Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[xechnao]

I have no idea one way or the other. Nothing about this situation (ema's site) gives me any kind of information about that question.

It depends how you value information. I think it was clear that I was talking about feelings and judgment. There are absolute proofs-facts and then there are indications that make people believe or judge something to be more probable than something else. So one may weight things one way or the other. And some times he may choose not to because of biases. I accept this but I do not agree in this case. We are not legal court, we are gossiping in a forum.

 

[Dire Bare]

A poster denoted that Wotc does not have to defend its IP rights regarding copyright in commercial ventures -only trademarks. Yet the whole of Ema's site went down so it is not that charging and trademark violation was their problem.
Wotc has not any issue with d20srd.org now but it seems it would have with a similar database like d20srd.org regarding 4e. How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)? I feel right now they would not see it in a happy eye, especially if it was highly functional.
But I find this normal. Do you think it is not?

I see your point. If a fansite or business site (free or for charge) put up a database of WotC 4e rules, including full text much like the D&D Compendium . . . hell yes, WotC would have a problem with that. A C&D would fly quickly and righteosly.

It's one of the reasons why the 4e GSL is so different than the 3e OGL. d20SRD.org is 100% okay legally, but a 4e version would not fly. Which is cool by me, I've always found websites and products like d20SRD.org as leeching and cheesy. The 3e OGL was designed to allow other RPG companies to design compatible products with D&D, not to have the rules posted for free online! But the way it was worded allowed it!

 

[fanboy2000]

What's OK and what's wrong? Charging for use? Paypal donations for hosting? Ads? Ads done by your host because you're using a free site? Optional charging for a "better" account? Selling your own products on the site? Selling other products through the site? There are other companies that have said they have a beef with all of these. I think we all here would be "shocked" if WotC went to close down everyone with ads on their site, but they're certainly entitled to and other RPG companies have. So how do we know what's OK in this case? The real answer is by WotC actually publishing fansite rules instead of the current vagueness of "well, as long as we like you, you're OK." But they say it's a low priority for them.

It seems wrong to respond to you when you can't respond back, but I feel the need to give you my honest opinion.

I agree with the basic premise that it is better for a game, any game, to have people discuss the game on the internet. More specifically, I agree with you that it is better for D&D for people to discuss it on the internet.

That said, it doesn't bother me that Wizards can send a cease and desist letter to every fan site on the internet. Lets say Wizards asks ENWorld to close-up shop. I can still play my game. My game isn't predicated on having ENWorld's existence. Indeed, I think that if WotC was successful in that, usenet would suddenly become a viable place to talk about rpgs again. But I digress....

It is unfair that someone can have a fan website for years and then arbitrarily get a C&D from WotC out of the blue. Of course, life is fundamentally unfair. It is a risk people take when using property that doesn't belong to them. When a person or a company (IP protection isn't limited to companies) owns something one the rights (though this isn't an absolute right) is the right to exclude people from using that property. Even though companies may use that right in ways I disagree with, I believe that right is important.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

This was not the point. It is legal for the previous version -and Wotc can do nothing about it because of the OGL. What about something similar about the current version, where Wotc would have a say if it stays or if it goes.

What do you mean with something similar? D20.org put all that stuff online about which Wotc said in the OGL "use it." If a similar site does the same with stuff people are explicitly allowed to use in any way they please for 4e, nothing can and will happen.

 

[CharlesRyan]

But is the solution really "be a site that Wizards likes?" Sure, ENWorld may pull that off, but is that the answer to the thousand other fansites? "You can exist as long as they like you?"

In a word, yes.*

D&D is WotC's sandbox. If you want to build sandcastles in it, you gotta be their friend and play by their rules.

Don't like that? No problem. Play D&D in the privacy of your own home, or at cons or your local shop or whatever, just like millions of other people. Just don't make a D&D web site.

I can sense your concern: Who wants to build a labour of love that someone else can destroy at a whim? Unfortunately, that's the playing field for fan sites. But don't lose too much sleep over it: Just because WotC is a business doesn't make it evil or capricious. WotC cares about D&D, which means it cares about the D&D community, which means it cares about the possibility of offending tens of thousands of hardcore fans. WotC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to get people to like D&D. They aren't about to reverse all of that on a whim.



