Massive Open Content SRD

[Torm]

The actual publishers here can correct me if I'm wrong (and I'd appreciate being told why if I am - it would be interesting), but I don't see any problem with doing something like this for OGC materials that are otherwise available in actual print only. I can see objections for the publishers selling product as PDF or what-have-you, since this would essentially supercede that in some ways, but nothing beats a good honest BOOK at the gaming table. I use the SRD for the DMG, PHB, MM to design campaign materials and such, but it would never replace having the books on hand at the actual table.

 

[Yair]

The actual publishers here can correct me if I'm wrong (and I'd appreciate being told why if I am - it would be interesting), but I don't see any problem with doing something like this for OGC materials that are otherwise available in actual print only. I can see objections for the publishers selling product as PDF or what-have-you, since this would essentially supercede that in some ways, but nothing beats a good honest BOOK at the gaming table. I use the SRD for the DMG, PHB, MM to design campaign materials and such, but it would never replace having the books on hand at the actual table.

I'm not a publisher, but this topic was sort of touched on above. The problem is that in these days any product can instantly be transformed into a pdf product (witnessed the many out of print products on DriveThruRPG).
I do agree that there is an added benefit to the actual book an on-line resource will never have. But I can understand how the availability of the book's content for free will lower its value, leading to less people willing to pay the extra fees needed to get it in book form.

 

[Yair]

...being vague, or specific and wrong, can get you successfully sued, whereas being specific and correct is less likely to get you sued, and even less likely to get you successfully sued.

Ehh, no. As long as you are not making precise accusations, you aren't slandering any particular publisher's name so he can't sue. He isn't damaged. And I've seen publishers being very timid to badmouth a fellow publisher, I stand behind my assessment that this is unproffessional.

I don't understand from your example exactly what the problem is. You need to contact the publisher if you don't understand their designation. If the example said "(such and such)" is PI where "(such and such)" is clearly OGC, then I could understand but your example might just be an example of an unclear designation as opposed to trying to keep somethign closed that should be open. Two different things, IMO.

I do not maintain the omission is intentional, I do not believe that Kahn's Press was trying to keep the benefits for Evil characters (per level) as closed content. As you yourself said, however, the "spirit" in which they function is not relevant, what is relevant is the contract and how it is implemented. As it stands, the declaration doesn't declare said rules as OGC despite them Using the OGC, leaving their status undetermined.

I'm already reconsidering how I intend to release things and how I intend to designate content. There may be others thinking along similar lines.

I'm all for leading a Socratic life. Rethinking your actions is always good. Frankly, I'm surprised a free OGC extract wasn't on your mind as a possibility when you made your products. It's hardly a new concept.

If there is something I post that you do not understand, ask me to be more clear.

I'm sorry if I misinterperted you. It seemed to me that when you said "Stripmining the OGC from products isn't really about trying to help the original publisher. Let's drop that bit, please, as it seems disingenuous, even if some few people actually want to believe it", you were implying that most (not "some few") of the people invovled in such efforts are are trying to de the opposite from helping the original publisher, under false pretenses. If that was not your intention, I apologize.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Let me toss in my two pennies here, as a freelancer for many companies, and an up-and-coming publisher with Lions Den Press.

When people talk about "the industry," they tend to be thinking in terms of WotC, even if WotC isn't the company they're actively talking about. It's likely that a product like this would be too small to hurt a company that big.

But most of the other D20 companies are a very different issue. Some of the major D20 companies--you'd be surprised which ones--are, as someone else pointed out, two failed books away from closing their doors. This is a very low-profit industry, lower than most people realize. If a product like this one caused a drop in sales of even a few percentage points, that would be too much for some companies.

This is even more the case with PDF companies. For most, sales are lower than successful print companies by orders of magnitude. It would be extremely easy for a product like this to eat into sales. This is especially true for those of us who have tried to keep the vast majority of our products open. (At least to date, Lions Den has claimed no IP beyond our name and logo.)

The potential for harm, in a product like this, is sufficient cause to worry me. And I can tell you right now that the day a product like this gets underway is the day I start declaring most of my products to be closed content. I don't want to do that. I like letting other people use my work, except when it's setting-specific. But if people are going to take The Iconic Bestiary (just for example), and reprint it in its entirety--especially for free--that's going to cut into business in ways I simply can't afford.

To put it another way: People talk about how the online community is only a small percentage of the roleplaying market, so an online database product can't cause that much damage. OTOH, the online community is the entirety of the PDF-specific roleplaying market. Think about that.

 

[philreed]

And I can tell you right now that the day a product like this gets underway is the day I start declaring most of my products to be closed content.

Exactly. I've been pretty open with OGC but the minute wholesale copy/paste of OGC hits the web I'm turning the creative faucet down to drip.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Phil, I thought it was very cool that you voluntarily released 101 Divine Spellbooks as a free SRD a while back. There are very few actual data points in the d20 market* to look at when we're talking about the effect of free SRD release, and this is one of 'em. Did you see any noticeable effect on sales of the Spellbooks series, sales of other products, hits to your website, etc. as a result of the free SRD? Would you do it again?

As for involunatry use of OGC, I've been told by another PDF publisher that having their work re-used in a print book by a larger company created a discernible bump in sales, both of the product that was re-used and of other PDFs. I found this especially interesting since there was no citation of the source -- you either had to read the Section 15, or hear someone saying "Oh, that part was taken from work X", to even know that the re-used sections were the work of the original publisher.


* As has been said, Wizards of the Coast is really in its own category and must be considered separately; it seems to me that making the core rules available as a free SRD has helped the sales and popularity of D&D, but I know there are others who disagree.

 

[reanjr]

Isn't there some sort of abstract clause that the product must contain some indeterminate amount of new material? Or is that for D20?

 

[reanjr]

True. I wonder if "BR Magic Rules" would be a violation of copyright? Or "Indigo Fuschia"?

The only reason I doubt it (as the law is far too complicated on hazy matter such as this for me to make a decision) is because of something I saw Malhavoc do. In Cry Havoc they use the first couple of letters of the Grayhawk Circle of Eight's names so that they alphabetize properly (like Mord's Faithful Hound). I thought that was a neat idea.

 

[reanjr]

I'm not sure if it was the Creature Collection or Relics & Rituals, but I'm pretty sure one of them declared all names as PI, and added a little blurb that said "You are hereby granted to use these names for the sole purpose of using these monsters/spells/whatever." So you could use the spell "Chardun's Charnel House of Nastiness", but you couldn't use the name Chardun for something else.

Relics and Rituals I know did it; I'm not sure about Creature Collection. Relics and Rituals forbade the use of the flavor text at the beginning of their spells (a wonderful addition, in my opinion).

 

[reanjr]

- Scan/OCR/layout of Unearthed Arcana OGC (Scan and OCR is done, just needs proof reading again as i missed something BIG the last time i posted a part of it).

Speaking of Unearthed Arcana, I noticed they started adding some UA content to the SRD and dead headings for more. Anyone know if there is a timeframe for this stuff to be added?