Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Siltoneous" data-source="post: 8886995" data-attributes="member: 6973433">Thank you for the clarification, and it's a shame that I stated my point so badly that you needed to correct it. Honestly, the closest I come to legal issues is when daughter and wife watch "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Rise_(TV_series)" target="_blank">All Rise</a>".<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I was attempting (poorly it seems) to posit that WoTC could take the course of action hinted at by post #<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/page-11#post-8881253" target="_blank">214</a>, now that the we may have some understanding of WoTC's audacious scope.For clarifications sake, lets suppose I had some adventure that was published under the OGL 1.0a, and I sold that product through a storefront (fictionally) called RFS. The aim of my post was to suggest that WoTC could simply take the matter of the 'unlicensed material' to the owners of the 'RFS' storefront, and tell them to remove it (based on WoTC's interpretation of the OGL 1.1 language). Now one could assume that the RFS would have/seek legal advice. However wouldn't that put RFS's legal representatives in the position of having to ascertain a bunch of legal issues regarding OGL 1.0a material? I just can't see some site that sells PDFs having the where-with-all, much less the funding to do something like that. However I could very well see them saying that it's an unsettled legal matter between WoTC and myself, and until it's settled, they can't do anything about it. Thus WoTC is able to assert the claim, but not directly to me, but in such a way that I'd be forced to have to contact them.Now, Steel_Wind suggested (in post #213) this kind of behavior might invoke class-action lawsuits, so maybe I just misinterpreted the threat of that kind of action.  Or it could be that WoTC is saying damn the torpedoes, lets settle this once and for all; Class Action lawsuits be damned.Lastly, we can't discount the possibility that it could simply be in the RFS commercial interest to agree to a WoTC's offer that was in their best interest, but stipulated that sale of 1.0a material would not be allowed. But I assume that's a different matter than the one I outlined above.</blockquote>

Verification