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

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't think you have much to gain by "hiding" your basis for making your legal case. If this sort of thing ever comes down to litigation, the copyright law specialists who will be hired to handle the case probably already know about this case. And even if they don't, about ten minutes of research on Westlaw or LEXIS/NEXIS will find it.

Thanks for conceding that you don't know whether or not OSRIC infringes. It doesn't.

There are circumstances where laches are relevant; it depends what's alleged.

I think I have nothing to fear from a US Court.

 

[Storm Raven]

Thanks for conceding that you don't know whether or not OSRIC infringes. It doesn't.

How is it a concession when I never alleged that it did? I think you are looking for a disagreement where there really wasn't one. I disagreed that you were not subject to suit in U.S. court, that's different from saying that you would lose said suit.

There are circumstances where laches are relevant; it depends what's alleged.

Not generally in a case with a defined statute of limitations. I haven't seen a case idated within the last thirty to forty years in which laches was applied in which the alleged wrong had a statutorily defined limitations period.

I think I have nothing to fear from a US Court.

I wouldn't say "nothing", but since WotC hasn't done anything yet, I doubt if they will. Not because they are barred from doing so, or because OSRIC does or doesn't infringe, but rather because they probably have little to gain from doing so.

 

[Dragonhelm]

It seems strange to me that people are getting so worked up over OSRIC's legality again since (according to Mythmere's post) it seems that WotC has basically decided to treat it as a non-issue. It seems to me that if no legal gauntlets were thrown after the initial contact it would be highly unlikely that WotC is going to come back a year later or five years later or whatever and reconsider the issue. Not that they couldn't, but it does seem unlikely.

Agreed. While we may have opinions either way on the legalities, it seems to me that this is a private issue.

Either way, I suspect that the "AD&D revival" whether it's spurred by OSRIC products or projects like Rob Kuntz and Goodman Game's recent modules will likely persist as more and more of the huge number of kids who jumped on the D&D bandwagon in the early 80s reach the age where they are taking up the old games again either as part of a nostagic reliving of their childhood or as a means of connecting with their own kids. I am always amazed by the number of people of my generation who have no current interest whatsoever in gaming but have fond memories of playing D&D in their friends basement circa 1982 and fully expect to pull out their old books and play with their kids "as soon as I can trust them not to eat the crayon".

I know that as I get older, I want to share the things that were popular during my childhood with my kids. My boys both like my Star Wars toys, and my oldest is a fan of Pac-Man Fever.

Considering how many options are out there for nostalgic gaming, it seems to me that this particular niche in the RPG market is fairly strong. The market seems to be able to handle the various methods, so more power to them.

Also, I don't think that nostalgic gaming is an "either/or" situation. Sometimes people make it out to where you either game old school style or d20 style. I don't think that's the case. For example, in my own Age of Mortals game for Dragonlance, I was looking at inserting a Dungeon Crawl Classic. So there's a little old school and new school thrown together for ya.

 

[dcas]

I must confess that although I am not a lawyer, I find the legal discussion fascinating.

By the way, here is a definition of 'estoppel': http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e040.htm

Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than she did at an earlier time if the other party would be harmed by the change. For example, if after obtaining the paternity judgment, Leroy sues Donna for custody, Donna is now equitably estopped from claiming in the custody suit that Leroy is not the father.

And here's one of 'laches': http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Wasn't there a relevant copyright case involving Marion Zimmer Bradley's works?

 

[MerricB]

Hrm. That's one of those things that I think doesn't really matter that much. I know it's an oft-cited flaw of earlier editions, but I just can't work up much condemnation or enthusiam about it.

It's a flaw primarily from 2e-days, when THAC0 was king. It was surprisingly hard for some people to grasp THAC0 minus AC is the target number (especially with negative ACs); I know I had to explain it to a certain player every session of one campaign. In 1e, with the explicit tables, it was much less of a problem.

Cheers!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I wouldn't say "nothing", but since WotC hasn't done anything yet, I doubt if they will. Not because they are barred from doing so, or because OSRIC does or doesn't infringe, but rather because they probably have little to gain from doing so.

... and much to lose.

The interaction of the OGL with international copyright law is very much uncharted legal territory, and much is speculation. A breach of the OGL might be alleged and defended.

I'd certainly ask a British court for a declaration that, since I'm a British citizen, the alleged wrong took place in Britain, and WOTC is an international with offices in the UK, it should be a British court that presides. Then there's the question of which law applies -- it could end up being US law in a British court -- and the thorny issue of a possible counterclaim under antitrust law for triple damages...

I can imagine that WOTC's lawyers might well want to avoid that situation. It's not even as if OSRIC were making any money; it's a non-profit.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I should clarify that all this legal discussion is speculation. I have every reason to believe that WOTC will not bring a legal challenge.

 

[tx7321]

My friend who is an artist found some artwork on t-shirts for sale online that were very similar to her own design...to similar. She contacted the manufacturer who claimed the design was there's. They refused to do anything about it. She contacted an attorney who said, you'll have to take them to court if you really want them to stop...and since it wasn't exact it might be difficult to prove. She also asked could she wait for years before acting. The attorney said she should act sooner rather then later if she wanted to improve her chances of winning. This is the only artist I know of personally who had this problem. But according to her you can go on forums and find other artists with the same problem. I suppose this could just be the attorney trying to generate business immediatly? If so thats kinda pathetic.

Anyhow, what if OSRIC was legally challanged. Worst case scenario Papers and Paychecks cracks. "OK I give up". So then he asks what exactly do I need to change to comply. Lets say they give him a list and he changes those things. He's still left with OSRIC. The publishers are still left with OSRIC. So whats the big deal? How will publishers loose money if OSRICs owner caved?

And what are the most likely costs that Papers and Paychecks would be required to pay? I mean, could they prove thier present company was damaged? They can't charge royalty since OSRIC is free. And the publishers...they can say "AD&D whats that. My module is based on this thing called OSRIC".

And what if this sucker did go to court and WOTC looses...what then?
This would be a crushing blow to them in not just lost claims to IP but in PR to the public, then there's the chance this court case could be used to topple other monoliths of gamedom. Its dynomite. Case in point, didn't Gygax settle out of court for a big load of cash? Or did it go to trial?

 

[Lanefan]

It's a flaw primarily from 2e-days, when THAC0 was king. It was surprisingly hard for some people to grasp THAC0 minus AC is the target number (especially with negative ACs); I know I had to explain it to a certain player every session of one campaign. In 1e, with the explicit tables, it was much less of a problem.

Count me as one of those to whom THAC0 was nigh inexplicable...I just have a little two-column chart on the back of my DM screen that says if the roll plus modifiers plus fight level add to *this*, it'll hit AC *that*, for each AC from 10 to about -12 or so. (and alongside it is another little chart that gives fight levels for the various classes, smoothed out somewhat from the original 1e tables)

That, and for some reason THAC0 uses AC 0 as a base, which is about in the middle of the range instead of at one end. If they'd made it THAC10 it would have been more intuitive, at least for me.

Lanefan

 

[tx7321]

I also recall some discussion at one of the websites concerning print runs under 500 not being subject to the same standards of copywrite law? That was why Goodman Games wouldn't sell more then 500. Its been a long while, but is this correct? If so, what are the specifics? Is this really a law, and if so how would it apply to a free download like OSRIC....after all Papers and Paychecks released one copy...someone else hosts OSRIC right?