So that's it for 4th edition I guess?

[pemerton]

The problem for WotC (or another company using the OGL) would be that the respondent making a retro-clone etc can claim that copyrighted material they used was covered by the OGL, then the claimants have to pick out non-OGL material in the work, show that it's not OGL material nor derived from OGL material by the respondent, show that it's copyright protectable (substantial, not game rules/formulae, etc), and show that it's significant, not a de minimis infringement.

<snip>

4e rules mechanics are not protectable, and most of the fluff can be derived from the SRD, so a non-literal copy based off the SRD using the OGL may not be infringing. And you don't want to spend millions finding out.

I wasn't envisaging suing on the strength of my letters! Just sending them out there and hoping they have a cowing effect!

(Well, in fact, I think I want the opposite - I like 4e and am unlikely, I think, to take up D&Dnext. But I find the legalities of the OGL strangely intriguing. One day I want you to tell me whether or not I'm crazy in thinking that Paizo is in breach of the OGL for only citing the original (year 2000) SRD in its Section 15 statement, despite using material from the 3.5 SRD.)

Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law that states that the probability of any thread about D&D being about copyright law approaches 100%?

Only if I'm in it, for the above-mentioned reason!

 

[Obryn]

(and English law discourages frivolous lawsuits).

...Insane libel laws say "hello!"

 

[S'mon]

...Insane libel laws say "hello!"

If you sue for libel and lose you're paying the other side's costs, same as any other case.

 

[B.T.]

On a related note, does anyone else find it ridiculous that WotC can write words on paper in a certain order and then sue you for millions if you write down the same words in the same order?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law that states that the probability of any thread about D&D being about copyright law approaches 100%?

No, but it seems as if there ought to be.

Oh yeah, that reminds me: Nazis.

 

[pauljathome]

On a related note, does anyone else find it ridiculous that WotC can write words on paper in a certain order and then sue you for millions if you write down the same words in the same order?

Uh, no. Copyright exists for a reason. Authors deserve to get paid for their work.

Or do you think that Rowling shouldn't be paid for the words that she put down on paper in a certain order?

Now, there are some massive issues with the way that copyright law currently works. But that doesn't mean that the underlying concept is wrong.

 

[Echohawk]

On a related note, does anyone else find it ridiculous that WotC can write words on paper in a certain order and then sue you for millions if you write down the same words in the same order?

That depends.

Are you writing down the same words in the same order purely by chance, defying all laws of probability, and without any reference to the original copy?

Or are you writing down the same words in the same order by copying the original? And once you've done that are you keeping the copy you've made for your own purposes, or are you selling it or giving it to other people?

In some of those situations, yes, I'd find it ridiculous if WotC sued you. But in others, no, I would not find it ridiculous at all.

 

[B.T.]

Uh, no. Copyright exists for a reason. Authors deserve to get paid for their work.

Or do you think that Rowling shouldn't be paid for the words that she put down on paper in a certain order?

Now, there are some massive issues with the way that copyright law currently works. But that doesn't mean that the underlying concept is wrong.

I think that most forms of IP law are entirely unnecessary and that society would be better off without them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that most forms of IP law are entirely unnecessary and that society would be better off without them.

I could not disagree more than 100%, but I'm trying.

In the interests of NOT derailing the thread, that's all I'll say about that in this thread.

 

[Umbran]

I think that most forms of IP law are entirely unnecessary and that society would be better off without them.

That's nice.

For copyright, we allow some discussion of what it is, because some folks here are in the business of publishing. But, really, EN World is not a venue for discussing what the law should be. So, let's let this one go, please.