Voss said:
a lot of the monsters in the MM are getting the compound names (Blackwoods Dryad, and other adjectivenoun monsters) specifically for more IP control. They can't claim rights to dryads as a whole, but they can make claims to blackwoods dryads, and related concepts. Which is why the Feywild is not Faerie and the Shadowfell isn't just Shadow or Shade.
Are you writing this as an IP lawyer, or an interested amateur? I am an (academic) lawyer, though not an IP lawyer, so I'm certainly interested in more technical details.
Does the phrase "Blackwood Dryad", divorced from any of the rest of its context in the Monster Manual, attrack copyright protection? Both words are words of English, so the phrase is a phrase of English. If I write it down myself am I reproducing WoTC's IP? My intuition says no, but maybe I'm wrong.
I thought the main point of using these distinctive phrases (and Batezu and Tanari (still don't now how to spell these) would be no different here) is to generate some trademark/trade dress protection, to stop other publishers passing themselves off as WoTC. How extensive such protection is, and the extent to which a 3rd party publisher can deal with the issue by including prominent disclaimers on the cover like "We are not WoTC and our use of their trademarks is not intended to convey the impression that we are", I'll let an expert judge.
In the absence of a patent (which I've not heard about) I don't see how the sorts of concepts you refer to can be protected, provided that their use is not part of an overall attempt at passing off.
tomBitonti said:
But, they can make it a whole less convenient if you don't have it -- by putting substantial content in web-adds and by creating a strongly restrictive environment that only allows only very small portions of the rules to be placed anywhere but in the DDI.
If you mean that they can copyright their text, then yes. But this is no different from the 3.5 environment, where I have to buy various books to get the rules text. The easiest way to do what you seem to be suggesting would actually be to leave all the mechanical systems unchanged, but change all the numbers that are involved (a bit more than happened in the transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed AD&D, but not much more) then not release the new rules under the OGL, making the DDI the only way to get access to the new rules text.
The fact that WoTC is actually substantially changing the mechanics suggests to me that they have another reason for doing it, namely, to make the game better and therefore increase sales (including sales of DDI subscriptions).
tomBitonti said:
I am of the opinion (and this is my opinion) that folks really haven't come to terms with how different the legal environment will be under the DDI.
It's likely to mean that, like most other RPGs, I have to buy the rule books. Not a radical change.
As for some of your particular concerns, my guess is that there will be fewer public previews (but some, because they need to advertise), no d20srd.org for 4e (that's pretty much already been announced) and that 3rd party character generators will be permitted for non-commercial distribution (that's probably fair use of the game text, given the purpose for which the book is sold) but if commercial may face issues (both of copyright, depending on how the generator reproduces the game text, and of passing off also depending on the answers to the trademark questions raised above).
