OGC and what a RPG should be?

[herald]

AustEvergreen

Once again, I will state the facts!

WOTC can not accomidate what you are asking and have the OGL and d20 licences. Did you even go over and read the archives over at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html ?

What WOTC "did" to PCGEN and Redblade, was not only justified, it was moral and ethical. That's it, end of story. you want an unfair advantage over everyone else, or you want WOTC to give away the farm, which leads them into the poor house. It's that simple.

Once again, I beg you to educate yourself on the facts. DO some research, nothing you post has any basis in anything other than your feelings.

 

[AustEvergreen]

Repition. Touche' and now.....

Hey fast learner. Maybe you should take that comment about repitition and mention it to Hearld. But then I think most of you on the other side of this issue should look at what you've been saying, over and over. Don't tell me I don't have a valid point, without doing a bit of looking in the mirror. People have a right to be a bit steamed over what wotc did and your difference of opinion (or even your laws) won't change anyone's feelings on that matter. Other people hold other opinions and laws change from time to time. Companies have even been known not to fully enforce their rights under the law and still make a fair buck, and they do this just to make their customers happy so they'll purchase more. Please quit trying to beat me over the head with how happy you are over what wotc did and how it's right. I got you. Really.

Personally I think some of you may be a bit to close to this issue. Fast Learner generates IP for a living. Hmmmm. What about that? Well, maybe not much but I hope you never try to claim a 'balanced' point of view on this issue. You are definitely and firmly on the 'non-consumer rights' side of this issue. What you think or what Hearld thinks wotc can't do is an opinion. Hearld's opion. Fast Learner's opinion. My opinion, just to make fast learner happy I'll make short of and say I've already stated most of it. Any type of noticible boycott of wotc d20 product can make a point that publishers need to beware of offending their marketplace.

Oh and Herald, no offense but please get this. Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them. And the law has been gotten around before to your benefit. And for a proof I point to what you're using the read this post and ask you.....was it made by IBM? Have you sent a check to them to cover your share of their loss over having the pc platform taken out from under them? No? Admit it. We've all 'profitted by other companies reverse engineering of the pc way back in the early 80's. Let's drop this. This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant. WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing. So why don't they? Good question, eh?

I guess I still owe fast learner an appology. I've gone and droned on and on again and even repeated things I've said before. Your last comment was very short and to the point. Even if it raised my ire a bit I still liked it for that. Sorry, I've allways been on the talkative side. If you don't like this thread because I'm too wordy exorcise your rights and don't read it.

Are we done here yet or should be all just get together and make a better game system to replace DnD and all the others next?

 

[Fast Learner]

Re: Repition. Touche' and now.....

Hey fast learner. Maybe you should take that comment about repitition and mention it to Hearld.

Yes, he's been responding every time, also repetitively, though he seems to be attempting to change his tack each time in order to present it differently.

Personally I think some of you may be a bit to close to this issue. Fast Learner generates IP for a living. Hmmmm. What about that? Well, maybe not much but I hope you never try to claim a 'balanced' point of view on this issue. You are definitely and firmly on the 'non-consumer rights' side of this issue.

Actually, no, you're wrong about that. For example, I think the length of current copyright law is total BS. Copyright for life is perfect as it protects the artist just fine. Right now copyright is life plus 75 years (with a potential extension to 90 years in the courts) because Disney doesn't want to let Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse to enter the public domain. I believe strongly that IP should revert to the public domain upon the creator's death.

Am I firmly on the 'non-consumer rights" side of it?

How, precisely, do you expect authors, artists, singers, etc. to make a living if anyone is allowed to copy thier works? Have you ever run your own business? Do you understand how hard it is to run your own business and generate IP? Do you understand how little those skillsets overlap?

As such, do you understand why someone who generates IP might need to work for a publisher, like, say, WOTC? And if the publisher wants to be able to pay the IP creators (the only way they'll work for the publisher), that the company has to be able to make money? And that the only way they can make money is if they are paid for every copy of the IP? And that, while that a publisher might make a mistake, they still need to protect their IP, even after making that mistake?

Do you have any sense of any of this? The point you keep repeating (without change) ignores everything I asked in the last two paragraphs. Because you don't generate IP for a living for run a company that publishes IP, you're just simply clueless about the issues. You want a certain thing to go your way, and you seem to keep jumping up and down insisting that it should be that way without taking any of the real world issues into consideration.

As such, I suggested you stop repeating yourself. Frankly, it makes it appear that you can't reason through the reality of the situation.

If you can in fact reason through it, please explain to me how a person who creates IP is supposed to make a living without being paid for it, or how a company that publishes that IP for the creators can afford to pay them without protection.

