Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?

[philreed]

Yes, quite extreme indeed. But don't you think that they know what they are doing better than most people on this thread, since 90% of their most popular products are freely available on the net, and have been for 4 years?

Actually, I think there's a large number of people at Hasbro that do not understand the license and probably don't even know it exists. And do we need to point out that the license exists?

 

[Cergorach]

And like the give a penny take a penny... if everyone stops contributing, then it isnt there anymore.

I SO agree with this.

Are you done being suprised? Good! But i think that the responsibility is with the end user, if they don't realise that taking and not giving is going to destroy what they like then let them destroy it. Otherwise people will never learn.

What i'm trying to pull of in the end is to provide quality content for free, while pointing out that if folks want new free content, they'll have to contribute. With those contributions artists, writers and editors can be paid to create new free content (i would not be one of the paid folks, as i want to do this for free). This model works for some OS projects, i hope people are smart enough to make this work for RPGs...

 

[Halivar]

Let's assume he gets it right. Releases all of the OGC from Unearthed Arcana online. This would be stealing from the future of the industry. Someone, somwhere at Hasbro has the authority to say "DON'T EVER DO THAT AGAIN" and the company then no longer releases books with OGC. And you know, just to be safe, don't release any new SRD-type files. And yank down the ones that are there. And cancel the D20 System license.

You can't compare "WotC-a-subsidiary-of-Hasbro-MegaCorp-Intl., LLC" to "Philreed's PDF Shack" (no offense, just poking fun), because they run off of completely different business principles.

I'd say that releasing wholesale OGC is definitely a risk to you, and damages you most. Therefore, you should seriously consider "crippling" your work. I think you can and should do this, as should other small 3rd-party publishers. Why? Because the community loses less when you go the closed content route. 3rd-party publishers are known for creating aids and crunch for either their own campaign settings, or generic d20. Rarely have I have seen anyone use another 3rd-party publisher's content as the basis of their own. The goal for the 3rd-pary publisher, therefore, is to make the content easy to use at the dinner table and protecting meager sales, but not necessarily for other publishers to use the published content as the basis of their own.

WotC's a different story. WotC has less to lose by OGC'ing entire books and more to gain from marketshare it gains in the process. If everyone in RPG-land has all of your PDF's, but never bought a copy, "Philreed's PDF Shack" is going out of business. If every other American has the 3.5 SRD printed out and bound in a folder, WotC is going to start selling Frostburn in Wal-Mart; IOW, WotC will find a way to capitalize on the spread of their OGC content.

This is the very reason why OGC will never die at WotC. Every huge corporation that goes the "open" route finds out the same thing IBM and Novell found out with Open Source software: open can make you more money than closed. When you open your IP, your IP gets used; then it pervades, and soon your brand recognition is like gold. You can slap your trademark on a turd like Planar Handbook and folks like me will scarf it up for $30 a pop.

Ok, time to summarize. If you're worried about WotC as a result of a UA SRD, don't be. The very thing that costs you money make them money.

 

[Belen]

I might be missing the baby amongt the bathwater Belen, but I think you don't realize how different doing something like this to a PDF is than doing it to a printed book.

Well, in the case of Cergorach, he is not producing the OGC of a PDF. Although I firmly believe that he should wait 12-18 months before releasing such a document.

I do see your point, but I do have a small problem with older PDFs. I could be wrong, but in many cases, a PDF that was sold for 7.95 in 2001 is still 7.95 in 2004. Unlike print products, there is no discount for older PDFs. So, unless you started with the company, then you suddenly have a serious buy-in to get older product. In some cases, that older product still uses the old edition.

Personally, I truly believe that Cergorach would be a non-issue if 18-24 months after a PDF has been released, the price drops to a fraction, such as a bundle of 5 PDFs for 20 bucks etc.

Honestly, though, I think a permissions model could go a long way to clearing up the issue on all sides.

 

[Vigilance]

Ok, time to summarize. If you're worried about WotC as a result of a UA SRD, don't be. The very thing that costs you money make them money.

At the risk of speaking for Phil I daresay he, like me, has a much more narrow field of concern

Chuck

 

[Numion]

Surely Numion you can see the difference between an SRD of a printed book and posting the OGC of a book being sold in electronic format?

I thought we were discussing Cergorachs plan to release UA's OGC sections? But you're right about the electronic product, you should be more careful before publishing PDFs under the OGL. Maybe you shouldn't use OGL?

