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

[Storm Raven]

In this rather unlikely case, the issue of venue would be complex and I imagine it would take months or even years to resolve.

Not really. The U.S. court would be concerned with personal jurisdiction. It generally would not care one way or the other if another court was "more appropriate", just whether they were an appropriate court. Once that has been established, under U.S. jurisdiction rules, the court can, and would, proceed.

I would certainly ask my solicitor to write to the US Court and say something along these lines:

1. A US court is not the proper venue for the case; and
2. There is no breach of copyright. Both parties agree that game rules, systems and mechanics aren't subject to copyright (WOTC have published this statement in the past). Both parties agree that the OGL applies. The OGL permits me the use of gaming terms (such as "armor class" and "alignment") which are admittedly WOTC's property, and it permits me to "modify" the meaning of those terms however I wish. The artwork is clearly new. Therefore, all these items should be subtracted from the document.

The U.S. court would likely ignore your first request (and your second request would concede personal jurisdiction, making it moot). The fact that there is another court of competent jurisdiction that could hear a case is not a defense to personal jurisdiction under U.S. laws. You have to show that you are not subject to personal jurisdiction at all. And I think that you probably are.

But if you make the second request, you are contesting the merits of the case, and conceeding personal jurisdiction. At that point, you are litigating in a U.S. court. And those are factual issues. You might phrase the request as a motion for summary judgment, but there appears to be some unresolved factual issues (how much can you modify the terms, what do the terms of the OGL permit, and so on), so that is not a given (at least based on the information I have now.

I beg to differ.

I don't know what case you're using as a source for that, but I wouldn't necessarily need to bring the action in the US in any case. WOTC quite clearly believe that there's a separate market in pen and paper roleplaying games. That's their specialist niche, and they publish market analyses and other documents which treat pen and paper roleplaying games as a specific market in themselves. I think that in the UK it would be very hard for them to argue that pen and paper RPGs isn't a market.

I think they would argue that the market is for games in general. Their lawyers would push that argument regardless. And it is the only one that makes sense. Arguing that pen and paper games is a seprate and distinct market is like arguing that soft rock is a seperate and distinct market in the music industry, and thus you don't need to consider any other type of recorded music as competitors.

*shrug*

If WOTC somehow get past the preceding issues, the consequence is that print copies of OSRIC would be scarce in the US for a while and I have to host the .pdf of OSRIC in the UK. No judgment or legal issue will stop US citizens downloading a free .pdf.

Enforcement would be an issue, but it would stop any U.S. publishers from producing anything under OSRIC. Or marketing anything in the U.S. that they made elsewhere.

It's highly relevant to issues such as consequential loss. Perhaps that matters less in the US.

Statutory damages. Up to $30,000 per unintentional infringing event (and that means per copy made) with no need to prove the profitable or unprofitable nature of the product. Up to $150,000 per willful infringing event.

But this is all completely hypothetical. As I have said before, I have not looked at ORIC to compare it to anything produced by WotC to evaluate the factual merits of either side. Given that WotC has shown no interest thus far in bringing any kind of claim, I am making an educated guess that they probably won't. But I can certainly understand if a publisher doesn't want to run the risk of publishing under it, as remote as that risk might be. If I am wrong, I just say "well, I guess I was wrong", if they are wrong, they lose their stock in trade and likely have to pay damages.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven I was referring to HASBRO/WOTC not just WOTC, so my bad there buddy.

Even Hasbro is hardly a monolith of gaming. It is the largest toy manufacturer in the world, but it has several competitors. The toy industry is one of the most competitive there is, and one of the most subject to quick market fluctuations.

So say he folds. Agrees to give WOTC OSRIC without a fight. Then 2 weeks later, SEDRIC (another rewrite of the 1E rules) shows up, correcting many of the errors of OSRIC, perhaps WILMA and BESSY all AD&D 1E rules with original presentation. The publishers of AD&D 1E are back in business in a yawn. WOTC stamps these out and more pop up.

Or, more likely, other publishers become wary of working in the area, and the product dries up. The publishers of AD&A 1e don't want to risk their capital in a venture that might be swept out from under them in a heartbeat. Will P&P lose OSRIC? Almost certainly not, since WotC hasn't (and does not appear to want to) acted on this issue. But we are talking worst case scenarios here.

Another question Storm Raven. Can a company like WOTC pick and choose willy nilly who they will go after (say ignoring GG, DF, C&C etc.) and single out OSRIC, if each of these others were commiting the same infrindgements? Especially in this case, its not like OSRIC is reproducing actual text or images...its a bit more removed from that (like the concept that a half-elf fighter is limited to such and such level etc.). Couldn't it be said, "hey you didn't think a crime was going on before, but now suddenly with this one company you do"?

The short answer is - yes. It is not a defense to a current suit that there are others out there who could have also been sued.

BTW thanks for your partisipation in this thread. Though I think your "cold" to OSRIC for some reason, I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

I don't particularly care one way or the other - I am unlikely to use OSRIC or derived products as I have plenty of AD&A 1e material already, but I am not hostile to it. My participation in this thread was, initially, to correct some legal misinformation concerning a couple technical issues. Since then, I have been engaged in responding to hypotheticals (mostly "what is the worst that can happen" hypotheticals).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court. End of story. I might choose to tell them my position, but I don't submit to their jurisdiction.

 

[WSmith]

EDITED to say, as a long time troll of ENworld, I never hoped to see such a positive and warm reception to AD&D 1E and OSRIC. Its nice to see the edition wars are over. That each game can be seen as special and unique rather then "broken" or "superior".

