Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Chronosome]

http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/index.php

Newbies only have access to one forum, but can reach the others after they've proven they aren't jerks or trolls -- or at least, that they aren't unfunny ones. That's where ENWorlders go to speak of things they don't want Eric's Grandma to hear -- religious or political debates, porn, profanity-ridden rants, whatever.

It's also a place where irony and nonsense is appreciated -- like the kinda mawkish name and the current hippy theme indicate.

While Gez gives a great description, he only tells you some of what's waiting at NKL. It's not necessarily about doing what you can't here. We're just not about censorship. There are folks who don't rant or post porn, and stay away from anything political.

Hey, it's kind of like Earth that way.

Enough about NKL. Carry on about getting my free copy of UA on the net!

 

[The Sigil]

[edit]
*wonders if sigil is an ai*
Well said Sigil!
[/edit]

Nah, that can't be right, there's nothing Artificial about me. I do exist in meatspace. It's just that I read pretty much literally every waking moment (geez, I love the internet) that I'm not driving a car. I have an insatiable appetite for reading and learning. Couple that with the wonder that is Google which allows me to nigh-on immediately find nearly anything I have ever read of provided I can remember a key phrase or two, and it only LOOKS like I'm a computer-based lifeform... I'm really just a computer-dependent lifeform.

Hmm... on second thought, not sure the "Intelligence" part applies, either. Never mistake the ability to spew vast quantities of words - including those that would bother anyone suffering from sesquipedalophobia - with someone who's Intelligent.

On third thought, THIS IS MY 1500th POST! And a darn sight shorter than most of my posts, too LOL.

One of these days I REALLY have to figure out my "word count/post count" ratio here on ENWorld. It will tell me I spend WAAAY too much time typing stuff here... and if I limited myself to one or two sentences per post, I might have a shot at running down Crothian's post count... or not.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

No it isn't, sorry if i sounded like that, but i do find that current society's facination with making 'profit' is a bit ridiculous. I find it idiotic that certain individuals have billions of dollars and others struggle on a daily basis with getting their children enough food. What has this to do with copyright? Copyright and patents are the basis of this discrepancy in cash flow, certain groups/individuals are literally holding good ideas hostage for money (think of two extremes like crucial medicine and cartoon characters). Maybe this is a bit to politicall to be appropriate for this board, but it is how i feel about things like copyright and patents.

May I suggest perusing http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html

Thomas Babington MacAuley had some more poignant thoughts on this matter; I'll throw some highlights here. The guy's clarity of vision - his ability to see long-term consequences and forthrightness both impress me.

The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright.
...
If, as my honourable and learned friend seems to think, the whole world is in the wrong on this point, if the real effect of monopoly is to make articles good and cheap, why does he stop short in his career of change? Why does he limit the operation of so salutary a principle to sixty years? Why does he consent to anything short of a perpetuity? He told us that in consenting to anything short of a perpetuity he was making a compromise between extreme right and expediency. But if his opinion about monopoly be correct, extreme right and expediency would coincide.
...
Now, I will not affirm that the existing law {Sigil's Note: at the time of this speech, copyright law was a period of 14 years} is perfect, that it exactly hits the point at which the monopoly ought to cease; but this I confidently say, that the existing law is very much nearer that point than the law proposed by my honourable and learned friend {Note: The proposed change was to lengthen the term of copyright to life plus 60 years}.