* (Or more technically, no. You can run a site that doesn't play by their rules, but you'd better be darn sure you don't cross any infringement lines. Which probably rules out a lot of what you'd want to do with a fan site anyway.)

 

[xechnao]

What do you mean with something similar? D20.org put all that stuff online about which Wotc said in the OGL "use it." If a similar site does the same with stuff people are explicitly allowed to use in any way they please for 4e, nothing can and will happen.

Answering your argument: What we know is that Wotc made the OGL. If we presume that it did so because it wanted to promote what OGL allowed we can say that Wotc's will was to allow what was compiled in the OGL, independently to the existence of the OGL which is only the medium. So even if OGL did not exist and somebody made D20.org back then Wotc would not seek to take action. Would it be the same now?

So how would you describe D20.org? A free functional database for the fans that makes certain practical matters of their game easier to handle (spot rules reference). Something similar to this. So lets say a reference service with a determined functionality.

 

[xechnao]

WotC cares about D&D, which means it cares about the D&D community, which means it cares about the possibility of offending tens of thousands of hardcore fans. WotC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to get people to like D&D. They aren't about to reverse all of that on a whim.

Yes. And it seems that closing down sites like Ema's does not have the negative PR and marketing effects to make them feel sorry about doing so. This is even more like it if they offer a better service than Ema did. This is what I was trying to talk about above.
So the whole deal is to try and offer what they cannot offer.

 

[resistor]

So yes software is covered and is considerd a literary work no different then a book.

While factual, this is not correct in the sense that you meant it. Software is largely unique in that it can be covered both by patents and by copyright. As a software engineer and someone who has dealt with software licensing issues on several occasions, the distinction generally is:

Patents cover inventions and processes. You can patent an algorithm, an abstract recipe for how to execute some specific task on a computer. For instance, Adobe holds gazillions of patents on efficient ways to compute such-and-such graphical effect. Microsoft holds lots for way to do various operating systems things.

Copyright covers a particular expression of a creative work. The legal justification for this as regards to software is that the code for a program can be viewed as a creative work by the programmer, and thus subject to copyright just like a book is. However, just as two authors can write books about young boys who discover they are wizards and go off to a magical school in a castle, so can two programmers write programs that compute the same graphical effect without infringing each other's copyright, so long as no actual copying was involved.

Again, generally speaking, a patent is broader, in that it protects an idea independent of any one particular expression of it. Copyright protects only one expression (muddled by derivative works). On the flipside, copyright is automatic and free, where as patents cost money, require registration, and require evidence that the patented idea is, in fact, original.

------------

Of course, nothing is ever cut and dry in law. I'm not extremely familiar with the details of this instance, but it undoubtedly lies in-between. My analysis:

It seems very unlikely to me that WotC holds relevant patents, so I'll dismiss that possibility.

Copyright infringement, in this case, does not seem cut and dry. If there was a significant amount of verbatim copying of text (not just math), then infringement would be pretty clear. However, with only similar text or just mathematical content, the picture gets much less clear. Mathematical content is generally harder to claim copyright on, since its expression is generally not considered creative, though one could argue that the choice of what formulas to use is. Plus , of course, the fact that mechanics are not copyrightable. Either way, that one wouldn't be clear cut.

Were it to actually come to a court case in such a situation, WotC would have to argue that, even in the absence direct copying, the sheet still comprised a derivative work. This gets muddy really fast, especially when you run into counter-arguments because for something essentially of a mathematical nature, there may not BE enough room for creative expression for a suitably dis-similar expression to exist. (i.e. how many different ways are there to write the recipe for a PB&J?)

 

[Anon Adderlan]

But instead, Ema chose to use WotC trademarked logos and trade dress when designing his character sheets, rather than creating his own artwork. He copied spell summaries directly from the books when he could have easily created his own.

