Unearthed Arcana 3.5....where besides Kazaa?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

There is a link to an on-line D20 modern SRD above. I am betting that you did not blink an eye over that. Because we both know that it is fully legal.

Well, I have to admit that even the SRD gives me a vague sense of unease -- not it's existence itself, so much, but the knowledge that there are those who use it as a substitute for what IMO is the responsible thing -- paying for the original source material. "Closed Content" D&D material like the experience tables are removed from the SRD at least in part to encourage people to buy the original material. For those who actually own the source material, I have no real issues with using, distributing, or referencing the SRD to or for like-minded folks. Kenjib's on perfectly solid legal ground. It's the potential "misuse" of material freely given that bothers me more -- the "I don't want to buy the d20M book because I can just use the SRD instead".

Ultimately, I think the good done by the OGL vastly outweighs the exploitation of it, and I think the overwhelming majority of gamers are benefitting from the OGL and using open content material as intended. I'm probably giving it all a bit too much thought -- mountains out of molehills, as it were.

But we also know that most of the free transfer going on out there is theft and the fact that some fraction of the material COULD be potentially obtained legally and freely is being used as an easy excuse to steal the whole thing. Any reasonable person would get an unease in their gut over that.

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. Well said.

 

[zenld]

Does anyone remember what this thread is about?

zen

 

[Len]

Well, I have to admit that even the SRD gives me a vague sense of unease -- not it's existence itself, so much, but the knowledge that there are those who use it as a substitute for what IMO is the responsible thing -- paying for the original source material.

But, Olgar, you don't get to tell people how to use the SRD. Wizards owns the SRD, not you, and they decided to let us all copy it. You can be sure that they agonized over how people would use it and what they should leave out. If their decision makes you uncomfortable, too bad for you, but it's not really your problem.

Ultimately, I think the good done by the OGL vastly outweighs the exploitation of it, and I think the overwhelming majority of gamers are benefitting from the OGL and using open content material as intended. I'm probably giving it all a bit too much thought -- mountains out of molehills, as it were.

The "good" and the "exploitation" are the same thing. Note that Wizards has decided to release OGC for only some of their books. It's apparent that they want their basic rules to be used by other publishers, so they give them away; but artwork, settings, extra PrCs, etc. are for their own benefit only. That system seems to be working fine for them so far.

(Personally, I mostly learned 3e from the SRD (and from Neverwinter Nights). I bought the PHB when I joined a D&D group. Similarly, I've skimmed the d20 Modern SRD but I won't buy that book unless/until I need it. Wizards is apparently fine with this; I don't care what you think about it.)

 

[BryonD]

...Ultimately, I think the good done by the OGL vastly outweighs the exploitation of it....

Ok, no need to go through it all again. I strongly disagree that using the product as intended and allowed is an exploit. I think you have a misconception there. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but I'd bet if WotC had wanted to tie fee-for-use to Open product, they could have found a way.

I really think you got this one thing wrong. But I agree on virtually all of the larger picture.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm defining "exploitation of the SRD/OGL" as the attitude that "I don't want to buy the book because I can just use the SRD (or only OGC) instead of purchasing it", because -- in my interpretation of what I've read about the genesis of the OGL -- it's intent wasn't to provide the consumer with a free product so much as it was to allow the creation of new products by other companies, for which the consumer is also expected to pay. Legally the useage that I'm calling "exploitation" is allowed -- I'm just not convinced that that is what was originally intended.

I'll let it go at that. I'm less interested in persuading anyone that my opinion is "right", than I am in making sure I've expressed myself clearly -- it's just my opinion, after all.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[francisca]

I'm defining "exploitation of the SRD/OGL" as the attitude that "I don't want to buy the book because I can just use the SRD (or only OGC) instead of purchasing it", because -- in my interpretation of what I've read about the genesis of the OGL -- it's intent wasn't to provide the consumer with a free product so much as it was to allow the creation of new products by other companies, for which the consumer is also expected to pay. Legally the useage that I'm calling "exploitation" is allowed -- I'm just not convinced that that is what was originally intended.

Very well put!

 

[francisca]

Two out of the five novels I've had published are right there, on Kazaa. And its right now on three times as many hardrives as the original book sold!

You know, these clowns who do this, I'm willing to bet that only 10% *tops*, have even read your book.

These dudes are like junkies. They start by downloading "just a few things that I can't get for real, and if I do get a physical copy, I'll delete the file." Then they see something else they want, and grab it, etc... Before they even realize it, they've downloaded more than they could ever read/listen to/watch in their lifetime, and are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to add a terrabyte or so of disk to their PC so they can download more. It boggles the mind.

But then again, gluttony and the desire for gain without effort has been with us for eons, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[storyguide3]

t's intent wasn't to provide the consumer with a free product so much as it was to allow the creation of new products by other companies, for which the consumer is also expected to pay. Legally the useage that I'm calling "exploitation" is allowed -- I'm just not convinced that that is what was originally intended.

I think if that were the case, the SRD would not be linked to the Wizards website. Nor would Ryan Dancey have said that he would like to see the OGL be used as the license of choice for fansites instead of the Wizards Online Policy. If they had wanted only publishers to use the SRD, they would have restricted access to it, just as they did with the 3.5 materials before the revision went public.

 

[BryonD]

I think if that were the case, the SRD would not be linked to the Wizards website. Nor would Ryan Dancey have said that he would like to see the OGL be used as the license of choice for fansites instead of the Wizards Online Policy. If they had wanted only publishers to use the SRD, they would have restricted access to it, just as they did with the 3.5 materials before the revision went public.

I agree.

There seems to be some perception that because the SRD/OGL actively promotes 3rd party development that it therefore can not also support FREE entry into the game community.

People who play using the SRD are much more likely to buy SOMETHING later on then people who don't play are. (Duh)

I have never seen the slightest hint out of WotC that they are concerned about free distribution so long as it is handled correctly under the license. I can't point to a specific example, but my impression is that it is exactly the opposite. Free stuff moves around and the base of converts slowly grows. If any one is being exploited, it is the people downloading the free stuff.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If any one is being exploited, it is the people downloading the free stuff.

LOL. Never quite looked at it that way. Good point!