Has Anyone Listened to the Opening Arguments Podcast on the Gizmodo coverage?

[jgbrowning]

I want to emphasize that this is unusual behavior for them.

It makes me wonder, "Is it unusual though?" or is it a lack of listener knowledge over covered subjects that makes it seem unusual? ie. If a person were a well-informed listener on all the other subjects covered, would this seem unusual, or would it be a pattern?

joe b.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It makes me wonder, "Is it unusual though?" or is it a lack of listener knowledge over covered subjects that makes it seem unusual? ie. If a person were a well-informed listener on all the other subjects covered, would this seem unusual, or would it be a pattern?

joe b.

The responses seemed to imply they'd made an error of similar magnitude previously and then had to do a follow-up podcast saying "Actually we were wrong", because a bunch of their fans were laughingly asking when to expect that, and the podcasters were getting very tetchy about it lol.

 

[Composer99]

I dunno if this was meant for me.

Just replying because I have said things like "they didn't even know about the movie or tv show".

I say that not as disparagement on the presenters but to point out that the OGL debacle looks to be bigger news than either the movie or tv series.

Which frankly is surreal.

Nah just a general remark - but I hadn't thought of that angle, and you're right, that is surreal!

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm a regular listener of this podcast, so their poor take on the situation left me cold. However, they are regularly willing to admit when they are wrong, so I hope they talk to someone, or someone talks to them, who knows better about the OGL and its history.

Reviews are a good way to to get podcasters to take notice. Also if they have a Patreon, posting these might get them to take notice.

 

[Iosue]

I enjoyed their analysis, even when they got some things wrong, or I disagreed with their take. It was good to get an idea of how the situation might look to someone from the outside, without skin in the game.

It was also brought home just what an out-of-context problem this is. It occurred to me when they said that they were sure that WotC did not intend for the OGL to allow Paizo to outsell them. When, of course, that was exactly the idea behind the OGL. But if you don't have that context, it just seems so bizarre. Open licenses are typically (almost entirely?) run by foundations and non-profits, not commercial corporations. Opening up one's primary product is something a start-up might do (in lieu of selling out, or going public), but a subsidiary of Hasbro? That's bonkers. Obviously, then, the thinking goes, WotC didn't intend to subsidize their competitors. Their intent was merely to provide for fan-made content and ancillary products by small companies.

So, if you view it from that lens, then OA's take is understandable. OGL 1.1 is actually a tremendously generous document, by typical corporate standards (especially when comparing it, as they do, to Disney), WotC's play to get royalties from the larger houses seems an eminently reasonable one for a commercial company to make, and OGL 1.0 is by comparison far too loosey-goosey.

Knowing the history (I go back to when TSR was T$R), the original intent of the OGL, and how it's affected the industry as a whole, of course I disagree. But I can see where they are coming from, as analysts looking at a hot news item, and critiquing the original article, with a bit of added research. I suspect that LegalEagle was planning a similar examination of the issue, until he talked to Matt Colville, and realized that diving into the history, culture, and interests of the various stakeholders would be getting too far into the weeds for his usual 20-30 min videos. So he eschewed the analysis of the OGL 1.1 in favor of the larger, more conceptual issue of games, copyright, and trademarks.

Opening Arguments probably thought they could go where Devin couldn't, having over an hour to devote it in a podcast, and are now finding that not even 70 minutes was enough.

 

[ThorinTeague]

The responses seemed to imply they'd made an error of similar magnitude previously and then had to do a follow-up podcast saying "Actually we were wrong", because a bunch of their fans were laughingly asking when to expect that, and the podcasters were getting very tetchy about it lol.

I am not a lawyer just saying I'm not a lawyer to not get in trouble, I'm actually not a lawyer.

Like, literally.

In my 110% unproffessional opinion, after sleeping and thinking on it for a while, I think OA COULD be TECHNICALLY correct that this document is legally revocable. (Which come on folks, isn't that the best kind of correct?).

They're just completely whitewashing the history, the narrative surrounding it's existence, why it was written, and I mean come on, I can't remember how many times they laughably asserted the intentions of the original authors of the license, which in and of itself (let's pretend for a second that they weren't so off-base with their assertions), I always thought lawyers would avoid asserting the implied intentions of the author of a legal document as much as possible. They themselves called this the "four corners" principle. Law is notoriously terrible at determining intentions... or so I thought... isn't it? I say that not as a derogatory. That's just the deal and everybody knows it. Or so I thought.

But I mean... that whole train of thought of course excludes the fact that the authors of the license in question are not gone, and are not staying silent. They are publicly stating what they intended when they themselves wrote it, which is 100% the opposite of what OA was asserting they were. Now their response to this in the comments has been that you can't take the authors intentions into account... but it's cool to speculate about intentions on the show?

Yeah I mean if the license can be revoked because the original authors used the word "perpetual" instead of "irrevocable," and WoTC exercises that legal right, that means... what?

 

[raniE]

I enjoyed their analysis, even when they got some things wrong, or I disagreed with their take. It was good to get an idea of how the situation might look to someone from the outside, without skin in the game.

