Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

i gotta say i've been buggin TSR/WotC/Hasbeen since 1979 to produce OD&D(1974) material.

That is one of the many reasons that I support OSRIC. WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market. There is zero evidence that this is the case. I hope to see the better of the OSRIC products hit the 10,000+ range of printed copies. Over time I hope to see the OSRIC market grow with no discernible effect on the 3.5E market so that WotC/Hasbro wakes up to the fact that by not reprinting the old stuff with POD, that they are ignoring a small but viable market and that they will finally realize that old school and new school are to a very large extent two completely separate markets. The real irony, if OSRIC does well and grows, is that WotC/Hasbro will be unable to compete in the old school market place with anything except reprints, since they have no one capable of writing original old school materials.

What I also hope comes to pass is that the success of OSRIC would encourage P&P to create an OSRIC of OD&D. A rewritten reorganized three little books and Chainmail in one document along with a completely rewritten reorganized appendix of clearly labeled optional rules consisting of the four supplements, and the OD&D materials from the SRs, The Dragon and other sources would be fantastic. If I had the writing and editorial skills to do such a document it would have been done about 25 years ago.

 

[Storm Raven]

Rothe, I didn't mean to say Pepsi Cola couldn't take legal action (anyone at any moment can in the good ol' USA) and I'm not saying they couldn't drag this out forever (effectively sealing your fate under attorney bills)...that said, waiting around for years until a violator starts making money before legally objecting is frowned upon by the courts (Mythmere wrote: There are other constraints than statutes of limitation involved. In essence, you can't just bide your time in a situation that you're later going to claim was damaging to you.") without saying too much on a public board, these "other constraints" are extremely important. Something else I alluded to in my example: what if Pepsi lost in court...what happens to their IP? They might loose the rights for that intellectual property forever. Whoops! So, speed of action is paramount. And just an informal "stop" isn't considered much of anything. There is a procedure (customary as it is) companies protecting their IP are expected to follow.

The Pepsi question isn't really apropos here though. The hypothetical concerning Pepsi is clearly a trademark case, and trademarks (under U.S. law) have to be vigorously defended to preserve their validity. Copyright has no such limitation. You can sleep on your rights under copyright law for as long as you want, and they legally remain as valid as ever. Comparing the Pepsi hypothetical to anything being discussed in this thread is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[tx7321]

Copwrites also need to be protected in a similar fashion. Once the person can be shown to be aware of the violation, its thier resp. to act (just ask any fine artist that finds their paintings being sold as prints on t-shirts from e-bay). If you sit on your arse, a judge won't be impressed.

 

[Storm Raven]

Copwrites also need to be protected in a similar fashion. Once the person can be shown to be aware of the violation, its thier resp. to act (just ask any fine artist that finds their paintings being sold as prints on t-shirts from e-bay). If you sit on your arse, a judge won't be impressed.

This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.

 

[Grazzt]

This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.

Correct. Copyright is copyright. Trademark/service mark is something entirely different.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Copyright has no such limitation. You can sleep on your rights under copyright law for as long as you want, and they legally remain as valid as ever.

I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC. The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules. OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera). It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.

A suit based on trademarks seems unlikely, since OSRIC avoids using others' trademarks (and even if it did, the longer it goes unchallenged the more difficult such a case would be).

A suit based on copyright seems unlikely, given the OGL, et cetera.

A suit based on patents seems unlikely, since WotC doesn't hold any applicable patents that I know of (the only one I know of is the trading card gameplay patent).

Lastly, there's the argument about OSRIC not being a significant competitor to whatever the current edition of D&D is. I think there's probably some truth to that. In fact, a successful OSRIC would probably increase the value of the OOP properties that WotC owns in a market that may be increasingly fractured in the future. Unless there's an obvious infringement of trademark, etc., then I'd just leave it alone.

(Obviously, nothing I've said here should be taken as legal advice or as an indication that I'm practicing law.)

 

[Psion]

I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC. The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules. OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera). It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.

A suit based on trademarks seems unlikely, since OSRIC avoids using others' trademarks (and even if it did, the longer it goes unchallenged the more difficult such a case would be).

A suit based on copyright seems unlikely, given the OGL, et cetera.

After looking at OSRIC, the resemblance to non-open pre-3e material is striking to me. IANAL, but judging on some past litigation I have seen involving games in the past, I don't think it would be difficult at all to put up a case against OSRIC.

The only question is whether or not the WotC legal department thinks it would be worth it. I'd wager that they don't consider it significant compared to, say, someone outright scanning and copying their material and putting it on a public website (which has happened.)

 

[RFisher]

I think the place to talk about Dragonsfoot is on Dragonsfoot, folks.

How dare you try to bring reason into a discussion on the internet! (^_^)

OSRIC combat rules exclude a few things, but those are optional in the AD&D 1E game anyway

Technically, except for the Bard & Psionics, I think nothing is optional in 1e. Or, if you wish, everything is optional. It wasn't until 2e that you had lots of things explicitly marked as optional. (Although, the classic D&D line had explicitly optional bits since at least 1981.)

But that's just picking nits...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market. There is zero evidence that this is the case.

So TSR never had any problems with dilution of product lines and never were able to measure any impact of having two competing D&D lines at the same time?

 

[Storm Raven]

I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC. The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules. OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera). It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.[/i]

This is correct, as far as it goes. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the actual idea itself. However, copyright also protects derivative works that are spawned by the original work. It is possible that OSRIC could be found to have violated the copyright as a derivative work. Cluttering the issue is the fact that the OGL is out there, making some of the work open for use. But that is a factual question that requires more information than we have right here.

The question of whether a copyright can lose validlty through non-enforcement is one we can settle quite quickly - it can't. At least not under U.S. law.

Lastly, there's the argument about OSRIC not being a significant competitor to whatever the current edition of D&D is. I think there's probably some truth to that. In fact, a successful OSRIC would probably increase the value of the OOP properties that WotC owns in a market that may be increasingly fractured in the future. Unless there's an obvious infringement of trademark, etc., then I'd just leave it alone.

Copyrights can be enforced even if the infringing use has no bearing whatever on the market for the copyrighted work. If a copyright is properly registered (which is optional, but I think WotC probably has done this), the copyright holder can obtain "statutory damages" which is a set amount of damages per infringement, without the necessity of proving any actual economic harm to his business.

(Obviously, nothing I've said here should be taken as legal advice or as an indication that I'm practicing law.)

I am a practicing lawyer, but no one should rely on legal advice they get over the internet. Including my advice. If you want legal advice, find a lawyer and talk to him face-to-face.