For consider this; the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration. A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the contrary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible.
...
And a man is very little moved by the thought that in the year 2000 or 2100, somebody who claims through him will employ more shepherds than Prince Esterhazy, and will have the finest house and gallery of pictures at Victoria or Sydney. Now, this is the sort of boon which my honourable and learned friend holds out to authors. Considered as a boon to them, it is a mere nullity, but considered as an impost on the public, it is no nullity, but a very serious and pernicious reality.
...
I will take an example. Dr Johnson died fifty-six years ago. If the law were what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr Johnson's works. Who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we may venture to guess. I guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the doctor's servant and residuary legatee, in 1785 or 1786.
...
Considered as a reward to {Johnson}, the difference between a twenty years' and sixty years' term of posthumous copyright would have been nothing or next to nothing. But is the difference nothing to us?
...
Do I grudge this to a man like Dr Johnson? Not at all. Show me that the prospect of this boon roused him to any vigorous effort, or sustained his spirits under depressing circumstances, and I am quite willing to pay the price of such an object, heavy as that price is. But what I do complain of is that my circumstances are to be worse, and Johnson's none the better; that I am to give five pounds for what to him was not worth a farthing.
...
If, Sir, I wished to find a strong and perfect illustration of the effects which I anticipate from long copyright, I should select,--my honourable and learned friend will be surprised,--I should select the case of Milton's granddaughter. ... My honourable and learned friend has repeatedly told the story with great eloquence and effect. He has dilated on the sufferings, on the abject poverty, of this ill-fated woman, the last of an illustrious race. ... Why, he asks, instead of obtaining a pittance from charity, did she not live in comfort and luxury on the proceeds of the sale of her ancestor's works? But, Sir, will my honourable and learned friend tell me that this event, which he has so often and so pathetically described, was caused by the shortness of the term of copyright? Why, at that time, the duration of copyright was longer than even he, at present, proposes to make it. The monopoly lasted, not sixty years, but for ever.... At the time at which Milton's granddaughter asked charity, Milton's works were the exclusive property of a bookseller.
...
Here, then, is a perfect illustration of the effect of long copyright. Milton's works are the property of a single publisher. Everybody who wants them must buy them at Tonson's shop, and at Tonson's price. Whoever attempts to undersell Tonson is harassed with legal proceedings. Thousands who would gladly possess a copy of Paradise Lost, must forego that great enjoyment. And what, in the meantime, is the situation of the only person for whom we can suppose that the author, protected at such a cost to the public, was at all interested? She is reduced to utter destitution. Milton's works are under a monopoly. Milton's granddaughter is starving. The reader is pillaged; but the writer's family is not enriched. Society is taxed doubly. It has to give an exorbitant price for the poems; and it has at the same time to give alms to the only surviving descendant of the poet.

MacAuley does a beautiful job illustrating the effect of a long copyright... it serves not to enrich the authors. Rather is serves to enrich booksellers (in modern parlance, media corporations) who purchase the copyright from the author for what, over the course of copyright, is a price of pennies on the dollar.

He continues with a prediction whose accuracy (perhaps chillingly) fulfilled by the rampant copyright infringement via internet, P2P swapping, CD burners, photocopiers, et al of today. Emphases below are mine.

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: {Sigil's Note: The Law to extend copyright to Life + 60 years} and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

This, in my mind, does a beautiful job of illustrating BOTH sides of the copyright debate. Once copyright has moved beyond the term of reasonableness, and society recognizes that the damage done by copyright far outweights the benefits to it, the whole of society will engage in copyright infringement. Furthermore, he predicts that the dissatisfaction will start because the public will realize that authors do not really benefit from copyright, booksellers (corporations) do. They further will be frustrated that they cannot utilize the works of those who are dead and thereby have NO MORE NEED for remuneration to promote their contributions to the Arts and Sciences (they're dead - they won't MAKE any more contributions).

Once that sentiment arises - that copyrights are too long in their current form, and that society should be able to make use of the works of somone long dead (as society does not easily recognize that someone OTHER than the author should benefit - such as a corporate entity), the whole of society will basically revolt against copyright... and as he says, since society has a hard time making fine distinctions, it will be able to rationalize and go down the slippery slope... "Well, copying from someone 50 years dead is fine... and copying from someone 45 years dead isn't all that different than that... and copying from someone 40 years dead isn't all that different than that...and copying from someone 35 years dead isn't all that different than that... etc... and copying from someone 0 years dead isn't all that different than that... and copying something that was written 5 years ago isn't all that different... and copying something that was written yesterday isn't all that different."

His choice of words... that booksellers that "cheat" an author of his copyright are "piratical" and that long copyrights are "intolerable" to society are interesting to me, since the booksellers (corporations) today are trying to turn this terminology around.

Simply put, Macauley recognized full well exactly what the effect of long copyright would be and he told us exactly what would happen. We have lengthend copyright anyway, and we SEE THE RESULTS - the last stat I heard was something like over 50% of US Adults have used File-Sharing services at one time or another, most likely for copyright infringement. If that doesn't qualify as "the whole nation is in on the plot" I'm not sure what does.

Thus, I'm with Macauley. Copyright, WHEN SEVERELY LIMITED IN TERM, is a good thing. Copyright, as it presently exists, is an intolerable burden upon society and needs to see its term SEVERELY shortened. I personally feel 14 years is close to the "sweet spot" for copyright... which is why I will defend recent copyrights, but don't expect me to defend Disney when they lobby Congress AGAIN to keep 100-year-old Steamboat Willie, product of a 50-years-dead Walt Disney, for yet ANOTHER extension of copyright.

Heck, given these tenets, I have a very hard time defending the copyright of *anything published prior to 1990*... which includes most 1e and oD&D stuff (that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to put myself in a bad legal spot by distributing it, but it *does* mean I will lobby - heavily - for it to be released into the public domain).

But at least I have what I feel is a reasonable defense of my moral position... the defense that while copyright is okay (because I understand why we need it), the current term of copyright is too onerous. I think even if you don't agree where the "Sweet Spot" in terms of copyright duration is, I think it's pretty clear that it's somewhere less than infinity - and if I pick a different spot than you (especially given that I would guess upwards of 95% of all revenue that will be made on works created prior to 1990 has already been made), that's a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day, this understanding comes from one who makes it a policy to learn about why something he dislikes exists... nobody enacted copyright thinking it was EEVIL... everyone always enacts laws they think are good. However, I think the original purpose of copyright has been lost over time, and politicians today are not educated - or interested (or if you're more cynical, too much in the pockets of "booksellers") to understand why we have the laws we do in the first place. In order to understand what to do when you propose change a law, it's important to understand what the reason for installing the law in the first place was.

--The Sigil

 

[widderslainte]

-snip-

The OGL was created to by WotC/Ryan Dancey for the purpose of "outsourcing" unprofitable areas of RPG writing that WotC didn't want to take on but that helped support the game and drove sales of the Core Rulebooks - e.g., adventures (this has come from Ryan's own mouth many times). That is their goal - to drive sales of the core rulebooks.

-snip-

Many publishers are not 100% thrilled with every single term of the OGL... but the benefits of access to the large OGC library available clearly outweigh those concerns. I'm sure IBM is not 100% thrilled with every single term of the GPL... but the benefits of access to the large code library available clearly outweigh IBM's concerns.

"The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software--which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

I certainly know the difference between source code and a compiled program, and what it would mean to make a derivative work based on a source code of another program. But as a "user", source code is worthless to me. I'm not sure how you'd make an analagous distinction about the content of Unearthed Arcana (source code vs. compiled).

I apologize if I wasn't too clear last night. My point in a nutshell is that if you don't like the terms of the license, don't use it. I'm speaking specifically of Wotc and Unearthed Arcana, and the original point of the thread.

People wanted to develop an online SRD of Unearthed Arcana material because it was open content. I'm not going to argue to the details of the letter or "spirit" of the OGL, but either this is legal or not. The fact that this could impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me. I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really. But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.

 

[The Sigil]

I certainly know the difference between source code and a compiled program, and what it would mean to make a derivative work based on a source code of another program. But as a "user", source code is worthless to me. I'm not sure how you'd make an analagous distinction about the content of Unearthed Arcana (source code vs. compiled).

Sure, let's look at the analogy. It might be fun. In fact, I'll pull a very relevant example of a GPL program... Jamis Buck's Treasure Generator.

I will differentiate among "source code" and "compiled program" and "output." After all, the simple end user of a program isn't even interested in the program itself except insofar as it provides him with output (which could be graphics, a printed document, etc.).

The "source code" of UA is, in essence, the Open Game Content - the text. The "compiled program" of UA is the finished product -the physical book, with formatting, artwork, binding, paper, ink, etc. The output of UA could be considered to be the set of pluses, abilities, etc. it grants a character.

The "source" of the Treasure Generator is... um... the source code. The "compiled program" is... um... the program. The output is... um... the output (a nice tidy list of coins, magic items, etc.)

The "end user" of UA knows he needs the book itself ("program") in order to get the adustments/abilities properly recorded ("the output") onto his character sheet. This works just like any other product, including a "Closed Source" Splatbook. It doesn't concern him that the source is open in UA any more than it concerns him that the source is closed in a Splatbook. He's getting the output he wants.

The only significant difference between the two is that the "barrier of entry" to re-use the "source code" is lower in OGL than GPL because re-use of the "source code" in the OGL requires only an understanding of the English language and... relatively common software tools (a text editor) or a photocopier to produce a "program" (a book, webpage, or other publication). Re-use of the "source code" of a GPL program requires an understanding of English language AND an understanding of the computer language in which the original program is written AND requires a compiler to produce a "program."

Look at the part I bolded above, because I think this is why you're having trouble with the parallel. I submit to you that if you have a person who is "fluent" with C++ (the language in which the Treasure Generator is written) and has a C++ compiler, his re-use of Jamis Buck's program can be done as simply as his re-use of UA material.