It was also brought home just what an out-of-context problem this is. It occurred to me when they said that they were sure that WotC did not intend for the OGL to allow Paizo to outsell them. When, of course, that was exactly the idea behind the OGL. But if you don't have that context, it just seems so bizarre. Open licenses are typically (almost entirely?) run by foundations and non-profits, not commercial corporations. Opening up one's primary product is something a start-up might do (in lieu of selling out, or going public), but a subsidiary of Hasbro? That's bonkers. Obviously, then, the thinking goes, WotC didn't intend to subsidize their competitors. Their intent was merely to provide for fan-made content and ancillary products by small companies.

So, if you view it from that lens, then OA's take is understandable. OGL 1.1 is actually a tremendously generous document, by typical corporate standards (especially when comparing it, as they do, to Disney), WotC's play to get royalties from the larger houses seems an eminently reasonable one for a commercial company to make, and OGL 1.0 is by comparison far too loosey-goosey.

Knowing the history (I go back to when TSR was T$R), the original intent of the OGL, and how it's affected the industry as a whole, of course I disagree. But I can see where they are coming from, as analysts looking at a hot news item, and critiquing the original article, with a bit of added research. I suspect that LegalEagle was planning a similar examination of the issue, until he talked to Matt Colville, and realized that diving into the history, culture, and interests of the various stakeholders would be getting too far into the weeds for his usual 20-30 min videos. So he eschewed the analysis of the OGL 1.1 in favor of the larger, more conceptual issue of games, copyright, and trademarks.

Opening Arguments probably thought they could go where Devin couldn't, having over an hour to devote it in a podcast, and are now finding that not even 70 minutes was enough.

Just the fact that they decided that the word "content" in Linda Codega's article meant something different than both they and WotC actually use it to mean is enough proof that this was either done in bad faith (they knew they were wrong and pushed it anyway because they wanted to smear Codega as a liar) or by two people who can't think all that well (they actually thought they were right, which is almost impossible if you just read the article). That they're doubling down on that lie/mistake in defense of their podcast as if they weren't entirely wrong about what Codega meant is embarrassing. That they clearly did almost zero research on this at all is also bad. This was a pure hatchet job.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Just the fact that they decided that the word "content" in Linda Codega's article meant something different than both they and WotC actually use it to mean is enough proof that this was either done in bad faith (they knew they were wrong and pushed it anyway because they wanted to smear Codega as a liar) or by two people who can't think all that well (they actually thought they were right, which is almost impossible if you just read the article). That they're doubling down on that lie/mistake in defense of their podcast as if they weren't entirely wrong about what Codega meant is embarrassing. That they clearly did almost zero research on this at all is also bad. This was a pure hatchet job.

Payola is what it was.

 

[lvl20dm]

I think lawyers are going to have different takes on all of this. This podcast essentially dismisses the idea that the OGL is truly "open". They aren't going off context or history or what have you - the host is looking at the document itself. He's not the first person in the last 23 years to draw a similar conclusion, Dancy's statements to the contrary. So to me this is not done in bad faith.

The focus on the Gizmodo article I find more persuasive. Codega's initial article and (particularly) the follow-ups, do misrepresent things, and seem meant to provoke outrage and even seem to have calls to action. These might seem minor, but they've made me question the motivation of the writer and the accuracy/legitimacy of the anonymous sources.

 

[DMZ2112]

OGL 1.1 is actually a tremendously generous document

People need to stop saying this, especially if they are not trying to defend Wizards.

Cow excrement is the most delicious thing in the world, if you remove everything more delicious than cow excrement from consideration. This idea that the new closed license can be assessed outside the context of the existing OGL is nonsense and a distraction.

 

[Mercurius]

I listened to it. It's terrible.

They take the original Gizmodo article to task, mention that Wizards are on "the same side as us" (they mean in terms of progressive politics, clearly they missed the Hadozee debacle), and focus on all the wrong issues. At one point they discuss other media but one host isn't aware of the upcoming movie, and neither mention the recently announced TV series. Overall they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the TTRPG community in 2023 and the OGL's role over the last 23 years. Avoid, for the good of your blood pressure!

I don't want to derail the thread (too much), but this touches upon a problem that I think clarifies why this WotC OGL is something that people should unite on, regardless of which "side" they're on in other issues. For one, there is no singular correct (or even "progressive") view on issues like the "Hadonzee debacle." One can not see it as a debacle and still be politically progressive, because there are different ways to interpret the phenomena in question. Progressivism does not (or should not) mean we all have to agree on how we interpret things, or what the "right way" to address something is.

The OGL is different. It relates to a clear demarcation and tension between corporate entities and human beings, especially smaller publishers and creators. It is not (or far less) a matter of hermeneutics (that is, how you interpret something) but more a matter of economics and creative control. I think there is plenty of room to discuss different responses, how one personally chooses to support (or not) WotC going forward, but a more restrictive OGL means "we the people" all suffer for it.

 

[raniE]

I think lawyers are going to have different takes on all of this. This podcast essentially dismisses the idea that the OGL is truly "open". They aren't going off context or history or what have you - the host is looking at the document itself. He's not the first person in the last 23 years to draw a similar conclusion, Dancy's statements to the contrary. So to me this is not done in bad faith.

