New Character Builder from WotC!

[Hussar]

that's pretty short sighted no?

What if it allows you to build monsters? And then your mosnters become WoTC IP.

I mean, does no one remember gleemax and all of the awesome jobs WoTC did there?

Stop thinking of it as just the now and open your eyes to the potential, just the potential mind you, that whatever you do with not just the CB, but all the tools, is WoTC to do with as they please.

Who cares?

I mean seriously. If you actually wanted to write a monster book for sale, don't use these tools. Seems pretty simple to me. Actually, that's not even true. You could use these tools, just don't save them to the WOTC servers.

Considering you'd have to go through the GSL to produce some sort of 4e monster book in the first place, I think it's not a big deal. If you want to publish 4e stuff, you don't have a lot of choice about giving WOTC some control over your IP. This tool in no way actually changes that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Who cares?

I mean seriously. If you actually wanted to write a monster book for sale, don't use these tools. Seems pretty simple to me. Actually, that's not even true. You could use these tools, just don't save them to the WOTC servers.

Considering you'd have to go through the GSL to produce some sort of 4e monster book in the first place, I think it's not a big deal. If you want to publish 4e stuff, you don't have a lot of choice about giving WOTC some control over your IP. This tool in no way actually changes that.

Some people are comfortable with it.

But as the tools continue to roll out (hopefully the tools will continue to roll out), WoTC stance has to be the same in order to protect themselves.

For those who are fine with it, not a problem. For those who don't even think about it... well, think about it. I'm not saying burn the servers to the ground and some think that you can fight the boilerplate if it came to a legal case, but be aware that WoTC will probably own you information by default.

And in terms of data mining, I'm sorry, if Google gets busted mining people's data in more depth than they should, people think WoTC isn't going to be doing 'deep' digs? Log in times, length of log ins, location of log ins, etc...? Those of you who think it's just going to be seeing what types of characters are made are indeed trusting souls that the world needs more of.

 

[evilref]

For those who are fine with it, not a problem. For those who don't even think about it... well, think about it. I'm not saying burn the servers to the ground and some think that you can fight the boilerplate if it came to a legal case, but be aware that WoTC will probably own you information by default.

Why are you continuing to spread this misinformation? I genuinely don't understand why. Either you don't understand how copyright works, in which case you're just spreading uninformed opinion. Or you do, in which case this is some malicious attempt to spread negativity about WotC and their services.

You also seem to be missing the replies which call out your opinion as being false and provide evidence (or actual legal experience in this field) to support that.

In short, other than 'stuff' WotC already owns (obviously) no boilerplate text on any website can grant them ownership over any material created by someone else using that website.

This is yet more fearmongering.

 

[Dice4Hire]

And in terms of data mining, I'm sorry, if Google gets busted mining people's data in more depth than they should, people think WoTC isn't going to be doing 'deep' digs? Log in times, length of log ins, location of log ins, etc...? Those of you who think it's just going to be seeing what types of characters are made are indeed trusting souls that the world needs more of.

Seriously, who really cares if WOTC gathers that kind of information? Google was caught gathering data on wireless networks, which could include stuff like credit card numbers, and the like.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Angellis_ater]

How many times does WotC have to say "the VTT is not something we are working on at that this time" before people like you stop trying to use it as an excuse to justify your opinions?

The VTT has NOTHING to do with the current situation. If you choose or not choose to subscribe to DDI... it should be because of what you CURRENTLY CAN GET FOR THE MONEY YOU SPEND ON IT. That's all.

If you currently subscribe to DDI EVEN THOUGH at one point they said two years ago that a VTT was in the works (and then subsequently cancelled)... it says that you did so because you wanted it for the PRODUCTS YOU WERE GETTING AT THE TIME YOU SIGNED UP. So man up and stop using the VTT as a piece of ammo in your barrage aimed at WotC.

You want to be pissed off because you signed up for DDI to get an updated offline Character Builder, and that is not something you will be getting anymore? That's cool. Fine with me. Well within your right and nothing I can fault you for. But getting pissed off because they still aren't producing stuff they told you there weren't producing? Ridiculous. And many of us will call you on that.

Ahem. Hi! *waves hand* Did you read my post? Perhaps you meant to take the quote from my post out-of-context to prove a general point - which is fair if you'd called that out.

Now, in the post itself, that was used for two things:
1. To prove that WotC has a less than stellar reputation for "keeping their word" on things.
2. To show that a reason to feel uneasy about continuing to use a service can be determined by a chain of events.

Allow me to illustrate. I tell you I'm gonna do something. A lot of times. And then I don't. So when I say "I'm gonna do this" - isn't my previous behavior a fair indicator of why you wouldn't trust me?

