Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[I'm A Banana]

It's a form of "voting with your wallet." If no one uses the service, it's an expense with no profit and will be shut down. Or, they'll change the TOU so that people want to come and keep it alive. Either way, it's the most effective way of getting a corporation to change its mind.

Boycotts are pretty historically ineffective. I project similarly that any attempt to deny Gleemax use will largely be ineffective. There's just not enough people who really care about it, and too many people hoping to be chosen for the next WotC hardcover. The Art of War says don't fight a battle you won't win. This one, those with concerns like me, won't win.

So, what's plan B?

 

[resistor]

It's a form of "voting with your wallet." If no one uses the service, it's an expense with no profit and will be shut down. Or, they'll change the TOU so that people want to come and keep it alive. Either way, it's the most effective way of getting a corporation to change its mind.

If each of us that refuses to use Gleemax just sat here in silence, it'd have no effect. A boycott is only effective if enough people join it. And the part nature of this problem is that most people aren't aware of what they're agreeing to.

So yes, it is "voting with your wallet." But this thread is still important if only to inform others that they might want to do the same.

 

[Delta]

Basically, the various laws around IP protect the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. So you can't own the idea of "a brown fizzy cola-flavoured drink", but you can own the "Coke" brand. You can't own the idea of "an adventure featuring children who go to wizard school" but you can own the character of Harry Potter and his distinctive likenesses.

This would be mostly correct if you replaced the phrase "various laws around IP" with the word "copyright".

You can in fact protect ideas themselves via patents (a subset of what's considered IP law), such as, hypothetically, manufacture of a particular kind of drink. The protection of marks like "Coke" and "Harry Potter" are trademarks, which is a wholly different subset of IP. The discussion at hand is about copyrights.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, if you read this correctly, you will understand that WotC can claim ownership of your posts, even though the TOU clearly state that you retain ownership, because the TOU effectively prevent you from persuing a claim of ownership irrevocably against Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees. This is because "You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any User Content posted by you to or through the Site." doesn't differentiate whether it is your User Content or someone else's.

I still don't get it. If you aren't saying that WotC will sue you for publishing something you put on Gleemax or doing whatever else you want to do with it, how are they claiming ownership? How are they keeping you from enacting your right as the creator and owner of the content? What does your quote actually mean?

EDIT: That is to say, what does "You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any User Content posted by you to or through the Site." mean?

 

[resistor]

I still don't get it. If you aren't saying that WotC will sue you for publishing something you put on Gleemax or doing whatever else you want to do with it, how are they claiming ownership? How are they keeping you from enacting your right as the creator and owner of the content?

Suppose they make the (false) assertion, for whatever reason, that they own your material. You file suit claiming that that is not the case, that they just have a license to use the material. You win, based on the terms on the terms of the license. However, under the terms of the license you are required to pay WotC's damages and legal expenses as pertain to the use of the material you posted. In effect, you pay yourself the damages, as well as paying WotC's legal expenses.

Thus they, in effect, own your material, because no matter how much you sue them over it, they'll never have to pay a dime.


NOTE: I personally find this scenario somewhat far-fetched and would appreciate the input of someone more knowledgeable about IP before I consider it a possibility. I'm just trying to help explain it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Suppose they make the (false) assertion, for whatever reason, that they own your material. You file suit claiming that that is not the case, that they just have a license to use the material. You win, based on the terms on the terms of the license. However, under the terms of the license you are required to pay WotC's damages and legal expenses as pertain to the use of the material you posted. In effect, you pay yourself the damages, as well as paying WotC's legal expenses.

I'm not saying that isn't true (I haven't studied the TOU), but that's not what the quote means. It specifically talks about paying royalties, fees, etc. But, what fees and royalties, I have no clue. User Content looks like a defined term, probably anything I post. And Site is most likely Gleemax. It doesn't seem to be a "don't sue us" clause for Users who plagiarize or infringe on copyright. I'm not sure what its for...

 

[Hussar]

As far as I understand, the TOU do nothing to prevent you from publishing anything you put on the Gleemax boards. After all, you only granted a license for WOTC to publish, not prevent you. Now, WOTC could publish EXACTLY the same book under the TOU and neither of you could sue the other.

What's the problem here?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This would be mostly correct if you replaced the phrase "various laws around IP" with the word "copyright".

Patents protect inventions and processes. Trademarks protect words and phrases.

Nothing protects "ideas" in a way that would be relevant to a Gleemax messageboard post.

 

[resistor]

Nothing protects "ideas" in a way that would be relevant to a Gleemax messageboard post.

Game mechanics can be patented. I seem to recall that WotC patented the tap mechanic in MtG. It's not very common, but it does exist.

EDIT: Apparently the mechanics of Monopoly were patented as well.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

As far as I understand, the TOU do nothing to prevent you from publishing anything you put on the Gleemax boards. After all, you only granted a license for WOTC to publish, not prevent you. Now, WOTC could publish EXACTLY the same book under the TOU and neither of you could sue the other.

What's the problem here?

The problem is that D&D has a long history of being built on the back of fan-contributions when the fans weren't compensated for their work? And the Open Gaming movement was supposed to stop that?