Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8897086" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah someone actually enumerated the claims here:[URL unfurl="true"]https://spikeybits.com/2021/05/chapterhouse-the-last-time-gw-went-to-court-over-copyrights.html[/URL]Re: listing absolutely everything, that's the approach TSR took with GDW back in the '90s, too. Unfortunately GDW didn't want to pay the lawyers (EGG implies they could have but it wouldn't have been worth it) so they settled with TSR rather than fighting them. If they had fought them, I expect a whole bunch of stuff WotC might try to claim as belonging to D&D would have been adjudged otherwise long ago.I must admit I have no idea if the "list everything, however dumb" approach is routine for US copyright cases.Yeah it does depend on how WotC approached it. I have difficulty envisioning a scenario where WotC doesn't end up having to list what it thinks infringes, though, and I don't think any scenario where that happens will be a remotely clean win for WotC, because you can almost guarantee some of the stuff they're claiming will be found not to infringe - and yeah possibly everything except the OGL 1.0a itself, even!Of course there's the possibility WotC just sulks and lurks as people continue to use the 1.0a licence, then waits for what it thinks is a more blatant copyright violation than the SRD, and tries to jump on that. Again though, I don't think that's going to go great for them. Especially as when you're trying to make money from a product as intimately connected to its fans as D&D is (far more intimately than any videogame, even MMOs), you can, should, must and will be be tried in the court of public opinion by your own fans.</blockquote>

Verification