In case you didn't know: The WotC community is FREE

[Morrus]

I think it can be phrased differently, though. A friendlier, more PR way.

"You acknowledge that simultaneous independent development of ideas frequently takes place, and agree not to sue us if something we publish looks like something you posted."

Obviously it would need to be cleaned up a little, but I think that's a more freidnly sentence and achieves the same goal.

 

[Shroomy]

for the average gamer, whether their work is licensed to wotc or not makes little difference. For people planning on publishing their work, it might make a difference. But, if people are planning on publishing something, they really shouldn't be putting it anywhere on the internet in the first place.

qft

 

[Umbran]

I think it can be phrased differently, though. A friendlier, more PR way.

Legal Departments rarely care about the PR impact of terms of use. If there's a standard clause that is recognized in precedent as covering their behinds, they'll use that clear coverage rather than risk a friendly wording that might be interpreted differently in a court.

 

[Henrix]

Legal Departments rarely care about the PR impact of terms of use.

*Looks at GW's latest series of attacks on fan sites.*

No. They often don't.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I know why they have to do things the way they do it just isn't the most friendly and relaxed forum for the average gamer to exchange ideas compared to non-corporate affiliated sites. Since there are many places without attached strings to gather and share ideas it doesn't matter if one particular site has more restrictive policies. Gamers can vote with thier bookmarks.

Bah, the real problem of the site is the ridicilous amount of (sub)forums that make it way to difficult to actually find interesting new posts.

I don't care if Morrus would want a free license to use my post contents here. I care about whether I can go to General RPG or D&D 4E Rules or Media and find interesting new posts.

 

[Kafen]

*recalls bomb threats from love-sick teen and terrorist messages on own board from various people*

WOTC is actually pretty brave to claim ownership of content.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bah, the real problem of the site is the ridicilous amount of (sub)forums that make it way to difficult to actually find interesting new posts.

While this is true, having a wall of text forcing would-be posters to agree to a " all your bases are belong to us" clause doesn't exactly welcome with a smile and a handshake.

 

[mudbunny]

WOTC is actually pretty brave to claim ownership of content.

They don't.

 

[Kafen]

They don't.

The last part of section 1, you mean. Agreed, it is the usual disclaimer, but I would love to see WOTC try and defend that one in court. They claim usage Rights and deny liability for content*. Just from my stint as a legal paperwork shuffler, I know a few judges that would love to see that one before them. *shrug*

All that aside, I stopped going to WOTC for my content when they changed the ToS after the demise of the adult section.



* See Viacom, Mininova.org, and Scribd.com bits for the juicy details of why I want to get my law license. Watching WOTC defend its ToS in a legal fight - even helping with just the filing of papers - would just be sexy considering the effort Hasbro put into voiding the protections of the ToS for content sharing networks in the Scribd.com case.

 

[Morrus]

Legal Departments rarely care about the PR impact of terms of use. If there's a standard clause that is recognized in precedent as covering their behinds, they'll use that clear coverage rather than risk a friendly wording that might be interpreted differently in a court.

Yes.