The focus on the Gizmodo article I find more persuasive. Codega's initial article and (particularly) the follow-ups, do misrepresent things, and seem meant to provoke outrage and even seem to have calls to action. These might seem minor, but they've made me question the motivation of the writer and the accuracy/legitimacy of the anonymous sources.

No it doesn't. What does it misrepresent? Because the stuff the podcast says it does is simply not true. Codega's point about the OGL 1.1 being more restrictive on content is entirely true, the podcast just chose to decide that Codega meant something else by content so they could smear them.

 

[Haplo781]

I dunno if this was meant for me.

Just replying because I have said things like "they didn't even know about the movie or tv show".

I say that not as disparagement on the presenters but to point out that the OGL debacle looks to be bigger news than either the movie or tv series.

Which frankly is surreal.

And incredibly bad for both Wizards and Paramount.

 

[Xethreau]

It makes me wonder, "Is it unusual though?" or is it a lack of listener knowledge over covered subjects that makes it seem unusual? ie. If a person were a well-informed listener on all the other subjects covered, would this seem unusual, or would it be a pattern?

joe b.

Indeed --- it appears that a general lack of public knowledge of this situation presents WotC with a first-striker advantage. By which I mean, if they present their new "OGL" as being a baseline contract, people unfamiliar with the history of the matter will look at it and presume it is reasonable. I've actually seen this happen several times over the weekend on Facebook.

 

[lvl20dm]

No it doesn't. What does it misrepresent? Because the stuff the podcast says it does is simply not true. Codega's point about the OGL 1.1 being more restrictive on content is entirely true, the podcast just chose to decide that Codega meant something else by content so they could smear them.

This is not about true statements - it's about the way the facts are presented. The podcast host, for example, honed in on the statement that the original OGL was 900 words and the new OGL was 9,000. This was delivered without context - the implication is that the extra length is because WotC has made the OGL more complicated in order to trick the reader. That's one example of a fact being presented in a misleading fashion.

Follow ups on this have been even more egregious, in my opinion. Takes this passage, from the article titled "Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hands", for example:

Wizards of the Coast stated in the unreleased FAQ that it wasn’t making changes to the OGL just because of a few “loud voices,” and that’s true. It took thousands of voices. And it’s clear that Wizards of the Coast didn’t make the latest changes purely of their own accord. The entire tabletop ecosystem is holding Wizards of the Coast to the promises that they made in 2000. And now, the fans are setting the terms.

So, to me, this lacks a certain journalistic tone to inspire confidence in a lack of bias. Now, admittedly, I don't read game journalism with any kind of frequency, so maybe this is standard.

 

[Iosue]

People need to stop saying this, especially if they are not trying to defend Wizards.

Cow excrement is the most delicious thing in the world, if you remove everything more delicious than cow excrement from consideration. This idea that the new closed license can be assessed outside the context of the existing OGL is nonsense and a distraction.

The quoted statement is not my own view, but I view I can see reasonable people holding. It’s also a view we have to deal with if we want to convince people outside the D&D/RPG playing sphere.

 

[raniE]

This is not about true statements - it's about the way the facts are presented. The podcast host, for example, honed in on the statement that the original OGL was 900 words and the new OGL was 9,000. This was delivered without context - the implication is that the extra length is because WotC has made the OGL more complicated in order to trick the reader. That's one example of a fact being presented in a misleading fashion.

No, it is absolutely about true statements. Opening arguments lied. They made false statements. They said untrue things. They uttered falsehoods. The article also doesn't imply what you or Opening arguments says it does at all. Here's the full text of the entire paragraph about the length of the thing:

What is in the new OGL 1.1?​

A lot, actually. While the original open gaming license is a relatively short document, coming in at under 900 words, the new draft of the OGL 1.1, which was provided to io9 by a non-WotC developer, is over 9,000 words long. It addresses new technologies like blockchain and NFTs, and takes a strong stance against bigoted content, explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.”

So, where do you see any such implication that this was done to trick the reader? It says it's longer, and then talks about all the stuff that's in it that wasn't in the original OGL, like talking about blockchains and NFTs. Maybe it's me, maybe I can't see what you see, so please point it out. Where in that paragraph is codega implying that the extra length is to trick the reader?

Follow ups on this have been even more egregious, in my opinion. Takes this passage, from the article titled "Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hands", for example:

Wizards of the Coast stated in the unreleased FAQ that it wasn’t making changes to the OGL just because of a few “loud voices,” and that’s true. It took thousands of voices. And it’s clear that Wizards of the Coast didn’t make the latest changes purely of their own accord. The entire tabletop ecosystem is holding Wizards of the Coast to the promises that they made in 2000. And now, the fans are setting the terms.

So, to me, this lacks a certain journalistic tone to inspire confidence in a lack of bias. Now, admittedly, I don't read game journalism with any kind of frequency, so maybe this is standard.

That's true though, it's just written well. Journalists are allowed to write evocative prose.