address the "legalese" of the current The People's Conversion Manifesto. I'll let Hasbro's $250/hour Harvard law types muddle through that. Surely we could have a policy that the online community could actually employ. To my way of thinking this would not threaten the IP, but rather add value to the brand, encouraging the sale of more Core books (that is the goal isn't it?) and assuring the public that the module/widget you buy today, will still be viable years & years into the future.

OK, what would make it more palatable and less draconic?

1) Let us convert a module so that it is actually playable rather than slavishly plugging in the 20 Hill Giants as mentioned earlier in the thread.

2) Give us some kind of reassurance that we won't have our hard work destroyed on a whim just because WotC decides to throw their toys out of the pram & go home.

3) Add more stuff to the SRD.

Not sure about the 3rd point, but I can't help but believe that the 1st two items could easily be accomplished.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I'm notr sure you can ever force someone to destroy a personal copy of something. Isn't that language meant to forbid all future distribution of unauthorized copies?

I'm sure it's meant to do that, but the language is pretty specific and strong (but it has nothing on software EULAs). There is a tendency to put restrictions in licences that would most likely not stand up in court, just to scare off anybody actually reading them. I can't think off-hand of anybody actually challenging a licence of this type. Most people (and even companies) just don't have enough invested to risk it in court.