Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?
- Thread starter Halivar
- Start date
Vigilance
Explorer
Alan Shutko said:
I'm using it because A) I like the rules and B) the game has a nice community of players.
And again, publishers offer content freely they don't have to, we're not taking and taking and offering nothing, as some seem to feel.
And we can protect a lot more of our content than we do.
Chuck
pennywiz
First Post
- And you are the one trying to attach a stigma by saying that you will only release a certain percentage if you can place additional restrictions beyond those in the license, and if not you will release less. That goes directly against section two of the license. You are in violation of the license by trying to attach additional restrictions to your OGC.
Last edited:
Vigilance
Explorer
pennywiz said:
Nope, Im saying I will STOP BEING GENEROUS.
You seem to think that makes me a bad person.
I am not the one arrogantly saying I know what the answer is. I enjoy writing and don't mind when my content is used.
I think both sides need to show a little consideration.
Chuck
pennywiz
First Post
Vigilance said:
I couldn't care less what you do in the future, Chuck. I don't think of you as good or bad. I'm not calling you names, like arrogant.
I do have a question. When you say that you don't mind when your content is used, do you truly understand that once it is released as OGC you have absolutely no control over it and you can't threaten people with what you perceive as a punishment of lessen your released OGC percentage to try and get them to use it only how you perceive is ethical? Do you get it at all?
Speaking of consideration, "arrogantly saying"? Get a grip, Chuck.
(EDIT - The question, naturally, assumes peoper use of the OGC under the terms of the OGL.)
Last edited:
Vigilance
Explorer
Pennywiz- I haven't called anyone names, including you, nor have I threatened anyone.
I do a lot of what I consider good work, it sells well, people like it, and almost all of it is open content.
So why you think I'm a big stigma attaching meanie is beyond me. People like me are the ones who make the OGC what it is. We're the ones adding new content. You should be on my side.
However, since the books I write are about 90% OGC on average, and since they are released as PDFs first, releasing them for free would certainly hurt my bottom line.
Chuck
I do a lot of what I consider good work, it sells well, people like it, and almost all of it is open content.
So why you think I'm a big stigma attaching meanie is beyond me. People like me are the ones who make the OGC what it is. We're the ones adding new content. You should be on my side.
However, since the books I write are about 90% OGC on average, and since they are released as PDFs first, releasing them for free would certainly hurt my bottom line.
Chuck
BSF
Explorer
Whoa! Let's not get completely out of control here folks.
I'm not really reading a whole lot more in Vigilance's posts except a statement that as a business, he would need to consider alternatives to his current practices if he saw his sales drop because somebody stripped out the OGC and distributed it for free. The same with Phil.
Barsoomcore seems to indicate that releasing wide OGC might not be a viable business model. Obviously, Phil would like to disagree. Right now, Phil is paying his bills and enjoying his job as a PDF OGC publisher. But that could change.
Obviously, any content that is released as OGC could be redistributed by the terms of the OGL. If that happens, what alternatives do people like Phil Reed and Vigilance have? Should they keep popping out OGC in the hopes that it doesn't get redistributed immediately? What if their sales drop? What if they are no longer able to pay the bills as OGC publishers?
One option would be that Phil would bow out of the market since he will be using his time at a different job. Maybe he would still release stuff once in a while, but maybe he would just develop it for his own campaign.
Another option would be to not release as much OGC. Release it in a crippled format, or only release the bare minimum OGC required and keep the rest locked up as IP.
Frankly, it might be in their best interest to use OGC in a minimal capacity, or to release it in a manner that is difficult to extract. Would that be disappointing? It would. But it would also be disappointing to see Phil Reed close up shop.
As a DM, I tend to rely more and more on OGC. Why? Because if I ever decide to make some of my campaign material available, I would like to do so without having to convert and rewrite it. Am I talking about charging money for anything I release? *laugh* I should be so lucky. I would release it because I have the arrogance to think somebody else might enjoy using it - it would be free.
Last October, Mystic Eye Games ran a little contest to stat out a PC based on nothing more than a name. The entries could use any OGC. A little of this and a little of that were used from different sources. I used some material from Call of Duty. I like my version of Pedro, even if the background is choppy and truncated. (What can I say, I was running out of time.)
Without the OGL, I doubt Call of Duty would have ever been released. Without the OGL, it would be questionable that we could post a fully statted out PC like that. Certainly, TSR once believed they could prevent you from doing so. As a fan site, maybe the PCs could be posted. But not for any sort of publication. I couldn't build Pedro Mondragon using material from the Book of Exalted Deeds, because it is closed content. That's a shame and if I build an NPC for my homebrew using BoED, I won't share that NPC with other folks.
I like OGC because I can reuse it. If I really like something I put together, I can share it. If I were to put together a book of NPCs today, I would redo Pedro Mondragon. I would probably use more OGC and I would include the OGC feat and weapon property so anyone else could use him. A year ago, I wasn't quite that astute and sure of how I would use OGC. I want publishers to keep putting out good OGC. But if they can't do so and keep it a financial reality, then I understand.
Vigilance and Phil are both being candid about the options they would have to investigate if making OGC redistributable for free became a prevalent practice. Don't lambast them for their candidness.
I'm not really reading a whole lot more in Vigilance's posts except a statement that as a business, he would need to consider alternatives to his current practices if he saw his sales drop because somebody stripped out the OGC and distributed it for free. The same with Phil.
Barsoomcore seems to indicate that releasing wide OGC might not be a viable business model. Obviously, Phil would like to disagree. Right now, Phil is paying his bills and enjoying his job as a PDF OGC publisher. But that could change.
