[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[JustinA]

It must be great to be 100% accurately precognitive. Can you give me the stock market reports for next week?

So you're claiming that WotC was lying about what their TOS for Gleemax would do? And that there was no reason for anyone to criticize what they were saying because they were, in fact, lying about it?

Fascinating.

It must be great to have 100% accurate telepathy. Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?

 

[Jim Hague]

So you're claiming that WotC was lying about what their TOS for Gleemax would do? And that there was no reason for anyone to criticize what they were saying because they were, in fact, lying about it?

No, what I'm saying is that the TOS isn't set in stone, and running around and yelling about the sky falling when it's still in flux and the WotC folks are responding to commentary on it is foolish at best.

People are having hissy fits over the proposed TOS, which is identical to what's been on the WotC boards for an extended period of time. To me, all this means is more geek rage about the DI and WotC's pulling in of their properties and nothing more. It certainly doesn't warrant the hostility too many people here are posting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, what I'm saying is that the TOS isn't set in stone, and running around and yelling about the sky falling when it's still in flux and the WotC folks are responding to commentary on it is foolish at best.

I hardly see any "sky falling" type commentary here. Could you point it out to me?

If the Gleemax ToS will differ dramatically than the quote in the OP of this thread, I would say that it will be so because these concerns were raised. Raising concerns about announced plans before they have been implemented and invested in isn't foolish. Waiting until they are up and running with their plans, IMHO, is.

People are having hissy fits over the proposed TOS, which is identical to what's been on the WotC boards for an extended period of time.

Had these concerns been raised in reference to the WotC ToS, they might have more equitable ToS today.

To me, all this means is more geek rage about the DI and WotC's pulling in of their properties and nothing more. It certainly doesn't warrant the hostility too many people here are posting.

I think the posting here has been quite reasonable, despite the attempts of some to claim that it is "hostile" (and despite the thread title!). In fact, if anything, it shows that there is rather a lot of interest in what WotC is doing. If one is concerned about the WotC ToS, it implies to me that one would like to feel comfortable posting there, not that they hate WotC.

YMMV.

RC

 

[Vocenoctum]

People are having hissy fits over the proposed TOS, which is identical to what's been on the WotC boards for an extended period of time. To me, all this means is more geek rage about the DI and WotC's pulling in of their properties and nothing more. It certainly doesn't warrant the hostility too many people here are posting.

I think my main issue, is that it's obvious what WotC's motivation is, to protect themselves.

There have been all kinds of aspirations and theories of how WotC could screw folks over, but no response to how WotC can otherwise protect themselves. There are no alternates presented, just false allegations that you can't publish something once you put it on Gleemax's forum.

WotC eases their TOS to try to attract more folks, and the response from some is "you're thieves, stop trying to steal from hard workers!"

The is also a difference between Content and IP, but I guess it doesn't matter in an internet arguement.

 

[smetzger]

Why does WOTC need to 'protect' themselves? I don't see the need at all. If they develop something independently then they can use it w/o any moral or legal fears. So why this 'extra' language.

If I discuss a rule or an idea on Gleemax, why can't I publish it on my own web site? If I link to my new idea in a posting on Gleemax and then people ask questions and I reply with clarifications, then is it still ok to have the idea/rule on my web site? Can I add the clarifications to my web site? Have I now let WOTC use the idea/rule w/o giving me at least the credit the I am allowed under the OGC? Can WOTC now release it as their OGC?

Many a great idea and series of ideas has germinated as a post on EN World. Some of these have gone on to be succesful products and the author has emerged as a key player in the D20/OGC world. Scott Greene is one such author that comes to mind, I am sure there are others.

Although I can't prove it I am almost certain that WOTC used my ideas for counterspells when developing 3e. Take a look at this posting, which was before WOTC anounced that 3e was on the way...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2#3cde4dc447ae3229

I don't see why WOTC needs the 'extra' protection. If they want Gleemax to be an 'open' community they should get rid of it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Why does WOTC need to 'protect' themselves? I don't see the need at all. If they develop something independently then they can use it w/o any moral or legal fears. So why this 'extra' language.

