Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Spell]

Now, did WotC "steal" my idea?

that's for you to prove, if you think you have a case.

Or was it just so obvious to anyone familiar with 4E and the two classes that it had to happen?

and that's for them to argue, if they have a clear conscience.


i think that at the base of what we are discussing here lies a question as old as civilization: what are laws for?

i think there will be some agreement that original idea (and the one that is still largely embraced today) is that laws are there to protect anyone from abuses. abuses coming from people more powerful than him and abuses coming from people less powerful that could nevertheless get away with unfair practices because of the way the society is at a given moment.

a good and fair law shouldn't substitute one abuse with another.
the copyright laws are perfectly fine when they protect someone's IP from being stole. it's good when it's my IP and it's good when it's WotC or Sony's.

the copyright laws (just like any other law) are not fine anymore when (among other significantly more unfair practices by other companies that have nothing to do with this discussion) WotC can claim that they can reproduce my IP just because i posted on their forums. it doesn't matter that i agreed to a set of rules, because, as someone pointed out, there is no way that WotC can guarantee that it was *me* agreeing. (as opposed to a relative, or to a friend).

let's say that i "steal" my brother's idea on the next cool class, and i published it on the forums. something similar is published by WotC and my brother would want to sue. what is stopping him? what is stopping him to sue WotC *and* me and to settle out of court with me for a penny, while pursuing the case with Wizards?

if we were talking about a written permission with my signature on it, then there would be no debate. but i would think that simply clicking on a button is a very thin legal base on which basing a defence in court.

again, as it has been stated before, it's the principle that is upsetting, not the real possibility of it happening. because it might not happen today, or tomorrow. but maybe in ten years it could. and then, after ten years, it would be significantly more difficut to change the principle back to what it was before.

(By the way, I picked this example because the opposite thing - minus law suits or anthing like that - happened with my group. We posted - on our own web site - a rage mage class, and the German publisher for D&D at the time emailed our webmaster that we had to remove it because a similar class appeared in a Dragon magazine. I doubt that they had any real legal base here, with OGL and fair use and what else around, but it's still an anecdote that gets me thinking...)

did you steal Dragon's idea? i doubt it. what would have happened if you had refused to remove the class? probably you would have got kicked out of those forums. do you think it's fair that your free and legitimate idea couldn't circulate because someone was afraid that WotC *might* have sued? even when WotC didn't even send anything that could give the impression that they were unhappy about your post?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I don't get it

Hasn't this been the deal with the OGL all along? That we got a safe harbor to do 3E derived content in (including for sale), and in return WoTC got the right to pick up anything it really liked and incorporate it into the core rules?

To me, this seems like a really fair deal for everyone. The RPG market is just too small for anyone to profit from lawsuits, and as a practical matter very few of us would have the financial wherewithal to sue WOTC in any case (and good luck getting a lawyer to sue on contingency!).

The hard thing about RPG development isn't coming up with ideas. The hard part is execution -- putting designers, developers, artists and editors together into a team and coming up with a sellable product.


So, the intrinsic monetary value of an 'idea' in a WoTC messageboard post, in my opinion, is about zilch.

Ken

 

[Maggan]

but that's not the point of the discussion.

Nope, but it was brought up as one reason why this is very bad for WotC. I don't agree that it is very bad for WotC.

Bad, sure, on some level, but this will not topple Gleemax. Technical problems might topple Gleemax.

/M

 

[Carpe DM]

If MySpace backed down over this, Wizards will, if they have sense. *shrug* This kind of IP clause kills Web 2.0 applications. And courts won't find it enforceable -- not remotely. This was a huge mistake by Wizards' lawyers.

 

[Spell]

You've really got to ask why Wizards would be printing a book full of "stolen" gleemax-member ideas, though. What will it gain them over what they'll lose? The contract means they don't have to ask, but they still can.

and it's exactly this that i don't like, regardles of what they might or might not gain, or whether or not it's likely to happen. i don't see why i have to ask to "steal" their ideas and they don't with mine.

Consider these links as well:

these links have two effects:
1. disprove my perception that creative people have no problem with sharing their ideas.
2. reinforce my perception that, if you don't want to run the unlikely risk of being sued by freaks thinking that you have stolen their idea, you might just as well forbid people from creating derivative works from your IP.

now, WotC is caught in the middle. on one hand, they don't want to run the risk. on the other, they want people to create derivative works on their products and to post their ideas on their forums.

in my opinion, this could be achieved by inserting more equal clauses in the ToU. for example, they could clearly say that the company will not be responsible for any similarity between their products (past, presents and future ones) and any post in their forums. or something more legally sound and fair sounding.

 

[Carpe DM]

I should be constructive, so I will be:

The solution is for Wizards to state, as MySpace and many other Web 2.0 providers now do, that it reserves a limited license purely for the purpose of being able to maintain its boards and that it will not repackage the intellectual property for profit without consent.

 

[meleeguy]

One license to rule them, one license to bind them..

</humor on>

See attachment.

</humor off?>

 

[2WS-Steve]

the crazy thing is that i firmly believe that most creative people are not interested too much in someone else "stealing" their ideas and giving them a new spin.

Just to point out, I don't think the primary concern is that your ideas get stolen either. I'll re-post this:

And one problem with a license like that is that even if/though WotC would never turn around and republish it, the mere fact that they can undermines your ability to sell the ideas elsewhere.

For Example: Let's say you post a story hour recounting your cool adventure about fighting snakes on a plane -- then turn it into a screenplay. Well, part of your disclosure to any studio interested in dropping 20-40 million dollars on that idea will have to be that you once posted it to the WotC web-boards under that license -- and then the studio's going to tell you that there's no way they're going to spend that kind of money if someone else can pop right in and create their own derivative material (including sequels and merchandising) off it.

i.e. -- there's no stealing going on, but because you've given up some rights to your material you undermine your ability to use it elsewhere.

 

[Sigurd]

I find it funny and amusing how everyone is getting worked up over something that 99.999% of people don't ever bother to read and won't ever be affected by.
You could read the fine print of your mortgage or car insurance and be equally "outraged."
It's legalese folks. It's for lawyers, not you and I (real lawyers, not "armchair" lawyers).
Don't lose any sleep over it.

Here I think you're dead wrong. It is part of the terms of use for the website. Everyone who used the site is affected by this. Regardless of what you think of the details, the Terms of Use affect you if you use the site.

If too many people don't see the TOU then they are not understood and should be highlighted. If you think you use the site without regard for TOU thats another problem.

As I said before something like this should be flashed whenever you post so people understand and consent. I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans is its hidden so people don't see it.

-sigurd


I can easily see another possible abuse too. WOTC could publish something that is challenged for originality. They refer to your post and the TOU. So your post about "Flintstones & D&D" becomes the reason Hanna Barbara is suing you because of a WOTC book.

Your post was made in good faith but you were wrong. You've licensed WOTC to use your (bad) idea and they are sharing their woes with you. Congratulations ! you have some share of the damage done by publishers roll out because they could show that you contributed to the idea.

I'm not saying WOTC would do this but it could prove a real easy way to spread the blame and confuse the issue if they were facing a settlement in court.

Search "whatever we're being sued about"?
Ah, That's close enough.
Sue them, they were our inspiration.
or...
Maybe we can recover some of our damages if this guy has money?

It would be hideously unpopular and I don't think WOTC would do it, but companies have grasped at every possible unpopular dime before.

The problem is you didn't even need to be asked so you dont have a say in how it was used.

 

[Vascant]

The solution to all this seems almost to easy, just don't post there then..