 

[herald]

Oh and Herald, no offense but please get this. Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them. And the law has been gotten around before to your benefit. And for a proof I point to what you're using the read this post and ask you.....was it made by IBM? Have you sent a check to them to cover your share of their loss over having the pc platform taken out from under them? No? Admit it. We've all 'profitted by other companies reverse engineering of the pc way back in the early 80's. Let's drop this. This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant. WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing. So why don't they? Good question, eh?

AustEvergreen

Once agian you speak out without knowing the full facts. Your referance to IBM shows that you don't understand computer history very well.

IBM didn't have it's technology stolen from themselves because they gave the tech away. literally.

Many people have no idea of the amount of research IBM gives away in hopes of opening up new markets to excel in.

You see, I have a unique little insite to this. Back in early 80's, my father was the incharge of the North American repair center for IBM. It was a job that was farmed out Philips Electronics and existed in Tampa, Fl right on the corner of Waters and Dale Mabry.

One of the resons that Philips go the job was simple. My father was lured away from Honeywell were he was the liason between IBM and Honeywell. During the Late 70's IBM would come down to Honeywell St. Petersburg to use plotters and drafting machines that were hard to come by. Sadly the six architects of what would would become the modern pc all died in a plane crash. This loss of technical expertise is why insurance companies now have regulations on howmany importaint personel they will allow on one flight on company trips.

My early teens were spent on IBM XT clones running DOS on 32 K of ram. Hard Disks were a pipe dream and if you could afford it, having two floppy disks was a luxury.

So back to the original point. The reason that we don't pay IBM for PC tech is simple. They gave the tech away to anyone who would take it at that time. All other development from that point was expected to be "Black box" and differant from what they produced.

WOTC is in the same boat. They have created a tech and released it through the OGL. They have other other tech, built off of the original tech and it belongs to them.

Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them.

Personally I like to think that people (and by that extention, most of the posters to this message board) respect companies that perform in a legal and moral way, even if it hurts/inconveniences them. I expect any company that I do business with to pay taxes, follow laws on all levels and treat people in a fair way.

And could you please explain how this hurts you? I'm sure your not doing business with any of this software so you can't claim monitary damages. So all this talk about damages is as you would say bantha poodo.

As for inconvenaces, like the Rolling Stones say, "You Can't Always Get What You Want. And further "...you can try sometimes, and sometimes, you get what you need."

This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant. WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing. So why don't they? Good question, eh?

And I have given you the answer over and over again. It's not fair to give them access to the material and not give everyone else access to the material. So to answer you, your question is bad.

I've often heard that there are no stupid questions, but when you ask the same question over and over and you get the same answer you have to wonder what's wrong with the questioner.

So now I will ask this question again, since you avoid answering it. Did you read the forums over at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html ?

 

[Hollywood]

It's not fair to give them access to the material and not give everyone else access to the material. So to answer you, your question is bad.

Unless they pay fair market value for it.

Personally, I don't think d20 is worth more than maybe 50 cents, but eh...

 

[herald]

Hollywood said:

Unless they pay fair market value for it.

Giving and Selling are two differant things.

 

[jdavis]

It seems to me that the whole thing is about convienence. By everything I have read, and I don't claim to be a expert on any of this, the people who created PCGEN were fine with this and are trying to work in the guidelines given. Your upset that your free character generator has to play by the rules? The law is the law, it's just how it is, WOTC didn't do anything it wasn't entitled to do, for that matter it did what it was expected to do, it did what it had to do. Was it goor PR? was it good customer relations? It doesn't matter, they took the steps needed to protect their company, and it seems that they actually tried to work with the other companies to do it as painlessly as possible. Yes some people were inconvienenced but nobody was actually hurt by this. If your upset because you were inconvienenced by a free computer program well I feel sorry for you in the real world. I haven't tried PCGEN, I am still waiting to see if they can fix e-tools (a program by the actual company in question that I had to pay for). WOTC might not be a perfect company but they are not a Evil Empire out to rule the world (that's Microsoft), I'm sure they didn't intentionally set out to inconvienence the people who use their products, and to think that that was any part of their intention is just silly.

 

[Twin Rose]

Well, if you are looking for other supplements along the same lines, here's a list of publishers I work with directly to make Campaign Suite expansions:

Ambient, Inc.
Natural 20 Press
Bastion Press
Mystic Eye Games
Mongoose Publishing
Vigilance Press
Thunderhead Games
Dark Quest Games
Second World Simulations

This list should be expanding very soon and these publishers make everything from splatbooks, to super heroes games, to modern-postmodern games, to cities, to adventures. Anything I do an expansion for I consider highly recommended. In fact, Bastion Press gave us the rights to use everything from Arms & Armor, descriptive text and all. And we're giving that away for free!

Information and links about these and others can be found at:
http://www.twinrose.net/

 

[AustEvergreen]

YOUR RIGHT!!!. How could I have been so blind? I see it now. Thank you, thank you. You both have opened my eyes. WOTC is a wonderfull company and did nothing wrong in serving notice to those rebel upstarts at PCGen and Redblade that they should stop violating their legal copyright of the material we're discussing.
.
.
.
.
OK, Spoiler warning. Fast Learner and Herald, If you want to go home happy, read no further.




You were warned!

Class. Class! Pay attention now.

Herald asked how I'm harmed by this. Well, we've covered that. Next subject. Herald seems to think the existing law should dictate my feelings on this matter. Really! Absurd!!

And by the way. Yes, I've asked around here a bit and it seems you remember the IBM thing better than I. (Herald preens). Don't feel too proud of that young man, after all it's not really the item we've been discussing here. It was only an example. Stupid huh! HAH! No I'm just stubborn. I won't have my valid opinion changed by someone who's shooting blanks with their irrellevant arguements.

Fast Learner says he's reasonable and I'm not and you know what. He's right. I'm not even interested in being reasonable on this particular issue.

So, Class, what did Herald and Fast Leaner not see? Anyone?

Alright. Here it is. This is an emotional issue not a reasonable issue and most certainly and emphatically no longer a legal issue. This is a matter of perspective. How do I expect those who create IP to make their money? Well, in specific wotc has already made their money. They sold me the various splat books and all the FR books. Would it be reasonable for them to want me to pay more for patching say 'etools' to add this data to my database. NO. not from my perspective. It's like charging me twice for the same thing. You may think that's cool. I DON'T. Will it be done that way anyway? Probably. Will people buy it anyway? Probably. Will they have been ripped off? Yes! But they might not care. (Ahhhh apathy!) Admittedly how ripped of you are is a matter of opinion. I've made mine clear as have Fast
Learner and Herald. Do I think you have a balance point of view on the IP issue. Well, maybe. But your revealed position as an an insider makes me want to view what you say with suspicion. Still. I do have more respect for you than for Herald right now. (calling someone stupid because they have a differnt opinion. uh-huh.) Have I challenged that wotc was within it's legal rights to do what it did? Or even within it's moral rights? Well, yes. but you can't contest that this is within the law right now. So? So what? The ouch factor is still present. How much Ouch you feel is a matter of opinion. You can tell me it's within the law all day long and all I'll ever say back is "I DON'T CARE! OUCH!!".

The truth is that a boycott will probably not happen because too few will have the willpower to say no to those new WOTC books that are out. D20 modern. Mmmmmmmmmmmm tempting, yes? It's a shame. A very very valid point could be made. Still could be made. I don't believe it'll happen with the level of support I've seen posted on this thread.

Let's be done with this now.

I ask you respect this and let me have the last post as thread starter. If you feel you still have more to say GO START YOUR OWN THREAD. The sole exception to this request would be: unless you wanted to start a new thread as a kind of non scientific pole of opinion. If we did this I'd like to see something like the follwing.

a simple neutral perspective statement of the issue. Which we would negotiate here in folloing posts and come up with something that the three of us could be happy with.
1 Do you generate intellectual property for a living? Yes/No
2 Are you a lawyer or in some way involved with law enforcment or interpretation professionally?> Yes/No
3 Are you DM or Player?
4 Pick one of the following.
a - those folks got what they diserved and what wotc did is fine with me.
b - what wotc did hurt. I cry "FOUL"! I deserved better consideration and I resent their lack of respect for me and my time.

We set a time limit for response. Say 30 days.

And we all learn from the results, what ever they might be. And maybe find something more fun to discuss in some other post another day, no hard feelings.

 

[DMFTodd]

Would it be reasonable for them to want me to pay more for patching say 'etools' to add this data to my database. NO. not from my perspective. It's like charging me twice for the same thing

I agree. I bought the splat books. I demand Wizards provide me with the following at no cost:

* A second paper copy in case I lose the first one
* A hardcover edition to make it more durable
* A softcover one cuz I don't like carrying the hardcover one
* An extra copy that I can keep in the bathroom in case I need reading material in there
* A PDF version for reading on my laptop
* An eBook format I can read on my ereader
* A Palm version
* A large-print version in case my eyes get bad.
* If any errata is ever released, they should provide me free copies of all of the above

After all, I've already paid for it once. It's not fair to charge me twice for the same thing.

I'll give you credit though Aust, you're amazingly stubborn.

Sorry, I'll let you have the last word now. This thread has gotten too stupid for further comment.