Another point of illustration here (note, this is an example, albeit taken a little too the extreme to illustrate a point) - if I kick you in the face every day and one day I push you, and you flip and waste my ass - it's not that single push in itself which is the reason, it is the compilation of all the events that have come before.

Taken out of context, killing someone for a single push, would seem ludicrous and most definately paint the "killer" as an insane ass. But in context, there is more to it than just a single push.

So, please - take things in context. I've not been paying for 2 years for DDI because I wanted PDFs, the VTT (which is completely useless to me since I game in the physical space) or any of my cited examples. I've been paying because I got something very nice out of it and I have appreciated Dragon, Dungeon, the CB, the MM and the Compendium.

But I do view this as a diminishment in usability, specifically for the future. The rules in the CB+the PHB are good even when WotC moves to 5th Edition. The online version? Not at all.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Why are you continuing to spread this misinformation? I genuinely don't understand why. Either you don't understand how copyright works, in which case you're just spreading uninformed opinion. Or you do, in which case this is some malicious attempt to spread negativity about WotC and their services.

You also seem to be missing the replies which call out your opinion as being false and provide evidence (or actual legal experience in this field) to support that.

In short, other than 'stuff' WotC already owns (obviously) no boilerplate text on any website can grant them ownership over any material created by someone else using that website.

This is yet more fearmongering.

1) I highly doubt they'd claim ownership given, in the US for example, there are specific steps in place regarding the transfer of copyright./

Highly doubt is not legal advice. It either is or is not.

A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Are you saying this is true even if WoTC specifically states anything created with their software is theirs? Would not using the WoTC software in and of itself mean you are accepting what they are providing as law? And if not, are you willing to go to court with it?

.2) Hundreds if not thousands of companies use the same boilerplate writing (you grant us the right to use...). For three off the top of my head, Sony, Apple and Paizo. To date there is not a single example of one exercising it as anything other than a defence against frivolous law suits.

So they're not going to claim overnship but can because everyone does it? It's either one of the other no?

3) I can claim ownership over everything you write, that doesn't mean it's going to be held up in court. There is no precedent to support the boilerplate text used on websites to actually grant the owner of the forum the right to use your copyright for itself. Quite the opposite given how copyright trends have been going.

Yes, because in America corporations never have copyright laws extended or changed directly benefiting them. There are no so called 'Mickey Mouse' Laws. Ys indeedy. In addition, since YOU personally cannot see the data, I don't think the common user is worried about the other common users who cannot see their data, unless WoTC screws that part up and accounts are vastly easy to hack, but rather, with data harvesting, they can do a variety of things.

4) The boilerplate specifically falls down because many individuals simply cannot grant such a right to anyone else.

Doesn't this point with #2 collide a little? The companies, thousands of them by your numbers, are so stupid that they can't legally protect themselves eh?

5) The negative PR to such would be huge. As in Hasbro-stock affecting huge. Corporations do not like lawsuits they are likely to lose or that have a negative PR attached. Particularly when, in this example, they'd actually have positive PR from, you know, buying the supposed writing (assuming anything is ever put up that's worth publishing...and that it was seen by someone at the company who felt such).

Yeah, it would be like Music Companies suing people who illegally download files... oh wait... It would be like WoTC suing people who've illegally uploaded PDFs... oh wait... it would be like WoTC taking down PDFs oh wait....

If you have some actual legal links of boilerplate failing, I would seriously like to review them. Otherwise from my, and it is limited, understanding, you are entering a contract by using WoTC software, like you are with any software, and putting you head in the lion's mouth.

For the vast majority of people, this won't matter one bit. For some, it will. Now if WoTc comes out and says that they claim no ownership, well, that would be stupid because sooner or latter someone's going to make something that will be similiar to what WoTC makes and they'll find themselves on the defensive end. So either the boilerplate works, or it does not work.

 

[evilref]

Highly doubt is not legal advice. It either is or is not.

I can only conclude you didn't actually grasp what I was expressing here. You cannot transfer the copyright of something you have created (and obviously is copyrightable, and you have the right to copyright etc. without a signed document). Ergo I doubt that WotC will claim ownership over such things because the law does not allow them to.

Are you saying this is true even if WoTC specifically states anything created with their software is theirs? Would not using the WoTC software in and of itself mean you are accepting what they are providing as law? And if not, are you willing to go to court with it?

This is where your generalities have to be more specific and why I have to question why you're doing this fearmongering in the first place.

