Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[resistor]

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.

While I have no knowledge of the details, I think this attitude is VERY dangerous.

In the software world, it is quite common for copyright holders (both of software and of data) to make absolutely outrageous claims. Hell, TSR had a history of trying to use copyright to quash discussion sites about their material, which are a pretty clear case of the review-and-critique fair use doctrine. The RIAA and MPAA send C&D letters to dead people and people who don't own computers.

(Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right. They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees. And, when you're talking about Massive Corp, Inc. vs Joe Shmoe, they can always win on the second one.

I've seen people and even small companies roll over to outlandish claims, just because they didn't understand what was legal, or because they couldn't afford to fight it.

So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate. It may have been, or it may not have been. Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.

 

[Scribble]

So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate. It may have been, or it may not have been. Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.

I never said you should. I pretty much said exactly what you said in the last line. We have no facts or knowledge other then bare minimum. Anything other then that is jumping to conclusions, and pointless.

 

[jaerdaph]

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

This is what I am thinking too. Occam's Razor and all...

 

[catsclaw227]

(Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right. They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees.

This is untrue. While I was working for them, a former employer had to send C&D letters, and it was to a larger company with deeper pockets.

Companies do send C&D letters when they know they are right, and some do it as a scare tactic. But let's not lump everyone into a Evil Megacorp vs. Innocent Little Guy generalization.

 

[crazy_cat]

But let's not lump everyone into a Evil Megacorp vs. Innocent Little Guy generalization.

Why not? This is a discussion taking place on the internet.

 

[xechnao]

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?

Yes. I would draw the conclusion that Wotc is on the warpath against online rules sites that offer certain rules which means that Wotc sees this as undesirable competition. And as I said I find this normal. I have nothing against this at this point. But it seems you say we should not draw any conclusion? I fail to see the point of your argument. And what you are saying about technical complications it seems a bit improbable if what was the offender were artistic trademarks and logos the whole site needed to technically go down. Could be but I do not know any software working this way.

 

[Scribble]

Yes. I would draw the conclusion that Wotc is on the warpath against online rules sites that offer certain rules which means that Wotc sees this as competition. And as I said I find this normal. I have nothing against this. But it seems you say we should not draw any conclusion? I fail to see your point of this argument.

My point again, is that you're making a leap. You're attributing motives to an action based on guesswork.

What leads you to the conclusion that they consider it competition?

What if they just considered what was being done on the site theft?

If I started photocopying my rule books and selling those photocopies, and WoTC sent me a cease and desist letter, you would consider that stiffling competition?

And what you are saying about technical complications it seems a bit improbable if what was the offender were artistic trademarks and logos the whole site needed to technically go down. Could be but I do not know any software working this way.

I'm not sure what you're asking in this part? I wasn't saying that was the reason, I was simply pointing out that one guess is as good as another.

 

[dinelendarkstar]

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.

...

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.
​

So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?

Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?

And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?

 

[xechnao]

My point again, is that you're making a leap. You're attributing motives to an action based on guesswork.

What leads you to the conclusion that they consider it competition?

What if they just considered what was being done on the site theft?

If I started photocopying my rule books and selling those photocopies, and WoTC sent me a cease and desist letter, you would consider that stiffling competition?

I would consider it legal competition. Legal competition is one thing, policy is another. One influences the other in most cases but they are not the same. So the leaps you are talking about. But policy is not something as a written laws -one approaches to understand policy by weighting-judging things as they happen in practice. You are talking about leaps and jumps and whatever. So you are practically saying we should not make conclusions about one's policy. Well I disagree.