Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4032902" data-attributes="member: 18280">How does that solve the problem of those who don't understand the TOU, who think that the language about WotC's intent protects their work, and who don't understand that they are granting WotC the ability to claim their work without compensation, to sell that right or sub-license it if they so desire, that they have no means of resistution, that they cannot revoke this right, and that this right lasts from the time you hit &quot;Submit Reply&quot; until the end of time (or this legal system, at least)?What about the poor SOB who doesn't realize that, by running his Dungeon Crawl Classics module on Gleemax that he can be forced to pay any and all of WotC's legal expenses should they decide that they really like an idea in that module?Or should we only be concerned about ourselves?Because these are a heavily flawed TOU, and I think we have an obligation to point that out.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4032902, member: 18280"] How does that solve the problem of those who don't understand the TOU, who think that the language about WotC's intent protects their work, and who don't understand that they are granting WotC the ability to claim their work without compensation, to sell that right or sub-license it if they so desire, that they have no means of resistution, that they cannot revoke this right, and that this right lasts from the time you hit "Submit Reply" until the end of time (or this legal system, at least)? What about the poor SOB who doesn't realize that, by running his Dungeon Crawl Classics module on Gleemax that he can be forced to pay any and all of WotC's legal expenses should they decide that they really like an idea in that module? Or should we only be concerned about ourselves? Because these are a heavily flawed TOU, and I think we have an obligation to point that out. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification