Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Hussar]

You missed the part where I said one could explicitly delineate not-open portions of a posting at the beginning of the post. Or just have a checkbox for each post "Does this post contain non-open content?" that defaults to unchecked. (This is functionally equivalent to my Creative Commons idea).

So, a simple checkbox that defaults to open is going to protect my rights more than the TOU? Come on. Some poor schmuck forgets to check the box and is SOL - anyone can then use his work. That's less protection than what you get right now.

 

[resistor]

So, a simple checkbox that defaults to open is going to protect my rights more than the TOU? Come on. Some poor schmuck forgets to check the box and is SOL - anyone can then use his work. That's less protection than what you get right now.

Did I say it was perfect? No. But it's a damn sight better than saying "our way or the highway." Feel free to imagine the license being whatever license you like. Maybe the checkbox is between "You grant all rights to WotC" and "You reserve all rights". Having the possibility of reserving your rights in some way is still better than how it is today.

 

[amethal]

So, a simple checkbox that defaults to open is going to protect my rights more than the TOU? Come on. Some poor schmuck forgets to check the box and is SOL - anyone can then use his work. That's less protection than what you get right now.

Poor schmucks are always SOL. It comes with the territory.

 

[Hussar]

But, you don't "grant all rights" to WOTC. That's simply not true. You do grant them the right to publish that work, but, you still retain the right to publish it yourself as well. It is still yours.

Also, this scheme does nothing to protect WOTC, which is a consideration that should be addressed as well. Say I lie. I check the box saying that this bit is open when it really belongs to someone else. Say WOTC takes me at my word and publishes that bit. The original owner doesn't sue me, he sues WOTC. WOTC can turn around and sue me, that's true, but, there's all sorts of problems with that.

First off, it's far more likely that the original owner is going to look for a larger settlement than they could possibly get out of me. Secondly, and more importantly, they have to piss around in court defending against one suit while pursuing another.

I keep repeating this, but, in my mind anyway, this is why anything you post to Gleemax is pretty much 100% safe. It is no way worth WOTC's time and effort to find a good idea posted to Gleemax, determine if it's kosher or not, then go about trying to publish it.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's support to the grandparent poster to whom you objected saying, "And look what happens when they get too greedy. How many major corporations are having troubles right now? A lot of that is due to investors with unreasonable and unsupportable demands of profitability and growth that their market can't meet. "

That's a sweeping generalization that would need an awful lot of support to be valid. For instance, how many major corporations aren't having troubles right now? How about banks, the kings of risk management and (being perceived as) bleeding customers of every penny? In Canada, at least, banks are always among the most profitable companies and are not in any danger of going out of business (I do realize that the chartered banking system in Canada differs from the US system).

You can't simply say "Some large corporations are having troubles. This means there must be something wrong with the standard business model."

Some companies fail. Some succeed. There's a lot more to it that being "greedy" or "not greedy". Miscrosoft, for instance, has a reputation for less-than-ideal business ethics. And troublesome products. You might ask Bill Gates whether his quest for ever-increasing profitability has sunk his company.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I keep repeating this, but, in my mind anyway, this is why anything you post to Gleemax is pretty much 100% safe. It is no way worth WOTC's time and effort to find a good idea posted to Gleemax, determine if it's kosher or not, then go about trying to publish it.

For me, at least, it's not about how ACTUALLY safe it is.

It is about how the TOU is unnecessarily draconian.

Saying "Hey, WotC probably won't do anything too bad with your stuff" doesn't solve the problem of the TOU being unnecessarily draconian.

I'm still looking for that Plan B.

 

[Delta]

You can't simply say "Some large corporations are having troubles. This means there must be something wrong with the standard business model."

Fortunately, I didn't. The grandparent poster's point still stands.

 

[Hussar]

For me, at least, it's not about how ACTUALLY safe it is.

It is about how the TOU is unnecessarily draconian.

Saying "Hey, WotC probably won't do anything too bad with your stuff" doesn't solve the problem of the TOU being unnecessarily draconian.

I'm still looking for that Plan B.

But, how would you word the TOU that protects the poster AND WOTC? It's very well and good to protect the poster. But, that's only half the story. They still need to protect themselves as well.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

But, how would you word the TOU that protects the poster AND WOTC? It's very well and good to protect the poster. But, that's only half the story. They still need to protect themselves as well.

That's what WOTC's legal department is for: drafting contracts that are acceptable to WOTC, and to which Gleemax's target audience are likely to agree.

 

[Hussar]

That's what WOTC's legal department is for: drafting contracts that are acceptable to WOTC, and to which Gleemax's target audience are likely to agree.

Well, considering the traffic over at Gleemax, I'd say they did exactly that no?