1) Using software doesn't mean I have to accept what they've provided as law. I can use software and not agree with the company's legal interpretation of my rights and how they interact with said software. Were Adobe, for example, to claim the ownership of anything I created in Photoshop as theirs. Or Microsoft to claim ownership of anything I write in Word that doesn't mean by using that software I have transfered those rights to them. Nor does it mean they can enforce that claim in court. Sure, they could sue to try and enforce it but past precedent and case law would not substantiate it.

2) What are you actually arguing here? Are you arguing the concept of a character (which has no copyright protection), are you arguing the numbers on the sheet (again no protection for said numbers) or are you arguing that they can own the background of said character which I write in a journal entry (which they hypothetically could claim but could not enforce without a signed transfer of ownership).

3) Yes, I'd be willing to go to court to protect my rights.

So they're not going to claim overnship but can because everyone does it? It's either one of the other no?

Or not. You seem to have missed what I wrote, again. I'll try and make it clearer. The standard text I was referencing, and have quoted previously, (to use Paizo's text as an example) is this:

Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.


As a defence against a frivolous lawsuit (I post X to Y website and then sue them for publishing my writing) it's excellent. As a defence for them taking a short story I write and then publishing it...it has great gaping holes in it. I assume, of course, that you're flying this same flag of fear mongering against Paizo for using the above text?
No? Didn't think so. Why is it you're doing this again.

Yes, because in America corporations never have copyright laws extended or changed directly benefiting them. There are no so called 'Mickey Mouse' Laws. Ys indeedy. In addition, since YOU personally cannot see the data, I don't think the common user is worried about the other common users who cannot see their data, unless WoTC screws that part up and accounts are vastly easy to hack, but rather, with data harvesting, they can do a variety of things.

This is a great piece of fearmongering here. Well, maybe they'll get the law changed to protect them. You then delve into the hacking of data. I assume, of course, you have a blog where you post that no one should put anything on the internet for fear it will be hacked. Or copied and used by someone else.

Ohh, wait, maybe google will start to publish your emails, because you're using their software that means...

Codswallop.

Doesn't this point with #2 collide a little? The companies, thousands of them by your numbers, are so stupid that they can't legally protect themselves eh?

Every garage I've been to has a sign stating (to paraphrase) 'Owners leave their cars here at their own risk and <name of garage> cannot be held liable for any loss or damage>. Which is great for what it is. Unless say the garage collapses because it was improperly constructed. Or an employee of the garage is the one to crash into your car or... Broad defences are written as such to try and avoid loopholes, however, claiming something is not the same as actually having it. Add in the difference in international copyright laws and the point you're banging on about becomes decidedly weaker.

And they can legally protect themselves, but protecting themselves is not the same as depriving others of rights which a court and the law deems they should have. Which is what you're arguing.

Yeah, it would be like Music Companies suing people who illegally download files... oh wait... It would be like WoTC suing people who've illegally uploaded PDFs... oh wait... it would be like WoTC taking down PDFs oh wait....

You think WotC were wrong to sue people for illegally distributing their files? Well, that explains a lot. Moreover, again, you're misrepresenting my point.

Fundamentally I believe you are using generalised language to spread the 'fear' of WotC stealing people's ideas (while ignoring the realities of the publishing industry, the nature of the software involved and all manner of other complications, legal and otherwise).

So, why? Why are you doing this? Why aren't you doing it about Apple, or Sony or say Paizo?

Why aren't you posting how people should be scared of posting character ideas, or adventure ideas onto Paizo's website for fear Paizo will 'own' their ideas?

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm going to deal with one point because you are quite blatantly fearmongering.



I'm fairly sure you actually understand this point but in case you're genuinely unable to comprehend it, i'm going to break it down into simple concepts.


1) A Character I create using the Character Builder - statistics only. WotC can absolutely 'claim' ownership over this, albeit it has no protected status. It's a collection of numbers.

2) The character's background that I write into the journal section (etc.). I cannot legally transfer my ownership of this without a signed document attesting to such. Ergo while hypothetically they (or even you) could claim ownership of it, there's no legal precedent to support it. No signed contract, no transfer.

If you don't understand the difference and given your admitted 'limited understanding', maybe you should study up on this subject before spreading your misinformed opinions on the matter?

Isn't the 'signed contract' the very fact that you're using the software and have aggred to it's TOS?

 

[evilref]

Isn't the 'signed contract' the very fact that you're using the software and have aggred to it's TOS?

I changed my post to go through your points one by one as I figured I was doing you a disservice by not answering them, but to take this one as it's very simple.

No.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I changed my post to go through your points one by one as I figured I was doing you a disservice by not answering them, but to take this one as it's very simple.

No.

No? Do you have a reference point for that? I'd been lead to believe that violating terms of service from installed/used software was not a good thing.