Does WOTC have the right?

[Fifth Element]

Would it be more, or less ironic if they were both in section 8?

Umm...neither? Precisely the same amount of irony?

 

[Big Mac]

Plus I bet their is plenty of precedence in licensing where canceling a license has never also meant the destruction of all inventories of goods legally produced while that license was in effect.

So I would first research any such precedence in licensing laws. If no such precedence exists, and in fact, I suspect the precedence is that inventories manufactured while the license existed have never had to be destroyed, WOTC will be hard pressed to make people destroy any remaining inventory.

It was, after all, legally created goods, and the termination of the license only makes it illegal to create more such goods, not sell what was already made.

I would suspect that this license could be ruled overly proprietory and invalid.

Interesting idea. I certainly think that from a moral point of view, things legally made under a licence should escape destruction if/when that licence ends.

But here is a dilema. What about PDFs? You can argue that a PDF was made before the licence ended but is that actually true?

If I download a PDF I don't download the actual PDF, because it stays on the server - I download an electronic duplicate of that PDF. Does that actually mean that the PDF is still being created after the licence expires?

Essentially are PDFs going to be illegal one day after the d20 STL is revoked?

 

[Big Mac]

Umm...neither? Precisely the same amount of irony?

Did you see my last post:

Probably, considering that the number 9 is 3 squared.

3rd edition = 3 squared = 9 = magic number = WotC voodoo!

Maybe WotC is "The Man" after all!

I wonder what is in clause 16 of the GSL. Probably something about giving up your first born child.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Originally Posted by Treebore
Plus I bet their is plenty of precedence in licensing where canceling a license has never also meant the destruction of all inventories of goods legally produced while that license was in effect.

So I would first research any such precedence in licensing laws. If no such precedence exists, and in fact, I suspect the precedence is that inventories manufactured while the license existed have never had to be destroyed, WOTC will be hard pressed to make people destroy any remaining inventory.

Interesting idea. I certainly think that from a moral point of view, things legally made under a licence should escape destruction if/when that licence ends.

IIRC, Reaper had to destroy all unsold products when their license for Exalted miniatures expired (couldn't find the info with a quick search, but I remember lots of uproar about it when they first removed them from their store).

So there is some precedence, however it is far less onerous to "destroy" a metal miniature since you are just melting it down and reusing the metal (but you still lose your labor and packaging costs).

 

[Big Mac]

IIRC, Reaper had to destroy all unsold products when their license for Exalted miniatures expired (couldn't find the info with a quick search, but I remember lots of uproar about it when they first removed them from their store).

So there is some precedence, however it is far less onerous to "destroy" a metal miniature since you are just melting it down and reusing the metal (but you still lose your labor and packaging costs).

I'm sure it is perfectly legal to order stock to be destroyed when a licence expires. I just think that it is immoral. I personally think that the "owner" of the material should strike up a new deal to ensure that things are not wasted. But considering that this sort of thing is probably down to a third party not being able to offload their stock fast enough, I think the "owner" of the licence should be compensated for going to the effort of extending the contract.

For example, I think that MWP should be able to sell 3e Dragonlance PDFs if they pay an agreed percentage of their sales to WotC. That way WotC get money for something they didn't make and MWP get to carry on selling something that would otherwise get archived until copyright law allowed fans to put it online as a copyright free product.

 

[Pale]

Would it be more, or less ironic if they were both in section 8?

I don't know about ironic, but I'm pretty sure it would be crazy.

For the benefit of those that do not know: 'Section 8' is used in military law for discharging a person with mental problems (it's part of a larger document for military discharges in general). Because of this "Section 8" is now used in some circles (mostly military) to denote someone or something as crazy. As in "He went 'Section 8' on us."

Only wrote all of this down to cut down on the confusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

3rd edition = 3 squared = 9 = magic number = WotC voodoo!

Maybe WotC is "The Man" after all!

I wonder what is in clause 16 of the GSL. Probably something about giving up your first born child.

Yes, but it's 3.5 edition. What's in paragraph 12.25? That's the real question.