Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Delta" data-source="post: 4027056" data-attributes="member: 40269">Here's where some of my sensibility may be coming from. I usually work from home, and when I have lunch I turn on the TV for a half-hour. At that time here in New York there's mostly these judge-arbitration-court shows on.The thing that comes up over and over again (like 50% of the cases) is that once you have a written agreement, whatever someone said verbally about the agreement -- before, during, or after -- holds no legal weight whatsoever. You can have your best friend for life, that you've given thousands of dollars over the years, swear on everything that's holy that they'll do something -- but if there's a piece of paper saying otherwise, you've got zero right to it. That's specifically the rather tough entertainment value of these shows, they search for people in exactly these situations, and then day after day when it comes up the judge laughs at them for believing something said contrary to an official contract.So when WOTC writes a license and then immediately following the license says, &quot;It is not the intention of Wizards to commercially exploit User Content through the foregoing license grants,&quot; that in and of itself is outright bad behavior. It's the kind of trickery that's played on people who are fuzzy on the status of contracts in the law, and all by itself it smells bad. My TV schedule is filled, day after day, with judges laughing at people and wondering why they'd ever believe something like that.Even if WOTC never does use those rights -- just the fact that they're trying get people in the habit of favoring unofficial words over official binding licenses is in and of itself bad behavior, and detrimental to the people who are their customers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Delta, post: 4027056, member: 40269"] Here's where some of my sensibility may be coming from. I usually work from home, and when I have lunch I turn on the TV for a half-hour. At that time here in New York there's mostly these judge-arbitration-court shows on. The thing that comes up over and over again (like 50% of the cases) is that once you have a written agreement, whatever someone said verbally about the agreement -- before, during, or after -- holds no legal weight whatsoever. You can have your best friend for life, that you've given thousands of dollars over the years, swear on everything that's holy that they'll do something -- but if there's a piece of paper saying otherwise, you've got zero right to it. That's specifically the rather tough entertainment value of these shows, they search for people in exactly these situations, and then day after day when it comes up the judge laughs at them for believing something said contrary to an official contract. So when WOTC writes a license and then immediately following the license says, "It is not the intention of Wizards to commercially exploit User Content through the foregoing license grants," that in and of itself is outright bad behavior. It's the kind of trickery that's played on people who are fuzzy on the status of contracts in the law, and all by itself it smells bad. My TV schedule is filled, day after day, with judges laughing at people and wondering why they'd ever believe something like that. Even if WOTC never does use those rights -- just the fact that they're trying get people in the habit of favoring unofficial words over official binding licenses is in and of itself bad behavior, and detrimental to the people who are their customers. [/QUOTE]

Verification