Hypothetical: I ignore OGL 1.x

[GMforPowergamers]

I sometimes do e-commerce law, so now I'm thinking of a US court ordering ISPs to block access to the website of the UK publisher... theoretically possible, but seems unlikely in practice. But the rightsholder (here, WoTC) could use a US court order to get the work taken off drivethrurpg, easily enough. They'd presumably have already DMCA'd it anyway.

okay I am really dumb about laws... but I know there are some about ordering medication or weapons from one place and having them shipped to another... how do THEY enforce that rule?

I mean I assume I can't mail order a russian nuke.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

okay I am really dumb about laws... but I know there are some about ordering medication or weapons from one place and having them shipped to another... how do THEY enforce that rule?

I mean I assume I can't mail order a russian nuke.

Customs, have you ever heard of it?

Mail carriers and parcel carriers also scan a lot of stuff based on certain rules, but plenty of drugs and so on get shipped by mail or the like.

And re: ordering medication to different places, that's mostly dealt with by auditing, as I understand it. I.e. there will be a paper trail of where you sent stuff, and if there isn't, you're in trouble.

Nukes and radiological material particularly are looked for with massive amounts of radiation detectors in various places. Some cities etc. even have roving radiation detectors. I know NYC used to have multiple, may well still do.

You're talking about criminal laws, though, not civil laws, re: weapons, medication, etc.

Customs in some countries does interact with civil enforcement, but I don't think it's typical.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Customs, have you ever heard of it?

yeah... but seeing as how I don't often order things from outside the US and the few times I did it didn't matter, I actually have no experience with how it works or what it can or can't do?

SO can customs stop the books?

Mail carriers and parcel carriers also scan a lot of stuff based on certain rules, but plenty of drugs and so on get shipped by mail or the like.

right, and I don't want to get bogged down in specifics but some things you can have shipped and some you aren't supposed to... but both are pills in a bottle.

And re: ordering medication to different places, that's mostly dealt with by auditing, as I understand it. I.e. there will be a paper trail of where you sent stuff, and if there isn't, you're in trouble.

would not that same audit process work with books?

You're talking about criminal laws, though, not civil laws, re: weapons, medication, etc.

Customs in some countries does interact with civil enforcement, but I don't think it's typical.

I have no idea... Hence why I am asking

 

[Ruin Explorer]

yeah... but seeing as how I don't often order things from outside the US and the few times I did it didn't matter, I actually have no experience with how it works or what it can or can't do?

SO can customs stop the books?

In the UK? My limited understanding is essentially "no".

Because this is a civil not criminal matter.

would not that same audit process work with books?

No.

Not unless you can convince the government to put a law through parliament essentially allowing "banned books" to be tracked lol.

And even when people have gotten an injunction or judgment to stop the sales of a book judged to libellous, the police don't come around and confiscate the book, just any copies that haven't been sold are ordered by the court to be held or destroyed or whatever. People comply so they're not in contempt of court or don't get sued, depending on the exact circumstances. I myself in this very room have two books (both purchased by my wife lol) which got pulled for claims of libel (which only held up in UK courts, I note). No-one can take those away. They just can't sell more.

Do you want to know about physical or digital? In general physical is a LOT harder to stop, for the reasons @S'mon outlined re: digital.

 

[masdog]

I guess if it were going to trial they might well hire in the Contractual equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.

That might not be the best example considering his…modern reputation.

 

[pemerton]

I sometimes do e-commerce law, so now I'm thinking of a US court ordering ISPs to block access to the website of the UK publisher... theoretically possible, but seems unlikely in practice. But the rightsholder (here, WoTC) could use a US court order to get the work taken off drivethrurpg, easily enough. They'd presumably have already DMCA'd it anyway.

Agreed. I think this is why the OP specified a mail-order hypothetical.

I think if WotC leans on DriveThru to not distribute allegedly infringing material, that is much harder for 3PPs as it seems to oblige those 3PPs to be the ones to take the plaintiff position. I can't see how ORC vs OGL makes a difference in this respect.

 

[Reynard]

Agreed. I think this is why the OP specified a mail-order hypothetical.

I think if WotC leans on DriveThru to not distribute allegedly infringing material, that is much harder for 3PPs as it seems to oblige those 3PPs to be the ones to take the plaintiff position. I can't see how ORC vs OGL makes a difference in this respect.

I just wanted it to be simple because my primary curiosity was about the process, not any outcome.

 

[Tazawa]

I don't think this is right, though. If WotC is asserting that there is no licence because they have unilaterally revoked it, then they are not going to be relying on the licence terms. And they are not alleging a breach of contract or licence rights; they are alleging copyright infringement. Once Reynard pleads the contract in his defence, section 13 is likewise irrelevant as Reynard is not conceding that there is any licence breach (and if in fact Reynard had breached the licence I think that would weaken his defence quite a bit).

I don’t think this is quite correct. So far WotC have been very careful to state that OGL 1.0a is “no longer an authorized version” and can not be used to distribute, etc. open game content under the OGL. They have not explicitly revoked it or released the other parties from their responsibilities under the license. The other clauses of the license are under effect. Does WotC saying it is no longer authorized, remove the ability of Green Ronin to go after Kobold Press for violating the license somehow (not to suggest they have)?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think this is quite correct. So far WotC have been very careful to state that OGL 1.0a is “no longer an authorized version” and can not be used to distribute, etc. open game content under the OGL. They have not explicitly revoked it or released the other parties from their responsibilities under the license. The other clauses of the license are under effect. Does WotC saying it is no longer authorized, remove the ability of Green Ronin to go after Kobold Press for violating the license somehow (not to suggest they have)?

I do find it interesting that WotC has explicitly avoided saying that they are "de-authorizing" the 1.0a in any official statement or release. As if no one has seen the leaked documents saying just that.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I don’t think this is quite correct. So far WotC have been very careful to state that OGL 1.0a is “no longer an authorized version” and can not be used to distribute, etc. open game content under the OGL. They have not explicitly revoked it or released the other parties from their responsibilities under the license. The other clauses of the license are under effect. Does WotC saying it is no longer authorized, remove the ability of Green Ronin to go after Kobold Press for violating the license somehow (not to suggest they have)?

I feel the only way to answer this for sure would be a test case in court.

For arguments sake, lets assume this is also for a game that does not utilize WotC's SRD, so their only involvement is owning copyright of the license itself. My initial feelings are that the terms of license in question would solely be between GR and KP. My further thoughts are that a lawyer might bring the fact the license has been de-authorized by WotC into play in that case, if precident has already been set elsewhere (e.g by WotC bringing a case against someone continuing to use their SRDs under OGL 1.0a) and if they're looking for every possible loophole. It doesn't feel to me like that would get anywhere, but it doesn't stop it being a possibility.