The fact that this could impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me.

In all honesty, it depends upon what the usual "sales curve" looks like. WotC's is probably a little longer than the typical publishers, but nearly every 3rd-party publisher is on record as saying over 90% of their sales occur within 60 - and probably 45 - days of release of a product. It might even be interesting to conduct a poll to ask folks when they purchased UA... you'd probably see that sales over the last month or so have been near zero... the "sales period" is all but complete, it's hard to significantly impact sales that are on the same order of magnitude as zero.

I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really.

The problem is, this is a freaking HARD thing to do. One of the "cans of worms" the internet has opened up is that it's REAL easy for anyone to be a "publisher" these days in the electronic medium of their choice (PDF, HTML, RTF, etc). It's a nice pipe dream, but unless you have a "pay-to-get-in" license (which ISN'T open), it's all but impossible to effectively do.

I can't think of a good way to communicate that point, but suffice to say that because "e-publishing" is a legitimate form of "publishing," WotC would have had an exceedingly hard time crafting a license that somehow controlled it without destroying the "Open" and "Free as in Speech and Free as in Beer" premises.

But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.

It does... including those who are concerned about the impact "republishing UA to the web would have" - the fact that "it might hurt sales" blinds them to any other rational considerations.

To me, the solution is... and has always been... "package your OGC right the first time" - if you do a good job packaging your OGC with non-Open portions (as noted above, production values, art, layout, etc.) it's a pretty good bet that you will have gotten through the 45-day window when most of your sales occur before someone finds a way to create a presentation that delivers similar value to what you have produced for a lower price. I have yet to see an OGC product - ANY OGC product, including 100% OGC products - that had a republished version of itself see the light of day in a short enough period of time and with sufficient publishing values to impact sales of the original. I haven't even seen a "close call."

If the amount of work "packaging" the raw OGC is substantial, that time required to add that value to the raw OGC will preclude anyone from reproducing the packaging in a time frame sufficient to impact your sales.

Put another way, if you worry that a "plain text" copy of your OGC work is going to meaningfully impact its sales, your business plan sucks - you're not adding enough other value to your work. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't pick up a "plain text file" version of UA's OGC instead of my current hardback version if it came out today.

--The Sigil

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

People wanted to develop an online SRD of Unearthed Arcana material because it was open content. I'm not going to argue to the details of the letter or "spirit" of the OGL, but either this is legal or not. The fact that this could impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me..

People are allowed to develop any kind of SRD they want using the open gaming content in Unearthed Arcana. Let's assume that Hasbro's team of lawyers have spent a lot of time deciding what is legal and are aware of all implications of releasing this book as OGC. TSR might not have always known what they were doing with the Web and with their legal budget--compared to the Hasbro megasaurus, TSR was a very small, silly, and inefficient mammal that briefly flourished in a strange climate but became extinct last millenium.

UA has already made a profit for WOTC/Hasbro, unless book retailing has already gone the way of the record industry. It's also WOTC's big dip into the d20/OGL swimming pool, their first book since the takeover that both uses other people's OGC and gives a sizable chunk back in return. As others have pointed out, it's also a way to put more toys in the d20 sandbox, a sanctioned set of optional rules that help set the way D&D is going to play with the other kids.

In fact, a measure of how successful the OGL has been for WOTC is that the PHB, DMG, MM, and UA are (AFAIK) the only books that people have bothered to text-hack. There are lots of RPG products that people care enough about to scan and trade in a huge, unwieldy, often-crappy way. The D&D books that contain OGC are the only ones popular enough that users have converted them into an electronic format you can really work with; WOTC are also the only publishers that have opened the "source code" to their books, by posting their open content as a freely accessible SRD on the web.

It's probably safe to assume that neither WOTC nor Hasbro has missed anything that's freaking obvious to us. The interesting question is, are the Game Mechanics selling more copies of Swords of our Fathers now that some of its OGC has become part of official D&D? Since the Mechanics used to work for WOTC, they knew what they were getting into, and I bet they're watching their sales figures to see the results of this experiment too.

I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really. But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.

Hasbro is stuck with the fact that Ryan Dancey gave all of D&D's toys to the sandbox. The OGL is a binding document that he designed to make it very difficult for anyone to claim that they own the basics of the world's most popular roleplaying game, or to revoke the OGL and take their toys home in a huff.

