Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Bohandas]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Intellectual property law should be abolished

 

[Clint_L]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Intellectual property law should be abolished

This is a great suggestion if you want every good idea to be de facto owned (or at least monetized) by mega-corporations.

Edit: I think when folks state something like this they are imagining a world where everyone can start stencilling Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt and selling it to make a few bucks if they want. They aren't imagining a world where every original song or invention is immediately stolen from the little guy and sold to the masses by a massive corporation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As per my posts upthread, I'm not so convinced of this. I suspect that for many many people who purchase D&D material because they enjoy playing D&D, this is largely a non-issue.

I don't agree. I think that the influence of 'thought leaders', though far from absolute, has a pretty significant impact on the overall success of D&D and the health of the community. This was made very clear during the 4e era when a pretty limited sub-segment of community members relentlessly poisoned the perception of D&D. The effects of the GSL fed into this, and that seems awfully similar to the likely effects of this putative 'NOGL' license change. No, I can potentially see a case for an unhappy industry that feels ripped off and devalued, a consequent drought in new material, and a general tone of ill-will and suspicion towards WotC (which was definitely a tendency during the 'Edition Wars' when we got endless repeats of the story of how WotC 'dissed everyone under the Sun who liked 3.5' ad nauseum).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think it's an argument they can make at all.

To see why I say that, think through who would they be making it to, and in what context. I mean, suppose that WotC make some public statement purporting to give notice to all OGL v 1.0/1.0a licensees that from hereon in WotC is revoking their rights under that licence by exercise of a power under section 9. (Which is what you are suggesting they might do. There is no difference between what you are calling "deauthorisation" and unilateral revocation of existing licences.)

Then suppose that publishers keep publishing, exercising their rights under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. And suppose that WotC sues them for copyright infringement, arguing that the infringement is the result of the licence having been retracted by exercise of a power conferred on WotC by section 9. In my view that is a ludicrous scenario, and WotC will not do it.

I think it's clear that section 9 confers a power on WotC - to issue variant licence terms - and confers a permission on licensees - to use those variant terms in their licensing. And that's it.

I'm yet to see an argument that WotC has a power to revoke the contracts unilaterally, but if it purports to do so I'm pretty sure that it won't be by a spurious appeal to a notional power under section 9.

I mean, if WotC argue that the term is ambiguous, then they open themselves up to all the extrinsic evidence as to what the parties understood it to mean. But if they don't, there is no basis at all for their claim to enjoy a power of the sort you're conjecturing they might argue they enjoy.

There is no argument I've heard, or can envisage, that section 9 - which refers to WotC publishing updated versions of the licence (ie licences with variant terms) - also by implication confers a power on WotC to revoke existing licences unilaterally.

I don't know what you are thinking of: the leaks I have seen all point to a term of the new licence being an acceptance that no OGC or Licensed Content will be distributed by the party pursuant to the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

It is a further way of making clear that the OGL v 1.1 is not a version of the sort contemplated by section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. As @S'mon pointed out in some of his early posts on this issue, if WotC is not clear about this then licensees under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a could claim to be already licensed to use OGC issued by WotC under a different licence, by arguing that it is exactly the sort of variation that section 9 contemplates.

RIGHT! That's the problem with a 'Section 9 Revocation' argument, because as soon as you make it, you must effectively assert that OGL 1.1 is not an OGL in the sense that 1.0a allows you to choose a version of. It either IS, in which case I exercise my rights under 1.0a to not use that version, OR it ISN'T in which case its some completely new beast that isn't even relevant to a discussion of OGL at all.

I think the best WotC could achieve would be to 'split the baby' and assert that it is using the 'or other version' clause to now assert a distribution of its OGC under that new version, which seems to be quite reasonable, though its unclear they can RETROACTIVELY do that with existing already released content that 3rd parties have already distributed (again, by estoppel or some form of laches/waiver kind of argument, etc.). Its also dangerous for them as they have to open the door to discussing the reasoning behind the whole 'or any other version' clause, which can ONLY have been put in the license for very purpose of making any such attempt futile! At that point the defense calls Peter Adkinson and Ryan Darcy to testify... lol.

 

[Bohandas]

This is a great suggestion if you want every good idea to be de facto owned (or at least monetized) by mega-corporations.

Edit: I think when folks state something like this they are imagining a world where everyone can start stencilling Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt and selling it to make a few bucks if they want. They aren't imagining a world where every original song or invention is immediately stolen from the little guy and sold to the masses by a massive corporation.

The only way the megacorporations can sell anything is because of copyright law. Do you really think anyone would subscribe to Disney+ or HBOMAX if all that content was just out there for free?

 

[Cadence]

The only way the megacorporations can sell anything is because of copyright law. Do you really think anyone would subscribe to Disney+ or HBOMAX if all that content was just out there for free?

Who would pay for the special effects and actors and etc... to make it in the first place then?

 

[Incenjucar]

The only way the megacorporations can sell anything is because of copyright law. Do you really think anyone would subscribe to Disney+ or HBOMAX if all that content was just out there for free?

Eh. You can still have fans pay for something to get it made. Works for indie cartoons like Helluva Boss.

 

[Clint_L]

The only way the megacorporations can sell anything is because of copyright law. Do you really think anyone would subscribe to Disney+ or HBOMAX if all that content was just out there for free?

No, because I don't think any of that content would be out there if no one was paying for it.

Edit: NM. let's not turn this into a thread about capitalism vs. anarchy. I want to learn more about what actual lawyers have to say about the OGL.

 

[Bohandas]

No, because I don't think any of that content would be out there if no one was paying for it.

Yes it would. I was there in the early days of the internet before Adobe screwed over the flash sites and before professionals took over Youtube. I've seen it happen.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes it would. I was there in the early days of the internet before Adobe screwed over the flash sites and before professionals took over Youtube. I've seen it happen.

edit: deleted