Obviously, any content that is released as OGC could be redistributed by the terms of the OGL. If that happens, what alternatives do people like Phil Reed and Vigilance have? Should they keep popping out OGC in the hopes that it doesn't get redistributed immediately? What if their sales drop? What if they are no longer able to pay the bills as OGC publishers?
One option would be that Phil would bow out of the market since he will be using his time at a different job. Maybe he would still release stuff once in a while, but maybe he would just develop it for his own campaign.
Another option would be to not release as much OGC. Release it in a crippled format, or only release the bare minimum OGC required and keep the rest locked up as IP.
Frankly, it might be in their best interest to use OGC in a minimal capacity, or to release it in a manner that is difficult to extract. Would that be disappointing? It would. But it would also be disappointing to see Phil Reed close up shop.
As a DM, I tend to rely more and more on OGC. Why? Because if I ever decide to make some of my campaign material available, I would like to do so without having to convert and rewrite it. Am I talking about charging money for anything I release? *laugh* I should be so lucky. I would release it because I have the arrogance to think somebody else might enjoy using it - it would be free.
Last October, Mystic Eye Games ran a little contest to stat out a PC based on nothing more than a name. The entries could use any OGC. A little of this and a little of that were used from different sources. I used some material from Call of Duty. I like my version of Pedro, even if the background is choppy and truncated. (What can I say, I was running out of time.)
Without the OGL, I doubt Call of Duty would have ever been released. Without the OGL, it would be questionable that we could post a fully statted out PC like that. Certainly, TSR once believed they could prevent you from doing so. As a fan site, maybe the PCs could be posted. But not for any sort of publication. I couldn't build Pedro Mondragon using material from the Book of Exalted Deeds, because it is closed content. That's a shame and if I build an NPC for my homebrew using BoED, I won't share that NPC with other folks.
I like OGC because I can reuse it. If I really like something I put together, I can share it. If I were to put together a book of NPCs today, I would redo Pedro Mondragon. I would probably use more OGC and I would include the OGC feat and weapon property so anyone else could use him. A year ago, I wasn't quite that astute and sure of how I would use OGC. I want publishers to keep putting out good OGC. But if they can't do so and keep it a financial reality, then I understand.
Vigilance and Phil are both being candid about the options they would have to investigate if making OGC redistributable for free became a prevalent practice. Don't lambast them for their candidness.
Cergorach
The Laughing One
I would want to clarify something, because someone is taking something i said a bit out of context. I said i would 'retaliate' if people started to 'cripple' their OGC designation.
There's a world of difference between designating everything as OGC and 'crippeling' your OGC designation. 'Crippled' OGC isn't clearly designated, that's why i abhore it. It's still entirely possible to not designate 100% OGC and still be clear in your designation.
My statement is a deterent just as much as your statement is (Vigilance), i prefer more OGC, you prefer less. Why do you want less OGC, because your not willing to face the concequences of publishing under the OGL. The reason you write under the OGL is that you will sell a lot more, designating almost everything is also very easy and doesn't require a lot of thought.
Now you might have noticed that all the OGC projects i mentioned are all for print products, there's a reason for that. If people want a digital version of the OGC, they can buy it for a few bucks (unless of course you make a mess of the OGC designation and then someone like me has to seperate the OGC from the PI) online. Because i know you guys have it though enough already, i try to 'spare' you as much as i find prudent.
But as i've said in discussions before:
- If you designate OGC poorly you go up on the list.
- If you designate more OGC you go down on the list.
So folks that designate 100% as OGC should be save for atleast a year from me. Folks that cripple their OGC designation (on purpose) are fairgame right away. If you feel that a year isn't enough to sell 95% of your books, then there's something wrong with your business model (for print publishers that is).
There's a world of difference between designating everything as OGC and 'crippeling' your OGC designation. 'Crippled' OGC isn't clearly designated, that's why i abhore it. It's still entirely possible to not designate 100% OGC and still be clear in your designation.
My statement is a deterent just as much as your statement is (Vigilance), i prefer more OGC, you prefer less. Why do you want less OGC, because your not willing to face the concequences of publishing under the OGL. The reason you write under the OGL is that you will sell a lot more, designating almost everything is also very easy and doesn't require a lot of thought.
Now you might have noticed that all the OGC projects i mentioned are all for print products, there's a reason for that. If people want a digital version of the OGC, they can buy it for a few bucks (unless of course you make a mess of the OGC designation and then someone like me has to seperate the OGC from the PI) online. Because i know you guys have it though enough already, i try to 'spare' you as much as i find prudent.
But as i've said in discussions before:
- If you designate OGC poorly you go up on the list.
- If you designate more OGC you go down on the list.
So folks that designate 100% as OGC should be save for atleast a year from me. Folks that cripple their OGC designation (on purpose) are fairgame right away. If you feel that a year isn't enough to sell 95% of your books, then there's something wrong with your business model (for print publishers that is).
Cergorach
The Laughing One
If you truley wanted 90%+ OGC, you wouldn't be here complaining. You want only part of the deal that is OGC, the other part you don't want, the part that allows folks like me to republish it verbatim.Vigilance said:
It's either that you didn't grasp the whole license when you started or don't want to grasp it. When there's a sign on the highway that says max speed 80 miles, your going to drive 80 miles/hour. The same goes for the OGL, if it says i can reuse content verbatim, then i will use it. Saying that you don't want that, while maintaining that you want 90%+ OGC is contradictionary. The OGC allows for certain things, expecting people to not do those things is not understanding human nature.
The point i'm trying to make is that your only willing to embrace the OGL on your terms.
Similar Threads
