Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?

[Vigilance]

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.

Wow, this is the first time I've ever been psychoanalyzed over the internet.

You have no idea what I really want or what my motivations are.

Regardless of my "motivation", me, and many others, try our best to make as much of our books OGC as we can and to designate it clearly.

And there's no doubt at all what I "truly" want- if I wanted less OGC or wanted it declared less clearly it wouldn't be.

Chuck

 

[Numion]

I think the case is pretty clear. Nobody is forced to use it, and publishers should weight the pros and cons when thinking of using it. Then if one decides to use it, they should expect others to treat his publication like it was, wait for it, published under the open gaming license.

There's no need to divide the gaming world to the mighty publishers who 'create new content' and the gaming public thats out there to leech that content for as little dollar as possible.

How about just recognizing the OGL for what is it, and what is it not, and then decide to use it or not? No gun to your head, just make a rational decision. And no crying afterwards when people actually treat material published under OGL as, wait for it again, material published under OGL.

 

[philreed]

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.

And I'm always watching my own sales and the larger market. I try to be ready to adapt to changes at any time. As a very small operation -- and by producing primarily short PDFs -- I have greater flexibility than most operations. If something in particular is doing well I can quickly move in and support that. The trick is being able to read the signs and change when change is required.

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.

This is certainly an option. And instead of releasing stuff I'd more likely work on more profitable projects. As an example, I have two freelance writing assignments this week. One is a D20 book paying $0.04/word. One is for a Star Wars Miniatures scenario paying $0.10/word. Which type of project would you work on if your time was limited?

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.

Well, as of this time I'm not going to take the option of changing my OGC declaration. But, the exact minute I see actions that devalue my work, I will make a change. And it's likely to be drastic. After all, when confronted it's natural to go all out on defense.

And thank you for such kind words. It charges me up and gives me a nice warm glow for another day of work.

 

[Cergorach]

Wow, this is the first time I've ever been psychoanalyzed over the internet.

You have no idea what I really want or what my motivations are.

Regardless of my "motivation", me, and many others, try our best to make as much of our books OGC as we can and to designate it clearly.

And there's no doubt at all what I "truly" want- if I wanted less OGC or wanted it declared less clearly it wouldn't be.

Psychoanalyzed? Is that what i'm doing? I don't know you beyond what you've shown on the net. What you've shown me so far shows me that you want all the advantages of declaring OGC (goodwil in the community, extra sales), but none of the disadvantages (such as people taking your OGC and publish it verbatim).

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1.) Do you want us to be able to use your OGC verbatim?
2.) Do you want us to use your OGC verbatim?
3.) If the answer to question two is no, why do you use the OGL when you know we can do that with or without your concent?

My appologies if i come across as a bit snarky, but the lack of sleep, the throbbing headache, and the person 5 meteres next to me trying to drill two dozen walls in a concrete ceiling, isn't improving my mood. ;-)

 

[Vigilance]

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1.) Do you want us to be able to use your OGC verbatim?
2.) Do you want us to use your OGC verbatim?
3.) If the answer to question two is no, why do you use the OGL when you know we can do that with or without your concent?

The answer to #1 and #2 is yes... conditionally.

I'm sure you see this as another example of me "wanting all the good and none of the bad" of the OGC, but hopefully you'll see my point when I explain.

I have no problem with someone taking a piece of somethign I write, because they are using it in their campaign and posting it online for free.

I have no problem with someone taking a piece of something I write, or even several pieces and using it as part of a larger work (free or for profit).

However, taking large chunks of my work and simply cut and pasting it, is to me a far different undertaking. Especially while that work is still selling.

Chuck

 

[Cergorach]

Alright Chuck, i think i see your point, i just don't agree with your point.

How much after the release of a product would you consider it still 'selling'? FGU for example still has titles in print decades after the initial release...

Is a year after initial release a reasonable time to wait for your products?

 

[Vigilance]

It's really hard for me to answer that because we release things in PDF first, and then print later.

So its a complicated issue, since A) PDFs are evergreen and B) waiting 6 months after the PDF release might very well mean you're releasing simultaneously with the print release.

Chuck

 

[philreed]

Alright Chuck, i think i see your point, i just don't agree with your point.

How much after the release of a product would you consider it still 'selling'? FGU for example still has titles in print decades after the initial release...

Is a year after initial release a reasonable time to wait for your products?

I'm not Chuck but I'll give my opinion.

I don't know.

What I do know is that 2 years after release some of my first PDFs still bring in money on a regular basis. That means that those products still have value.

PDFs are very, very different from print. They're easier to copy text from and have a much longer "shelf life" than printed products.

Here's an idea:

For every 100 words of exisiting OGC you use in a product -- for free or pay -- you should contribute 100 words of original OGC of your own design.

 

[Cergorach]

A) Most annoying if this is true. Let me rephrase it then, after which period of time have you sold enough product to make a decent living?
B) Most annoying as well, Monte has the same MO... Allright, if the release of the print version is 6 months after initial release, then 18 months after initial release would satisfy you?

 

[philreed]

A) Most annoying if this is true. Let me rephrase it then, after which period of time have you sold enough product to make a decent living?
B) Most annoying as well, Monte has the same MO... Allright, if the release of the print version is 6 months after initial release, then 18 months after initial release would satisfy you?

I don't understand why this matters at all. Is the idea to keep PDF publishers operating at a very low lifestyle?

Let me be blunt again:

You are not trying to contribute anything to existing OGC. All you want to do is compile and release existing OGC for free. This is perfectly legal and if you want to do it all I ask is that you follow the OGL correctly. Just be prepared for the effects of such actions.

If you were willing to contribute completely new OGC -- of an amount equal to that you're trying to use for reasons I cannot understand -- you would find fewer arguments. There would still be arguments but at least you would then become a contributor and not just a cut and paste expert with Acrobat.

Releasing OGC for free devalues that work and all future work. It should be the decision of the original publisher to make whether the OGC is available free online.

You are not Robin Hood. You are not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. You're stealing from the industry and helping to drive creators from the industry.