Because of the copyright precedent (in U.S. courts) of inferred copying. To demonstrate copying in a court case you have to show similarity and proof of copying. In other words, you have to demonstrate that the allegedly copying material is similar to the alleged original, and you have to show that the alleged copier had access to the original. For example, when a relatively obscure singer-songwriter from Chicago sued the Bee Gees claiming that he had written a song that they had copied to make their hit How Deep Is Your Love, the case turned on whether or not the Bee Gees had ever heard the song - which had only been performed in local clubs in the Chicago area a handful of times. The court found no evidence of copying, because it found no evidence that the Bee Gees had heard the song.

However, when the writers of the song He's So Fine sued George Harrison alleging that his song My Sweet Lord copied their work, the court found that the fact that the song He's So Fine was a big hit was sufficient evidence that Harrison had heard it, and may have unconsciously copied its melody (even though George stated he had not). The court inferred copying from the fact that he had easy access to the original material (and the melodies of the two songs are very similar). George lost the suit.

So, if someone posts something on Gleemax, even if WotC came up with the same idea later completely independently, it is likely that if a court case over the material came up, unless WotC could somehow demonstrate that they never saw the post from their own messageboard, then the court would likely infer access, and consequently (if the material was similar enough) copying. Even if WotC were, in fact, innocent (because they probably would not be able to prove they were innocent.

So they create a ToS that protects them in the event that there is a case of parallel development. And gamers scream bloody murder.

(By the way, I used shibboleth correctly - it has a secondary meaning of a "prophetic statement".)

If I discuss a rule or an idea on Gleemax, why can't I publish it on my own web site?

Under the ToS as presented - you can.

 

[I'm A Banana]

WotC eases their TOS to try to attract more folks, and the response from some is "you're thieves, stop trying to steal from hard workers!"

My response, at least, is more along the lines of "Hey, dude, I know you're not a thief, but dressing up in black pajamas and wearing a mask and carrying around a big bag marked 'Loot' is a little misleading, and I can't really blame the cops for asking you some questions."

The response I've got is largely: "But I'm NOT a thief!"

"And I believe you," I say, "But that doesn't mean you don't LOOK like one. And I've got real problems with your fashion sense."

 

[Yair]

There have been all kinds of aspirations and theories of how WotC could screw folks over, but no response to how WotC can otherwise protect themselves. There are no alternates presented, just false allegations that you can't publish something once you put it on Gleemax's forum.

With respect, I've offered an alternative.

As written, the new information on TOS says that once you publish something on Gleemax you can't publish it anywhere else.

Note that you are allowed (solely per the terms of the Terms of Use and Terms of Service) to use our IP when generating content that you put on our site, however you are not allowed to then publish that content anywhere else.

This, I believe, is just poor wording - you're not allowed to publish material based on Wizard's IP on your site anyways, the TOS won't disallow Birthright content (for example) from posting his materials on Birthright.net (which is allowed under a separate agreement), it will just allow such content to be posted on Gleemax too. This could have been worded better, however. As it is, it isn't perfectly clear if my interpretation is clear or not. I'd say what we have here isn't "flase allegations", it's miscommunication.

Because of the copyright precedent (in U.S. courts) of inferred copying. To demonstrate copying in a court case you have to show similarity and proof of copying. In other words, you have to demonstrate that the allegedly copying material is similar to the alleged original, and you have to show that the alleged copier had access to the original.

Excellent post. However, if the similarities are extensive enough, wouldn't the court assume you've gained access to the original somehow? If I publish a 160-page book that is a verbatim copy of someone else's work, I'm pretty sure the courts will find I copied it...

Under the ToS as presented - you can't.

FIFY.
Under the TOS as presented, "you are not allowed to then publish that content anywhere else". At least for content that originated with some of Wizard's IP in it, you can't. Since that includes the D&D rules, this can be rather extensive... [That Wizard's D&D IP is also available under the OGL is immaterial; it's still their IP]

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...I don't know. It seems like anyone concerned about their own IP should be very cautious about posting anything of substance at Gleemax.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hmmm...I don't know. It seems like anyone concerned about their own IP should be very cautious about posting anything of substance at Gleemax.

Good way to sum it up, SHARK.

And right there is my issue with it.