Foundry VTT Author Chimes in on OGL 1.1

Steel_Wind

Legend
They dont want to host any of that on their boards, doesn't mean they are not sympathetic. When they dropped the no politics rule they dropped it hard. Drove a lot of folks out because discussion got pretty specific to fewer topics. 🤷‍♂️
There are a broad swath of topics that would fall under "domestic politics" in the USA, but which they declare are "human rights" and so "not politics". (To be clear, I happen to agree with that view. I have a trans kid and so does my brother.)

By the same token, the right to not get murdered on your own city streets by a foreign state is the most fundamental of those human rights. The main difference is that on that issue, Paizo suddenly didn't look very good.

Please appreciate that as this was going on at the time, it was in the context (on the following day I think) of McDonald's announcing it was permanently pulling out of all operations in Russia.

"Hey loyal customer, we've got new DLC for that game we know you own! Buy it here!" [insert link]

[The End]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I bought the following on DDB
On DDB, You didn't buy it on Foundry. It has been apparent for many months, before WotC bought DDB, that WotC felt that such was not a fair use of their IP.

WotC's 5E (and 2E with some restrictions are on FG) versions of D&D content are available for licensing by VTTs. If Foundry felt it was the right business decision for them, I see no reason they could not also obtain legal access to the content.
Few do, fewer still want to bother with it. It's a massive pain in the ass.
So being difficult to do something justifies stealing if it is easier?
The overwhelming majority don't bother and just pay WotC for the content and Mr. Primate to be able to use it.
They pay for it on DDB, they DO NOT pay for it on their VTT of choice.
use Foundry VTT to run their 5e games pay to access the material on DDB
I don't recall any lawyers not saying it was a very grey area from day one. And if WotC decided they wanted to do something about it, they probably could. And, it now looks like they are and will.
there are a lot of people who are using DDB for Foundry VTT for 5e use.
Popularity does not make things right or ethical. There are way too many instances one can look to history for proof of that, as recent as just a week ago or so.
t it seems weird they just announced DMG content will be unlocked for Roll20
Roll20 already has a license to release the DMG. They have for years. But Roll20 has stated it was not valuable enough for their users to release it. It's never been about Roll20 having the legal right to release it, it has been as simple as they did not think they could do so for enough profit (possible in part because they did not see that they could add enough value to it).
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
On DDB, You didn't buy it on Foundry. It has been apparent for many months, before WotC bought DDB, that WotC felt that such was not a fair use of their IP.

WotC's 5E (and 2E with some restrictions are on FG) versions of D&D content are available for licensing by VTTs. If Foundry felt it was the right business decision for them, I see no reason they could not also obtain legal access to the content.

So being difficult to do something justifies stealing if it is easier?

They pay for it on DDB, they DO NOT pay for it on their VTT of choice.

I don't recall any lawyers not saying it was a very grey area from day one. And if WotC decided they wanted to do something about it, they probably could. And, it now looks like they are and will.

Popularity does not make things right or ethical. There are way too many instances one can look to history for proof of that, as recent as just a week ago or so.

Roll20 already has a license to release the DMG. They have for years. But Roll20 has stated it was not valuable enough for their users to release it. It's never been about Roll20 having the legal right to release it, it has been as simple as they did not think they could do so for enough profit (possible in part because they did not see that they could add enough value to it).
Let me address your comments, because they seem high on hyperbole -- and low on rationality.

Firstly, this is not about Foundry VTT -- it is about a patreon software shim created by "Mr. Primate", and another less capable free software shim by VTTA.

Secondly, DDB products are something that the vast majority of Foundry VTT users - me included, bought for EXACTLY this purpose. That is ownership of the data from the perspective of "theft" and "ethics". That is a color of right. We aren't talking about theft or piracy anymore -- and it's not even close.

"Oh, but you didn't get it for X purposes, you only are allowed to use it for Y purposes. It's theft!"

What you are talking about is not theft, it's a technical breach of an EULA with ZERO DAMAGES. Indeed, LESS than ZERO damages.

Why? Because WotC makes MORE money if I buy the product on DDB for use with Foundry VTT than if I was to buy the same product on Roll 20 or FG's store -- because on those purchases, WotC gets only a percentage of the sale, whereas when buying it on DDB (for the same amount of money, I might add) WotC gets 100% of it.

Which explains why it is that WotC has not sent a Cease & Desist to Mr. Primate. For the very good reason it is manifestly in WotC's financial interest to allow it to continue. It is, in fact, insanely profitable for them to do so as the marginal cost of allowing it is close to ZERO. The money they get in return is essentially all profit - and they get to keep all of it, 100%.

The only people who are aggrieved here is the owner of FG and, to a lesser extent, Roll20, who have technology developed on a more closed system that does not leverage DDB. The people the shareholders of those two services should be upset with is WotC for not sending a C&D.

The fact that WotC has not done so tells you all you need to know about what kind of licensor partner WotC is. They will act only when it is in their financial interest to do so -- and not until. Just like every other licensor in the history of ever, I might add.

If this is a discussion about morals and ethics, the one who is acting unethically isn't me or other Foundry VTT users of Mr. Primate's patreon -- it's WotC, who is happy to take 100% of a sale and screw over their licensees until such time as they can create their own VTT -- and then screw over everybody.

Which brings us back to the true subject matter of this thread.
 

Let me address your comments, because they seem high on hyperbole -- and low on rationality.

<snip>

Which brings us back to the true subject matter of this thread.
Justify your actions however you wish. I'm not the only one who has thought that the Beyond 20 extension (and others) has been ethically dubious from day 1.

My behavior reflects my ethics. And I have no concerns over no longer being able to use my DDB purchases in the future in the way I intended to use them. I can see how others who do not share my ethics might be concerned about theirs.
 

If Foundry felt it was the right business decision for them, I see no reason they could not also obtain legal access to the content.
They cannot obtain it, despite attempts, because WotC refuses to grant it to them. For some reason they don't want to enter a formal agreement with a VTT that is likely bigger than Fantasy Grounds at this point

Personally I hope they continue not to long enough for me to import all my content before WotC changes it yet again.
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
I pay close to $500 CDN for access on DDB for a number of products over the course of nine months, and I'm acting unethically? I don't agree.

It is doubtful that WotC could even get an injunction if it tried to do so to prevent this, I might add. They don't meet the second branch of the test for obtaining an injunction -- they have not and will not suffer irreparable harm by this software shim; indeed, they been enriched by it.

That fact is something you seem to be ignoring. I am not sure why.
 

They cannot obtain it, despite attempts, because WotC refuses to grant it to them
Says who? Someone who has not obtained such a license. Maybe they haven't obtained it because they are not willing to put in the safeguards to protect the IP. Maybe it's because WotC is unwilling to even discuss it. Maybe it's a thousand things. But we only know one-side of the story. To believe that is the unbiased truth is the height of ignorance.
 


Indeed. Why do the work of making and marketing an actually superior product, when you can, with a tenth the cost and a few hours of a lawyer's time, deny anyone else the ability to compete with whatever product you produce?
They DO produce a superior product, and most people use it. That's why everybody ELSE is trying to use their rules and player base to build their OWN products and companies without contributing to the upkeep of that rules base and community.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top