Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marius Delphus" data-source="post: 4023368" data-attributes="member: 447"><a href="http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=2872&amp;pagemode=2&amp;blogid=469" target="_blank">Complete text here.</a>No, I know, I know, the people that work at WOTC have no respect for the creative process, the ownership of intellectual property, or the hard work of individual authors, and they're ready to mercilessly plunder the Gleemax messageboards for any idea that is even remotely publishable. I get that. :\ (Always remember to rob and plunder before you pillage and burn, after all.)The :\ in this case means I'm being sarcastic. But if my faith that WOTC won't republish my valuable, valuable message board posts is wishful thinking, then why isn't the fear that WOTC will &quot;steal&quot; from message board posters just so much message-board drama? (I know, I know... it's just &quot;common sense.&quot; :\)Personally, I think the right way to go is never to post anything you don't want to pollute the rights to. In any public forum, not just Gleemax. I've said it multiple times in another venue, but it's equally applicable in this case... if you really think you have something worth publishing, then see about publishing it. Don't give anyone else rights to it.Legally, the best information I have access to confirms that Gleemax and Wizards need this TOS/TOU provision to keep the message board alive in the face of Wizards' publishing business (last I checked, MySpace doesn't have a publishing arm). Yeah, I said &quot;need.&quot; Because I (naively :\) believe WOTC is telling the truth in the quote above: their lawyers really did tell them that that provision's an important protection for WOTC.I'm not denying that, on the face of it, the provision gives WOTC the &quot;power&quot; to republish anything that appears on Gleemax. I believe it does, technically. But I guess somebody forgot to notify me that WOTC had changed from &quot;a bunch of folks that work hard on games because they love them&quot; to &quot;a bunch of evil corporate suits who are looking to plunder the fans' collective creativity.&quot;I maintain the provision is there to protect WOTC. I predict it won't be substantially changed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marius Delphus, post: 4023368, member: 447"] [URL=http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=2872&pagemode=2&blogid=469]Complete text here.[/URL] No, I know, I know, the people that work at WOTC have no respect for the creative process, the ownership of intellectual property, or the hard work of individual authors, and they're ready to mercilessly plunder the Gleemax messageboards for any idea that is even remotely publishable. I get that. :\ (Always remember to rob and plunder before you pillage and burn, after all.) The :\ in this case means I'm being sarcastic. But if my faith that WOTC won't republish my valuable, valuable message board posts is wishful thinking, then why isn't the fear that WOTC will "steal" from message board posters just so much message-board drama? (I know, I know... it's just "common sense." :\) Personally, I think the right way to go is never to post anything you don't want to pollute the rights to. In [b]any[/b] public forum, not just Gleemax. I've said it multiple times in another venue, but it's equally applicable in this case... if you really think you have something worth publishing, then see about publishing it. Don't give anyone else rights to it. Legally, the best information I have access to confirms that Gleemax and Wizards need this TOS/TOU provision to keep the message board alive in the face of Wizards' publishing business (last I checked, MySpace doesn't have a publishing arm). Yeah, I said "need." Because I (naively :\) believe WOTC is telling the truth in the quote above: their lawyers really did tell them that that provision's an important protection for WOTC. I'm not denying that, on the face of it, the provision gives WOTC the "power" to republish anything that appears on Gleemax. I believe it does, technically. But I guess somebody forgot to notify me that WOTC had changed from "a bunch of folks that work hard on games because they love them" to "a bunch of evil corporate suits who are looking to plunder the fans' collective creativity." I maintain the provision is there to protect WOTC. I predict it won't be substantially changed. [/QUOTE]

Verification