Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 2763803" data-attributes="member: 10913">I believe Phil meant the monetary sense. I doubt he meant the works of Shakespeare, say, have no intrinsic value.I am afraid I disagree. I do not share your appreciation of informed customers and their importance at all. Sales are and will be based on a customer base that doesn't even know what the OGL is.Those who become adversarial are a minority in the gaming public that is so small it isn't worth worrying about. I don't purchase Malhavoc products partly due to their crippled OGC, but I don't delude myself it makes a difference.Copyright law and the OGL are tricky things. If the text is "properly" crippled, I wouldn't boldly try to uncripple it without a lawyer, and even then there are the costs of going to court to bear in mind (even if you are sure you're legally right). Regarding material that was supposed to be released as OGC but wasn't, that doesn't mean it's OGC. It means the copyright owner can charge the violator, it doesn't mean we can use it as OGC.While I am confident, for example, that under the OGL certain items in Iron Heroes should have been OGC that weren't, I am not so vain as to trust my judgment over that of Monte Cook that has been living off the OGL for years and devoted a lot of time to discussing it with peers and actual, you know, lawyers. I have no fear that OGL publishers will stop using the OGL and d20 System. That won't happen. WotC's d20 System license changes are far more threatening in this arena than any OGC Wiki will ever be anyways, and if the "decency act" didn't do it nothing will.What may happen is that more material will be crippled. I am not even sure if that will happen, but it might.I don't think there is any trend in OGL declerations. Different companies do it differently, and that is all. But I haven't purchased a lot of products in the last year, I could be wrong.There is an interesting proposal.I suppose it would be more polite to send an offended email first, and I'm not sure that the hassle is worth it since it isn't likely to produce more sales or contracts.But the idea of the stores refusing to sell illegal material is interesting. I wonder if a store is liable for the sale of such material? If so, I wonder if a store is liable for the selling of unclearly marked OGC  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /></blockquote>

Verification