Not to get all gushy and stuff, but I, a hardline 1e warrior who had sworn off EN World a while ago, am also glad to see interest and a nice recpetion to the older editions being given here.

Regarding AC, IIRC it was T.Foster that stated on K&KA that one way to think of Descending AC is that 1st class is better than 2nd class, and 2nd class is better than 3rd. So, only a wealthy knight might enjoy the luxury of doning AC 1, 1st class armor. That also leaves that protections AC of "0" or below are truely magical, and cannot be achieved by other than supernatural means.

Now, after saying that, I will say I cheat when it comes to attack rolls. While I still use old style AC, I have moved away from the charts of my beautiful DM screen, with the Trampier collage dipicting all that is what makes the Original Advanced D&D game so great, but I digress. I have charts (posted on my site, see sig) that provide the modifer for which the PCs and Monsters add to their attack roll. This is essentially 20-THAC0.

For example, I roll to hit. My fighter has a +2 attack bonus, (20- (18 to hit AC 0)=2). He rolls an 11, adds his +2 attack bonus, along with other modifiers like STR "to hit" (we will say +1 for now). That is a total of 14. Well, what does that mean?

Easy. In my head, I instantly convert old AC on the fly to a target number by subtracting the AC from 20.

So, my fighter is attacking a beast with an AC 6, which requires a target number of 14, (20 - 6 = 14.) He has struck the beast, barely, but enough to damage it.

It is the best of both worlds, old and new. In actual play, it is way faster than I have explained it here.

However, when using 1st edition, there is one gliche called "repeating 20s", that is simply handled by adding +5 to a natural roll of 20. This rule mimics a rule on page 83 of the DMG, which I won't bore anyone with unless they want to know.

 

[Henry]

Not to get all gushy and stuff, but I, a hardline 1e warrior who had sworn off EN World a while ago, am also glad to see interest and a nice recpetion to the older editions being given here.

Don't be totally fooled -- the edition clamor still emerges from time to time, but we still encourage peaceable discussion and on the whole the peaceable discussion wins out; of course, the fact that some of the staff still enjoy the occasional old-school outing helps that a little bit.

Me, I don't look forward to the day 4th/5th/whatever edition comes out and it's so different there's yet another schism.

Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court. End of story.

I think Storm Raven's point is not so much about your personal fate and the fate of OSRIC core, but the fate of the sizeable portion of the U.S. audience making stuff for OSRIC now and in the future. If they ever became liable due to a U.S. in absentia ruling, then the U.S. support for it would be cut off or sharply curtailed. Hopefully, WotC has both the business sense and the goodwill for the gamers to avoid that. OSRIC's sales could grow ten times their current size, and I still doubt WotC would see it as worth pursuing in any fashion. At it's biggest, it's a fan movement, not the next Yu-gi-oh or Pokemon.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think Storm Raven's point is not so much about your personal fate and the fate of OSRIC core, but the fate of the sizeable portion of the U.S. audience making stuff for OSRIC now and in the future.

Well, if WOTC were interested in litigation, I think they'd be most unwise to go for the publishers rather than me. Chilling effect, and all that.

OSRIC's sales could grow ten times their current size, and I still doubt WotC would see it as worth pursuing in any fashion. At it's biggest, it's a fan movement, not the next Yu-gi-oh or Pokemon.

Ten times? A hundred times or more would still be small potatoes to WOTC. OSRIC's come a surprisingly long way, but there's a lot more distance still to travel.

OSRIC's very definitely fan-driven, and very proud of it!

 

[tx7321]

Storm Raven, I find this all very difficult to believe. if these fines are correct, would it help papers and paychecks to incorporate; so: 1. the individual creates material, 2. sells it to his corporation, 3. and then his corporation sells it to another publisher (or publishes itself).


If incorporating wouldn't help, why woud anyone do commercial art? Its next to impossible NOT to accidently copy work you've recently seen, esp. if your doing commercial work with deadlines etc.

I think your missing something.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Storm Raven, I find this all very difficult to believe.

I know why you find this difficult to believe, Mark. But Storm Raven can be right without saying that the other legal views you and I have both examined are wrong...

Storm Raven's saying that if it can be shown that OSRIC contains a copyright infringement, then all Storm Raven's worst case scenarios apply.

The legal views you and I have both read come at it from a different angle, which is that because OSRIC doesn't contain a breach of copyright, the worst case scenario is X, Y and Z.

Also, Storm Raven isn't privy to the correspondence, which contains a few remarks that might just possibly have a tiny bit of an impact on his view...

 

[tx7321]

Papers and Paychecks: "I know why you find this difficult to believe, Mark..."
"But Storm Raven can be right without saying that the other legal views you and I have both examined are wrong..."

I'm still blown away by the damages. And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone else immitating their work doesn't help. Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation). So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings. Nah. I just don't buy it. I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening. The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine. So, I could do an impressionistic painting of a photo I've seen, or a sculpture could do a piece based on that painting (as long as none of these were close duplicates). Now if I wanted to do a photo realistic painting of another artists photo, I "might" need to get that artists permission (and most without a doubt would).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'm still blown away by the damages.

Those are ceiling amounts.

And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone else immitating their work doesn't help.

There really aren't that many possible poses for a human figure, and it's a popular subject. Same with a dragon, or whatever fantasy art subject is being treated. Coincidental similarities must be extremely common.

Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation).

Iirc a lawyer's actually told us that incorporation doesn't offer any useful protection against a copyright case.

So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings. Nah. I just don't buy it. I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening. The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine.

I think games are very different from art in this respect. For one thing, artworks aren't normally distributed under an Open License.