Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[Obryn]

My bad blood comes from losing access without notice to about a dozen characters that I don't know if I can find hardcopies of.

If the site wasn't legal, shouldn't you take this up with Ema? In this transaction you were Ema's customer, not WotC's.

-O

 

[catsclaw227]

My bad blood comes from losing access without notice to about a dozen characters that I don't know if I can find hardcopies of.

Now... this I understand. Did Ema have a disclaimer on the site stating that your stuff could be yoinked off without prior notice or without time to allow users to export or download?

I mean, as cool as the site was, it was still very questionable in it's legality, and it should have been disclosed up front.

In this respect, your complaint shouldn't be with WOTC, it should be with Ema for not at least exporting or emailing everyone their sheets before shutting down shop. This assumes of course, that it was allowed.

There is a sign on the wall where I work that says "If we don't serve our customers, someone else will". That is 100% true, and when WotC failed to serve their customers, Ema was there to be the someone else.

This may be the case, but it still wasn't Ema's right to do it.

WotC has repeatedly misled their customers and failed to deliver on their promises since the 3.0 launch (if not before), they shouldn't be at all surprised if they've just about used up their customers' good will. Once that good will is gone, even reasonable and justifiable actions will be looked on with suspicion.

Maybe, maybe.... But from where I stand, they've been doing a good job in the past few months with gaining good will back and renewed faith in the DDI. Dungeon and Dragon have been very good and the character builder is very nice. Their bonus tools have been extraordinarily helpful for me as a DM these past few months too.

Either way, Ema confirms that it was right to take the site down. I am guessing it was done amicably and without resistance, largely because Ema got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he knew it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

This was likely settle amicably, with Ema getting a few bucks and having to sign a non-compete / non disclosure agreement.

That's not what I was alluding to. Presumably, WotC could have simply insisted that only the offending material be removed. . . right?

Sooooo. . .

What the speculation was about? Whose 'idea' (i.e., or demand, perhaps) it was for *the entire site* (i.e., 3e character sheets and everything else) to be shut down. Ema's. Or WotC's. One or the other.

My perspective on the whole show, and on each party directly involved, would end up rather different, depending on the answer. But there might never be a straight one, so never mind anyway.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Having never even heard of the site, my speculation would be that given the removal of 4E data, the site wouldn't have made enough money to cover server costs. Therefore, rather than stop charging and eating that server cost, Ema chose to shut the whole site down.

As for WotC; even if you are just covering server costs, that is a profit and thus Ema was making money off of the site. They're not legally in the wrong.

Also, regarding characters on the website. If the 4E material was in fact part of the C&D (for all we know it was simply "stop charging, otherwise whatever"), then I think it still falls under distribution for them to be given out. In which case, that really sucks for everyone, but is also an excellent lesson in keeping backups and hard copies.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Having never even heard of the site, my speculation would be that given the removal of 4E data, the site wouldn't have made enough money to cover server costs. Therefore, rather than stop charging and eating that server cost, Ema chose to shut the whole site down.

Yeah. That was actually my first guess too, hence the comment I made along those lines in the previous post.

I'd still kinda like to know, for what it's worth. *shrug* But whatever.

 

[Legildur]

...I do understand some of the legalities involved in a C&D, and why you can't discuss how that impacted Ema's shutting down....

Having no real legal understanding (except around a narrow section of Australian Social Security law) I'd appreciate a few dot points to summarise why these things can't be discussed. I've seen comments about numerous cases to this effect, and can only speculate from a common sense viewpoint why this might be the case.

As for the rest of the thread, it makes sense, based on what is written here, that WotC acted as they did - if a firm can't protect their IP then they won't invest in it.

 

[arscott]

That's not what I was alluding to. Presumably, WotC could have simply insisted that only the offending material be removed. . . right?

Sooooo. . .

What the speculation was about? Whose 'idea' (i.e., or demand, perhaps) it was for *the entire site* (i.e., 3e character sheets and everything else) to be shut down. Ema's. Or WotC's. One or the other.

My perspective on the whole show, and on each party directly involved, would end up rather different, depending on the answer. But there might never be a straight one, so never mind anyway.

For starters, you need to understand that basically every single thing on Ema's site was offending material in some way or another.

Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law. The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use).

Worse, his sheets for WotC's licensed d20 games (such as Star Wars and Call of Cthulhu) used third party trademarks in ways that may have left WotC on the hook to those other companies (or at least might put those licenses in jeopardy).

So removing all 'offending' material is basically removing everything. And while WotC is generally willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of these more minor violations, thats not really an option once the cease and desist letters start getting mailed.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law. The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use).

Ah. Didn't realise (well, I'd forgotten, because of a long period of not turning to said sheets now).

And the other stuff. . . hm. Yeah, fair enough. Consider my question answered, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I won't get into the discussion of the legalities of it all.

As a fan of Ema's site, I wanted to say that I enjoyed the resource while it lasted and am sad to see it go.

All the best, Ema. Godspeed.

 

[El Mahdi]

Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law. The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use). ...

I understand the logo part completely but...


Just a few questions:

• Were the copyright summaries of spell lists for 3E or 4E?
• If 4E I can understand, but why is this wrong for 3E?
• I've noticed that the Pathfinder rules are mostly a complete reprint of the 3E PHB, including verbatim spell descriptions - so if this was for 3E, and it was illegal, how is it legal for Pathfinder?