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

[Xyxox]

Never heard of it. Listen, man, I know you're into it and everything, and that's cool. The guy might be spittin' straight truth (trying to sound young and hip, here). But to my ears, what you're saying is one step away from "Q isn't speculating, he's dialed in, he's on the inside, he knows everyone who's worth knowing" yada yada yada.

ETA: If he isn't just speculating and his contacts are where you say there are, Paizo needs to tell him to STFU.

1) I'm as old as he is.
2) He IS connected to every third party provider in the industry that is worth anything big.
3) He has people working for him that have worked for WotC, Paizo, Goodman Games, etc.
4) Think whatever you want, this is real, it is happening, and people better get prepared because it is likely nobody will be able to use OneBookShelf to sell anything that is OGL 1.0a very soon. Same goes for OGL 1.0a content on Kickstarter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was not a draft, it was an actual contract they wanted signed onto. If somebody signed their contract and the OGL 1.1 is not released as that was included to induce the signature, then WotC has engaged in fraud to get a signature on a contract. That's why they must release it or they face not just civil consequenses from the signor, they face criminal consequences for committing fraud.

This seems like it's making a lot of assumptions about what exactly the contract said. And both sides could agree to dissolve it even if it had entered into force.

 

[overgeeked]

BOOM! It's hitting Mainstream media:

MSN

www.msn.com

That was posted earlier. It’s an aggregator that scooped up CBR’s article from yesterday.

 

[Xyxox]

This seems like it's making a lot of assumptions about what exactly the contract said. And both sides could agree to dissolve it even if it had entered into force.

so long as the signor never reports it to law enforcement when they dissolve, WotCis safe from criminal consequences. Dissolving it will not stop a signor from reporting it, though. That would only be a position of good faith.

 

[rcade]

4) Think whatever you want, this is real, it is happening, and people better get prepared because it is likely nobody will be able to use OneBookShelf to sell anything that is OGL 1.0a very soon.

If that happens, I expect Warehouse 23 will get a lot of new customers for third-party PDFs OneBookShelf refuses to sell.

 

[overgeeked]

If that happens, I expect Warehouse 23 will get a lot of new customers for third-party PDFs OneBookShelf refuses to sell.

Right up until WotC lawyers show up.

 

[Xyxox]

If that happens, I expect Warehouse 23 will get a lot of new customers for third-party PDFs OneBookShelf refuses to sell.

And I would expect Warehouse 23 to get a cease and desist shortly after. This is Lawfare and it looks like Hasbro is not playing games.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

so long as the signor never reports it to law enforcement when they dissolve, WotCis safe from criminal consequences. Dissolving it will not stop a signor from reporting it, though. That would only be a position of good faith.

I am incredibly skeptical the police and DA would be willing to actually pursue a case like that. They barely pursue incredibly obvious and quite serious cases of fraud, let alone one which demonstrably had no monetary loss. Especially when the "bad guy" was Hasbro of all people. I don't think it would even be considered Fraud in the UK so long as it was dissolved with no loss (and I'm taking your word that it would be in the US).

 

[Myrdin Potter]

It would be incredibly hard to prove intent to fraud if they were going to release the new license and entered into the agreement in good faith. Why a DA would ever take that up if they cared about their win percentages (and they do) escapes me.

A civil case would have to show damages.

 

[Clint_L]

This particular thread was a lot more useful when it was mostly real lawyers. I regret adding my own "contributions." Could we go back to maybe just asking questions, if we are not lawyers? The opinions of non-lawyers, like me, don't really add anything.

Just this one thread. There are plenty of others for us non-lawyers to share our opinions. But it was nice that there was one that had serious legal analysis happening and I think we are scaring it away.