I think Hasbro knows what it wants, and they might also be the company that's best equipped to determine what the mass market of gamers really wants as opposed to what our tribal folklore says we want. The OGL was an experiment by WOTC, and Hasbro is probably watching the weird mutant it brought into the nest with some curiosity, but overall I think the experiment worked out the way Ryan expected. D&D didn't need to hoard its toys to be the most popular kid in the sandbox. Of course, lots of the other children still hate it because it used to be an unthinking and selfish bully, it's so much bigger than they are, and there's always people who don't like things that are popular.

The spirit and the legal intent of the OGL are the same. Open content is free for everyone to play with as long as they don't take it out of the sandbox and follow the rules while they're there. All OGC has always been free for the taking if anyone tries hard enough. We've just been in a brief evolutionary period where publishers could try to use print as a copy-protection scheme. As I'm sure all the hard-working scanners in our community can attest, extracting source code from the printed page is still a clumsy, annoying process.

If a d20/OGL publisher releases their entire work as open content except for the names they want it to be called, and then cries because other kids are playing with their toy, or don't want to be forced to pay money in order to play with it, or are sharing their own toys for free, it just means they're still too little to have figured out Ryan's rules for the sandbox.

 

[Nellisir]

Dang it, lost another post.

Simply put, I don't think putting the OGC contents of UA online as an SRD is legal. Why? Because of this:

from the Open Game License

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic ...to the extent such content ...is an enhancement over the prior art".

I think the OGC in UA is fair game if you add something to it, but converting to electronic text and distributing for free isn't "an enhancement over the prior art"; you've actually made NO change to the prior art. You've merely altered its means of transmission. And if you haven't enhanced the "prior art", then it's not OGC and you can't distribute it.

However, I Am Not A Lawyer, and "prior art" may have a wholly different meaning than that I've attributed to it.

Sigil, those quotes are great! Eerily prescient, and a perfect summation of what I feel copyright should be for. Thank you!

Cheers,
Nell.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

I think the OGC in UA is fair game if you add something to it, but converting to electronic text and distributing for free isn't "an enhancement over the prior art"; you've actually made NO change to the prior art. You've merely altered its means of transmission.

I'd argue that conversion to electronic text is itself an enhancement to the prior art (although I'm not sure that this is the central legal issue). The main advantage of the printed text to you is that you can read it in the bathtub; its main advantage to WOTC, as The Sigil points out, is that it is currently easier for them to make money selling it to you that way.

 

[Nellisir]

I'd argue that conversion to electronic text is itself an enhancement to the prior art (although I'm not sure that this is the central legal issue).

I think the central LEGAL issue boils down to: can you legally reproduce the entire OGC of Unearthed Arcana and make publically available at no cost? Right now, assuming you reproduce 100% of the OGC from UA and add nothing, I'd argue no solely because of that line, AND that that line is there for precisely this reason. The content is distinct from the presentation; otherwise you'd need seperate S.15 entries for a "screen" pdf vs a "print" pdf.

The main advantage of the printed text to you is that you can read it in the bathtub; its main advantage to WOTC, as The Sigil points out, is that it is currently easier for them to make money selling it to you that way.

Let's do a hypothetical. If WotC published an unlocked PDF version of Unearthed Arcana and charged $34.95 for it, would you support making or distributing a 100% OGC identical free version? The only "enhancement" would be the reduction of price.

It may well be that this has been done in the past, but the more I think about it, the less legal it seems. There's nothing in the OGL about how OGC is presented -- it's required to be identified, but the presentation format is irrelevant to the content.

A correllary might be converting a VHS tape to DVD. I think Star Wars is better to WATCH on DVD, but I don't think it changes the movie. Same plot, same characters, same effects, same lines, same content.

As always, IANAL.

Curious
Nell.

 

[Cergorach]

In fact, a measure of how successful the OGL has been for WOTC is that the PHB, DMG, MM, and UA are (AFAIK) the only books that people have bothered to text-hack. There are lots of RPG products that people care enough about to scan and trade in a huge, unwieldy, often-crappy way. The D&D books that contain OGC are the only ones popular enough that users have converted them into an electronic format you can really work with; WOTC are also the only publishers that have opened the "source code" to their books, by posting their open content as a freely accessible SRD on the web.

That's not true, for D&D 3E also the splat books and the psionics handbook where OCRed, as well as rule parts of the FRCS.
Guardians of Order have also made a couple of SRDs available of matrial that's also in their print books.