Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4034742" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, here's the thing.  If you are right, and neither WotC nor any of the future owners or sublicensees of these rights ever use them unfairly, the TOU are still draconian, and it is bad practice to give away more rights than necessary to achieve your purpose.  Even if you are right, the TOU should be rewritten to reflect only what WotC claims they are required for, and nothing else.If you are wrong, of course, attempts to dismiss or confuse these concerns could cause untold harm to people who either didn't really read, or didn't really understand, the TOU.  You merely have to examine this thread, including claims that WotC cannot claim ownership of what is posted on Gleemax even after the part of the TOU specifically giving them that right has been quoted to know that many people aren't going to really understand what they are giving up in terms of their own rights, and what liabilities they are accepting.The concerns I outlined above are legitimate, because they are specifically codified in the TOU.  This might be "boilerplate" as you suggest, or it might be hedging bets against the future (because who knows what rights you or your successor might want to be able to assert, or how having those rights available might affect the salability of your company?).Given that this is the case, attempting to dismiss legitimate concerns with talk of "cyborgs" and "selling all your old posts to Satan" is not only patronizing, but it obscures the actual issues to what may very well be detrimental effect.  And, in our society, when Cyborg Satan is faced with being liable for WotC's legal bills and royalty payments, and he remembers that he dismissed these concerns because of your posts, don't you think there is just a small chance that Cyborg Satan might try to claim that you are somewhat liable, just to ameliorate his losses?Personally, I believe that people are generally good, and generally want to think of themselves as good.  I am certain that is as true of the employees of WotC as it is of people in general.  I also believe, however, that people behave in accordance to the principles of economics.  They examine the potential risks and rewards of actions, and make decisions on the basis of how they understand those risks and rewards.  This is also as true of WotC employees as it is of other people.When you grant sweeping powers (such as those granted by the TOU) to a group of people, you greatly reduce the risk of unethical behaviour, because, in our society, the legal risks are the primary risks of unethical behaviour.  This is demonstrable when examining ethics as taught in business school.  In this case, ethics is not about doing what is right regardless of the consequences (which is encompassed by the standard meaning of "ethical") but rather what you must do to avoid liability (which has little or nothing to do with actual ethical behaviour).When you reduce the risks of unethical behaviour, you gain an equal increase in the chances of that unethical behaviour eventually being performed.  The Gleemax/Wizards TOU make it almost certain that, eventually, they will be used unfairly.  After all, the only remaining risk is that we, the customers, will care, and that risk is greatly reduced if it becomes obvious that we didn't care about the unfair TOU in the first place.I have been accused of misplaced optimism many, many times by people who know me well.  I don't think my optimism is misplaced.  I have general faith in humanity.  But I would be a fool to think that if I agreed to allow you to stack the deck in a high stakes poker game, without fear of consequence, that you would not eventually find a way to justify stacking the deck, regardless of your ethical stance.  Especially if you had to answer to shareholders.  Especially if those shareholders could use legal means to force you to stack the deck.I might hate myself for doing it later, but I know as a fact that sooner or later I'd stack the deck.  And that I'd stack it more than once.If you think that I am an abberation in this regard, then by all means, use Gleemax.  Agree to the WotC TOU without fear.  Just don't say that I didn't warn you.RC</blockquote>

Verification