A big reason why the SRD doesn't hurt sales of the PHB is because people like books.

The only difference between a free PDF and one that costs money is... well... the price.

But what about the UA? Why shouldn't that be released as a free PDF under the OGL, I mean the parts that can be.

 

[Cergorach]

And when you mention "a reasonable salary" under optimum conditions I operate far below that as it is

And that isn't a complaint... I get by... but writers like me and Phil aren't trying to figure out where to park the OTHER mercedes yanno?

So you admit that you drive atleast one mercedes!
And you have a garage for the OTHER mercedes, that must be one big house you own!
*grins*

 

[Cergorach]

People, PLEASE regurgitate my work. I'm asking you. I'm wanting you.


Hong "I'm not cheap, I'm free!" Ooi

I might actually do that...

 

[Psion]

If I can summarize some of the basic themes of this thread as I have seen them, this is what I am hearing:

1. If you release a book 100% OGC you "deserve" to have that content offered freely since you "made your bed and should lie in it".

The people seeking free distribution argue that what they're doing is legal so don't feel bad when they do it.

BUT

2. If you cripple your OGC (make it harder to use in its entirety so that you might continue to sell your products that you sunk a lot of time and money into) customers will stop buying your products.

This is also legal under the OGC (most companies make far more of their material open than they have to and try not to cripple it). However, some involved in this thread have basically said they would "punish" writers

Side note here: If you refer to me, that was not my tone at all. I have no intention to punish Monte Cook or S&SS, or any other publisher who wishes to release their product with strategically closed bits (aka, "cripple the product".) My problem is the product becomes more difficult for me to use in the way I want to use it. This is about products not people; I have no intention to punish anyone. If I go to Burger King instead of McDonalds because I know that if I ask for no mustard on my burger, they'll make me wait in "parking spot of shame", while at burger king I'll get it at the window, does that mean I am seeking to punish McDonalds? No, it's me chosing to buy products that serve my need better.

One writers conclusion:

Nice little catch 22 you guys have us in. If we ask you to not put 90% of a book out for free you cry that we're not playing fair, but then tell us not to try and protect our work within the rules of the license.

This is a false dichotomy, Chuck. The possible states of OGC declarations are not limited to "crippled" or "all OGC". You have a number of happy middle conditions that are possible, such as opening only things you would see on a character sheet or in someone's house rules (classes, feats, spells, etc., including names), and leave stuff that you would want to have the book itself for (like much of your research, specifics on churches and organizations, etc.) as closed content.

 

[Henry]

A word about "crippled" content:

Content that is difficult to reproduce 100% is not the same is completely crippled-to-the-point-of-being-useless OGC, as in Phil's theoretical "Everything I write that I didn't get from somewhere else is closed" Product ID statement.

I personally think that, while it's generous for some PDF publishers like Phil and Chuck to donate so much, it's not absolutely necessary to do so, though it is easier for purposes of writing the section 15. If there is a serious interest in making sure that other publishers can re-use good mechanics, then the mechanics themselves need to be presented in such a way that they can be re-used, but not necessarily taken whole. I hate going back to Malhavoc on this, but I think Monte and Co. are ahead of the curve here, too, and have been for several years now, as much as people hate how he does it. I could still take one of Monte's spells, say the Unhand Spell from BoEM2, call it "Henry's Spectacular Disarmament," and use it in my own work. Then someone copying it will have to come up with their own name, product ID, and other info to use it; without clear delineation back to the original source, it's only a very small pool of people who will be seeking out that "crippled" OGC instead of the original in order to see how it's really done.

Even past Malhavoc, Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds is F.A.I.A.P. closed - except for the Superlink License, that is, and I certainly see a LOT of popularity there. It's a good game, and it's not slowing down soon, despite its OGL limitations.

Another point: Despite all the grand statements over the past 4 years about OGC being shared between vendors and WotC, there has been DARNED LITTLE shared, probably at most 10% of the total pool, and that's being generous. For some things (mass combat, for instance) there's still two dozen ways to do it, and no one agrees which system is superior. That's, well, pretty much the status quo for the past 30 years WITHOUT the OGL, hasn't it? If the OGL is to fulfil an ultimate dream of reducing the number of ways of doing things to the few that work best, it's still got a LONG way of sharing to go.