Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[resistor]

Here we move from generic legal theory to a specific problem with US law (namely that the larger wallet has the advantage in a legal case). That problem doesn't apply to me.

Would you care to enlighten me as to how the European Community patent practice differs? I know that patents exist on the other side of the pond, but I have no idea of the differences in implementation. Nor do I know if WotC has filed its patent claim for MtG in multiple jurisdictions or not.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Would you care to enlighten me as to how the European Community patent practice differs?

The difference to which I referred lies in the rules of procedure, actually, not so much patent law.

In the UK, there are two key differences under rules of procedure: (1) The loser pays the winner's legal costs, and (2) Solicitors commonly work on a "No Win, No Fee" basis. (This is obviously subject to the solicitor's initial assessment--they have to feel they have a reasonable chance of winning before they'll do this!)

The practical upshot is that someone without much money, but with a decent case, can always afford excellent legal representation. And thus a company with rooms full of lawyers is at no advantage relative to a private citizen with a half-decent case.

I know that patents exist on the other side of the pond, but I have no idea of the differences in implementation. Nor do I know if WotC has filed its patent claim for MtG in multiple jurisdictions or not.

The best person to answer a question on patents might be S'mon? I hope he chimes in.

Personally I became interested in the subject of IP law when I released OSRIC, and my interest escalated sharply when WOTC's brand licensing manager emailed certain remarks to me that made me feel I should consult a solicitor specialising in IP law. (In retrospect this was unnecessary, since WOTC seem to have backed off.)

The advice I received focused on contract law and copyrights, rather than patents.

 

[Piratecat]

Unbelievable. How many times do we need to remind folks not to insult people, and to report posts instead of cluttering up the thread with sarcastic retorts? Apparently, one more than we already have.

JPL, Raven Crowking, do not post in this thread any longer. You both know the rules; follow them. If this is somehow difficult, feel free to drop me an email and explain why.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

To answer the response to my post a couple pages back, it has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with reciprocity. These are terms they would never agree to, behavior they would never tolerate used on them. So why should anyone else agree to these terms? They expect that everyone else will respect their IP but for their own protection disrespectfully expect others to give up their control over IP in a manner they never would concede to. A thing is either ethical or not in absolute, they are not conditional. If IP is to be respected everyone's IP must be respected. And if they won't respect others IP they can count on no one else respecting theirs.

 

[Fifth Element]

To answer the response to my post a couple pages back, it has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with reciprocity. These are terms they would never agree to, behavior they would never tolerate used on them. So why should anyone else agree to these terms? They expect that everyone else will respect their IP but for their own protection disrespectfully expect others to give up their control over IP in a manner they never would concede to. A thing is either ethical or not in absolute, they are not conditional. If IP is to be respected everyone's IP must be respected. And if they won't respect others IP they can count on no one else respecting theirs.

I don't see it that way. For one, it is Wizards' board, and they set the rules in their house, so to speak. Second, the value of their IP is many, many times more valuable than the value of the IP of some random poster. So they want to protect that.

Why should anyone else agree to these terms? Because Wizards owns the playground. If you want to play there, you play by their rules. It has nothing to do with respect.

You're looking at it from a very abstract perspective. Looking at it from a practical perspective, which Wizards must do, it seems much more reasonable.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

You're looking at it from a very abstract perspective.

Yes, but ultimately I view ethics in a very Kantian manner.

Looking at it from a practical perspective, which Wizards must do, it seems much more reasonable.

No not practical, merely concerned with profit and risk mitigation above all other factors. It could have been more moderate in its approach and still protected itself from spurious lawsuits while respecting others, it chose not to. And in such as a corporate entity it loses respect and consideration from me. That may not matter to WoTC being so large but ultimately I don't care whether it matters to WoTC, it matters to me.

 

[Hussar]

ARRRGGH. Never post late at night.

I know that Charles Stross submitted Githyanki. I know that. Totally know that. Yet, for some bizarre reason, I wrote mind flayer. Sigh.

Anyway, my point still stands. Charles Stross did not create that. His submission was completely in violation of IP of George RR Martin. Granted, it was what, 1981, and no one really cared. ((If my date is wrong, I don't care))

Actually, it illustrates exactly why WOTC won't yoink stuff off of Gleemax. Their TOU could certainly state that I have to pay for legal fees, but, then they have to sue me for it. If I post something that is not legally mine, and WOTC uses it, the legal owner will sue WOTC. Sure, WOTC can turn around and sue me too.

But, it's a bit of a stretch to think that WOTC is going to bother. Why would they? It's nowhere near worth the hassle. They get tied up in court, possibly for years, over something that isn't really their fault in the first place.

So, anything they want to use off of Gleemax will have to be completely vetted before they even try to go into development. That means that they are going to have to contact the poster at some point. If they can't - for any number of reasons - then that material will be off limits.

It's simply not worth the time or effort to try. This is a CYA TOU and nothing more.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

ARRRGGH. Never post late at night.

I know that Charles Stross submitted Githyanki. I know that. Totally know that. Yet, for some bizarre reason, I wrote mind flayer. Sigh.

Anyway, my point still stands. Charles Stross did not create that. His submission was completely in violation of IP of George RR Martin. Granted, it was what, 1981, and no one really cared. ((If my date is wrong, I don't care))

Your date is wrong, but I accept that you don't care.

Yeah--the Slaadi and the Death Knight were Stross' original creation, as far as I can tell. The Githyanki were a science fiction author's work yoinked into D&D. Same with the Displacer Beast (ripped off A.E.Van Vogt's Coeurl).

Whatever Stross' role, my point is that they're someone else's work now claimed as WOTC "Intellectual Property" without credit or recompense. I find that highly relevant to the Gleemax terms of use.

It's simply not worth the time or effort to try. This is a CYA TOU and nothing more.

Good Lord, yet another sentence in the emphatic declarative whose only apparent purpose is to dismiss differing opinions. I do think this thread would be better without them.

 

[Hussar]

Whatever Stross' role, my point is that they're someone else's work now claimed as WOTC "Intellectual Property" without credit or recompense. I find that highly relevant to the Gleemax terms of use.

But, doesn't that pose a problem with your point. After all, they were quite capable of claiming other people's IP before Gleemax. Since it's very, very unlikely that any of the people who's IP they are going to gank are going to post on Gleemax, it doesn't really change anything.

If I were to post a writeup about the Tarthenol - a four hearted half giant from Steven Erikson's Malazan series, on Gleemax, they could not use it. I don't have the right to post that. Since it's an open forum, everyone pretty much knows that there are going to be posts that step all over other people's IP.

Heck, how many posts do we see here talking about this or that monster without a OGL in sight? I've seen entire adventures posted, complete with monster stats posted here without including an OGL. That's 100% violating copyright. It happens all the time.

WOTC would have to be monumentally stupid to simply saunter into the forums, look at something and then publish it, regardless of what the TOU says. I'll buy a lot of things about WOTC, but, blindingly stupid usually isn't one of them.

 

[Morrus]

These are terms they would never agree to, behavior they would never tolerate used on them.

Some might quite strongly diagree with that statement.