How sure are we that the leaked document was meant to be signed?
The statement released yesterday is widely seen as including at least one lie: the claim that the leaked document was a “draft.” Most of the commentary I’ve come across insists that this was an executable document intended to be signed as-is, and therefore not a “draft.”
But was it?
It includes bracketed portions obviously meant to be filled in later, for example with contact info.
And I’ve seen lots of repetition of the claim that this was intended as a threat to coerce the selected, NDA’d publishers into signing separate deals with slightly more favorable terms. (I’ve seen the figure of a 15% preferred partner royalty bandied about.)
If that’s the case, is it possible that the version we have seen was in fact provided as a draft version of what these publishers would be stuck with if they failed to sign the (as yet unleaked) sweetheart deal instead?
Before anyone accuses me of being a WotC shill, let me say that even if this scenario were correct, it wouldn’t change my view of the fundamental situation: WotC attempted under cover of secrecy to bully far less powerful people into submission via threats of financial ruin, and it still intends to violate decades-old promises in a legally dubious and ethically awful manner. They would not be off the hook.
But the past 24 hours have proved that when WotC has committed malfeasance, it isn’t helpful to embrace specific claims of further malfeasance unless those have a high degree of credibility.
So: what is the evidence—or the original source of the claim—that the leak was definitely not a draft document?
The statement released yesterday is widely seen as including at least one lie: the claim that the leaked document was a “draft.” Most of the commentary I’ve come across insists that this was an executable document intended to be signed as-is, and therefore not a “draft.”
But was it?
It includes bracketed portions obviously meant to be filled in later, for example with contact info.
And I’ve seen lots of repetition of the claim that this was intended as a threat to coerce the selected, NDA’d publishers into signing separate deals with slightly more favorable terms. (I’ve seen the figure of a 15% preferred partner royalty bandied about.)
If that’s the case, is it possible that the version we have seen was in fact provided as a draft version of what these publishers would be stuck with if they failed to sign the (as yet unleaked) sweetheart deal instead?
Before anyone accuses me of being a WotC shill, let me say that even if this scenario were correct, it wouldn’t change my view of the fundamental situation: WotC attempted under cover of secrecy to bully far less powerful people into submission via threats of financial ruin, and it still intends to violate decades-old promises in a legally dubious and ethically awful manner. They would not be off the hook.
But the past 24 hours have proved that when WotC has committed malfeasance, it isn’t helpful to embrace specific claims of further malfeasance unless those have a high degree of credibility.
So: what is the evidence—or the original source of the claim—that the leak was definitely not a draft document?
Last edited:
