[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Kem]

I'm sorry, I missed your point. How does this show that Gleemax's new user agreement allowing WotC free access to all its content is better for the average Gleemax member than paying the poster for the work they do if WotC uses it?

The ToS is to protect WotC. Not to be "Good for its members".

 

[Storm Raven]

Prolly should have done their research better, eh?

Why? if they came up with it without knowledge that you posted it, then you have no cause of action against them. Copyright doesn't work like patent - if you come up with a work of authorship independently, the fact that there is a prior work doesn't give the owner of the prior work a claim against you.

Silly of them to publish something someone else might already own the rights to anyway, isn't it?

A point which is irrelevant to a copyright issue.

They'd be in no worse a position than they are now with regards to, say, them publishing a feat that's almost an exact copy of a feat from, say, the Netbook of Feats. Technically, they're already in hot H2O because they're using someone else's IP without (presumably) paying them for it.

For WotC to be in "hot water", someone would have to prove that they copied their version from the netbook of feats, rather than simply coming up with the same idea on their own. I'm not a fan of the Gleemax idea - I don't see how it will be of much use to me. But this ToS is such a trivial element that disliking Gleemax based upon it is really suitable only for those predisposed to get their hate on for Gleemax.

 

[Lalato]

But this ToS is such a trivial element that disliking Gleemax based upon it is really suitable only for those predisposed to get their hate on for Gleemax.

The arguments against posting on Gleemax still don't make sense to me. I even posted a viable workaround for those that are unwilling to post their actual work on the site. Despite that, people still think the red terror is coming after them. Nothing to be done about it I suppose. I've fought my own Gremlins about WotC in the past too.

I, for one, welcome Gleemax. I hope it's a huge success and that there is great D&D content on the site. I'm actually excited about it. I've been wanting some form of online community for gaming for a long time now... and this looks really promising.

For the life of me, I don't understand the hate.

--sam

 

[I'm A Banana]

The ToS is to protect WotC. Not to be "Good for its members".

So you agree, that it's a shady dealing that is going to take advantage of hundreds of fans who won't get compensated for their hard work.

You just don't think that WotC *should* compensate people for their hard work, right?

Why? if they came up with it without knowledge that you posted it, then you have no cause of action against them. Copyright doesn't work like patent - if you come up with a work of authorship independently, the fact that there is a prior work doesn't give the owner of the prior work a claim against you.

Y'know, that actually supports my argument against Kem even better than my own argument. If true, WotC doesn't NEED any protection against fans who come up with the same idea that they do, and the ToS for Gleemax effectively amounts to them blatantly admitting to be taking your stuff for their own use and giving you nothing for it (though letting you retain the ability to publish it other places...which, IMO, is of extremely dubious benefit).

Which basically means that Kem's argument that WotC needs to be able to use people's stuff for free or they'll be in trouble is....bunk.

For WotC to be in "hot water", someone would have to prove that they copied their version from the netbook of feats, rather than simply coming up with the same idea on their own. I'm not a fan of the Gleemax idea - I don't see how it will be of much use to me. But this ToS is such a trivial element that disliking Gleemax based upon it is really suitable only for those predisposed to get their hate on for Gleemax.

I'm fairly neutral on the Gleemax idea, but what I don't like is the idea that by putting something on Gleemax, I'm basically donating it for free to WotC. If they're going to profit off of my work, I should profit off of it, too.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

It's debatable if game rules can even be protected by copyright anyways,

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

What's Not covered by Copyright:


Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration



WOTC isn't worried about a feat, They're worried about you tossing around the words Elminster and Faerun, and they're stories.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The ToS is to protect WotC. Not to be "Good for its members".

And the ToS needs to be rewritten to protect both WotC and G-Max members and other publishers. If G-Max is supposed to be for all gamers and games like they are claiming then they need to make it as such and not just make it so that WotC gets all the benefits. As it stands the ToS implies that this is just a WotC site.

For the life of me, I don't understand the hate.

From me it is not hate. Rather it is love for the ideal they first presented. I want a site for all gamers and games. What they are doing is making in not what they advertised. If people don't stand up for the idea of neutrality from this site we will just get another WotC site.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Y'know, that actually supports my argument against Kem even better than my own argument. If true, WotC doesn't NEED any protection against fans who come up with the same idea that they do, and the ToS for Gleemax effectively amounts to them blatantly admitting to be taking your stuff for their own use and giving you nothing for it (though letting you retain the ability to publish it other places...which, IMO, is of extremely dubious benefit).

Which basically means that Kem's argument that WotC needs to be able to use people's stuff for free or they'll be in trouble is....bunk.

No, WotC needs the protection because it is one thing for WotC to develop a product and claim they did it independently, and were not aware that the same product existed on some other website, but that arguement becomes much more difficult to make when it is their own website where their own people post.

I personally think that this is a CYA statement, rather than a justification for stealing IP, but I can understand how people who are trying to publish for their own profit would be concerned by the statement and be inclined to not post anything to Gleemax just in case.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

If G-Max is supposed to be for all gamers and games like they are claiming then they need to make it as such and not just make it so that WotC gets all the benefits. As it stands the ToS implies that this is just a WotC site.

From me it is not hate. Rather it is love for the ideal they first presented. I want a site for all gamers and games. What they are doing is making in not what they advertised. If people don't stand up for the idea of neutrality from this site we will just get another WotC site.

Can somebody point me to where they said it was for all games and all gamers? From their press release, I got the impression when they talked about "all kinds of games," they were talking about all kinds of games (board games, RPGs, collectible card games, computer games etc.) which WotC has rights to. I never saw WotC implying that Mattel should drop on by and enjoy a place for some free marketing.

 

[hexgrid]

So you agree, that it's a shady dealing that is going to take advantage of hundreds of fans who won't get compensated for their hard work.

You just don't think that WotC *should* compensate people for their hard work, right?

If they wanted too, WotC could already be doing this, by reprinting material published under the OGL. With very few exceptions, they prefer to write the stuff themselves.

It's pretty simple- if you're doing something you think somebody might want to pay you for, don't post it on Gleemax.

That still leaves the majority of fans, who are doing it for fun and just want to contribute to the community, and would be thrilled in the unlikely event that something of their's is used in a WotC product.

 

[Storm Raven]

Y'know, that actually supports my argument against Kem even better than my own argument. If true, WotC doesn't NEED any protection against fans who come up with the same idea that they do, and the ToS for Gleemax effectively amounts to them blatantly admitting to be taking your stuff for their own use and giving you nothing for it (though letting you retain the ability to publish it other places...which, IMO, is of extremely dubious benefit).

No, WotC doesn't NEED any protection on that front. But they would like to have it, as it avoids annoying nuisance litigation from self-important posters who could otherwise claim that WotC ripped them off. I seriously doubt that WotC has any need to go mining web forums for fan produced material so they can "rip them off". Ideas for feats, classes, and the like are a dime a dozen.

The easiest way to avoid having the possibility that WotC would "rip you off" is simply not to post something that you think they might ever use on Gleemax. Problem solved.