If this was the case, then WotC was well within their rights to do what they did. Sadly, the situation appears to have already reached settlement, and an NDA blankets the landscape, so any chance of getting anything beyond rumors at this point is highly unlikely. I suspect that Ema is rather limited in what he can confirm or deny at this point.

That said, and since I already wrote most of this before I was aware of certain details, here's a quick legal lesson...

If WotC had acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of fair use (which is looking less and less likely), Ema could have sued for damages under the DMCA. And while Ema had stated previously that the site was deleted by the ISP at the request of WotC, it's possible that the settlement agreement limits Ema to saying that WotC requested him to delete all the data, even if it was already gone by then.

A character sheet is a form, and "Blank forms and similar works designed to record rather than to convey information cannot be protected by copyright". Sure, you can't use the logos, and some designs may be considered product identity, but it's really not difficult to layout a character sheet and avoid all that.

While the source to a program can be protected by copyright, the task a program performs can only be protected by patents. I highly doubt Ema was unlawfully using WotC's source code, and even if 4e is protected by patents (is it?), the same would not necessarily be the case for a character generator.

You cannot use trademarks to protect the terms used to describe a process or game. I'm really not sure what WotC claims as product identity in 4e, and it's in their best interests to be as unclear about this as possible. However, if they claimed something like 'Armor Class', its use would not be protected by either trademark or copyright law.

There is nothing illegal about charging money for storage. If I rent an apartment, I can keep my character sheets there. What makes the internet any different? I myself keep many character sheets on Google Docs. Is Google infringing WotC's copyrights, trademarks, or patents?

You do not need a specific license from WotC, such as the GSL, to engage in any of the above activities regarding 4e. Normal IP law works just fine. Personally, I'm rather sick of all the EULAs and crap that try to redefine IP law in the public eye.
​

Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted. So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own. I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).

If you really feel like pursuing it, you might have a valid case against WotC, but how much is it really worth it to you? And just as a form cannot be protected by copyright, it's possible the same may apply to a filled out form. Not sure at this point.

One thing I find fascinating is that RPGs are the ONLY copyright protected work that explicitly requires you to create derivative works to use in the first place. That's interesting untested legal territory right there.

It's a shame that the entire site had to be taken down. I still really like Ema's 3.5 character and spell sheets.

WotC want's to move everyone away from 3.5, so if they obliterated the site due to 4e issues, they might as well get Ema to agree to ditch the 3.5 stuff too.

Trademark is not automatic. You have to pay a fee to register the trademark, and renew it every so often.

Not true.

The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required.​

The problem with the corp-friendly IP laws we live under is that *legally*, they could shut ENWorld down tomorrow. It's just a fact of life. There's enough "IP infringement" here that at a bare minimum it would go into litigation long enough to completely bankrupt the site.

You should see the artist commissions at comic book conventions.

Hell, I saw two different illustrations based on the same Wolverine promotional photo at NYCC, and that's not even an original drawing of the character in question. Then again, it was a promo image.

 

[Scribble]

It depends how you value information. I think it was clear that I was talking about feelings and judgment. There are absolute proofs-facts and then there are indications that make people believe or judge something to be more probable than something else. So one may weight things one way or the other. And some times he may choose not to because of biases. I accept this but I do not agree in this case. We are not legal court, we are gossiping in a forum.

I'm still saying you're jumping to conclusions based on lack of info.

We know a cease and Desist letter was sent.

We know the site was taken down in response.

We have no idea what was in the letter, or what actions promted the letter.

If d20srd.org had started posting parts of the books that weren't considered OGL (like say certain spell names, or the beholder or mindflayer stats) and was sent a C&D letter would you draw the same conclusion? That WoTC was now on the warpath against online rules sites?

Nothing in this situation supports what you're saying unless you make the leap. You could just as easily say Ema's was actually hosting pirated pdfs available for download to certain members that knew about it, and have the same amount of evidence to back it up.

The whole thing could be as simple as WoTC sent the letter and told them what was offending, but fixing it was more trouble them ema considered worth it.

Just seems to me that making claims like that serve no purpose other then spreading rumors and fear. Which ultimately hurts the game community.