Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Scythian" data-source="post: 9243798" data-attributes="member: 6875986">It's not hyperbole.  I used the term "bad people" because, in one of your posts that I quoted, you suggested that a business owner should do certain things in order to "actively [be] a good person" and I said that not doing those things doesn't make them a bad person.As far as the rest goes, you are proving my point.  I am unaware of any jurisdiction within which landlords can arbitrarily raise prices in a way that would force a business owner to "immediately" pass that rent increase on as some kind of emergency.  There are contracts that stipulate the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants called leases.  A landlord can only raise rent when a lease has ended.  Landlords can ask a tenant to pay more while the least is active, but tenants have the right to refuse that request.  There is a legal framework in place to keep landlords from doing exactly what WotC planned to do, which is unilaterally and arbitrarily revoke an existing contract.  If a landlord tried that, they would almost certainly be sued.Instead of an apples to orangse example like the OGL to a lease, let's consider an apples to apples one, like two licensing agreements.Back in the 1990s, when Marvel was in financial trouble, they sold the rights to make movies based on Spider-Man and associated properties to Sony for a measly $7 million, and as long as Sony continues to make movies within a specific timeframe, they could potentially retain those rights until the heat death of the universe.About a decade later, Disney purchased Marvel.  Superhero movies were more popular at that point, and Disney was able to parlay the lesser-known Marvel characters into the most successful film franchise in history.  Of course, they really wanted to be able to make movies involving Spider-Man, but they couldn't, because Marvel had freely entered into an agreement with Sony, and Sony was abiding by the terms of that agreement.  There were probably people at Disney who thought the state of affairs was unfair.  After all, Disney didn't sell the Spider-Man film rights to Sony, and Marvel sold those rights for a pittance--probably not much more than the catering budget of an MCU production!Despite that, when Disney wanted to make movies featuring Spider-Man, they had to negotiate with Sony.  Now, the specifics of that agreement are irrelevant.  What's important is that the negotiation didn't start with Disney secretly plotting to unilaterally revoke the existing licensing agreement, replace it with a completely new one that their lawyers drew up with no input from Sony, and give Sony just seven business days to either agree to the new license or stop making Spider-Man movies.  It actually started with Disney recognizing that they couldn't do anything about the original agreement and that, instead, they would have to make a completely separate agreement, within which Sony would effectively license Spider-Man back to Disney in a limited fashion.Remember back when I said a licensee is a licensee is a licensee, and you asked what I meant?  Now we've circled back around to what I was getting at.  Legally speaking, Sony and the smallest OGL licensee are the same.  They are parties to licensing agreements.  Each of them is a party to a licensing agreement that the other party may or may not regret and would probably prefer to change, but they are still parties to licensing agreements.The difference, of course, is that there is some parity between Disney and Sony.  They can both afford the best lawyers.  They both have, for the purposes of a lawsuit, effectively unlimited funds.  It also helps Sony that the type of licensing agreement they made with Marvel has been well tested in court.  Even if Disney had wanted to act in bad faith, they would have gotten obliterated in the ensuing lawsuit.There isn't much parity between WotC and the OGL licensees.  The largest is just a fraction of the size of WotC, and WotC is just a part of an even larger corporation (a major part of an even larger corporation, but still just a part).  They knew they could weather a lawsuit better than any of their licensees, and the OGL is a type of agreement that hasn't really been tested in court.  However, even with those advantages, WotC believed that they would have to use secrecy to revoke the old agreement and force a new one on licensees.Well, you haven't said much of anything meaningful on the subject.  So, I'll ask you more directly:What should an RPG publisher who agreed to and abided by the OGL have done to prepare for the possibility that WotC would attempt to destroy their business by reneging on that agreement?  I'm not asking for vague suggestions like, "be nimble," or "be on top of it."  What specific, concrete steps could a publisher have undertaken to prepare for such a possibility?When responding, remember that the OGL had existed for 20 years, that people had built businesses of varying size around it in that time, that numerous lawyers had looked at the agreement and said it seemed sound, that WotC had published a FAQ that was on their website for a number of years explaining what licensees could do if WotC ever tried to change the license, and that Ryan Dancey has explained the intent of the OGL many times over the years.The understanding that the OGL could not be revoked was so widespread and so deeply ingrained that after Indestructoboy leaked WotC's attempt to gut the OGL, people asserted that it must be a baseless rumor, since there was no mechanism by which it could be revoked.So what should someone have done in order to "actively [be] a good person" in this context?Okay.  I'm going to have to ask for both clarification and evidence here.First of all, who wasn't paying attention?  Who is "they"?  At the time Ryan Dancey conceived of the OGL, I think he was Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons.  He was a tireless advocate for the OGL and was extremely open and public about every facet of it, from its intent to how it would be implemented.  WotC had documents explaining and supporting the OGL offered prominently on their website for years.Or are you saying someone involved with 5th edition pulled a fast one on WotC more recently?  Who was the crafty game designing Odysseus who put the 5e SRD under the OGL and got it past... well... which corporate Polyphemus, exactly?  WotC legal?  WotC's executives?  Hasbro's executives?Second, where are you getting this information from?  You keep citing this as though it's fact, but I've never seen any evidence for it.Like I've already said, WotC's motivation isn't that important, it's what they did, or at least tried to do, that matters.  But I'd still like some specifics and some evidence if you're going to to keep returning to this.Again, what concrete steps, beyond entering into an agreement in good faith and abiding by the terms of that agreement, should a "good and ethical person" have undertaken to prepare for the possibility that WotC might attempt to renege on that agreement and force them out of business?What actions, exactly?Here's the thing, though.  I actually do understand the situation, and I am fairly certain that I understand it better than you.  Where have I demonstrated a lack of understanding of any facts related to the whole OGL debacle?  Where has the "pain" that the OGL debacle supposedly caused me colored my view of what actually happened?  What fact or facts would I look at differently if I wasn't supposedly in pain?I'm willing to consider your claims about WotC's motivation if you can provide evidence for the things you've been claiming.  I don't believe anyone important at WotC was unaware of any aspect of the OGL back when 3e was released.  It was literally the cornerstone of D&D's new direction under WotC and it was very well publicized.  And I don't believe that someone somehow got the 5e SRD under the OGL without the executives in charge of D&D being aware of it.  But, like I said, I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary.Like I said, I don't think WotC's motivation matters as much as what they tried to do, which was renege on an agreement they freely offered.But okay.  Let's say you come up with evidence for your claim about WotC's motivation and convince me.  How would my understanding of that motivation make any difference?  My position here is basically that a licensee is a licensee is a licensee.  Sony.  Paizo.  Necrotic Gnome.  Any of the hobbyists on DriveThruRPG publishing under the OGL who have never even sold a single copy of their products.  They all deserve the same protections and do not deserve to have their licenses revoked out from underneath them.  The "solution" I am "pushing" is basically that companies should abide by the terms of contracts they enter into and not attempt to renege on them.  How is that going to cause problems for anyone down the road?  How would the knowledge that one or more executives at WotC and/or Hasbro felt that... something... about the OGL was unfair impact any of that?</blockquote>

Verification