We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Greg Benage]

You misunderstand: I did not intimate that his post said the leak was real, but that since a number of credible people are concerned about what this means going forward, then that is evidence something important is happening.

I don't think I do misunderstand: I think WotC's statement that they're changing the terms of the OGL is evidence that something important is happening. I don't think Owen's post or the rumor mill catching fire, burning down, and falling into the river adds any evidence.

But cool: no sparring.

 

[Cadence]

@S'mon @Snarf Zagyg @Ruin Explorer

Looking back at the OSRIC stuff, assuming WotC wants to deactivate the OGL 1.0a, are there any obvious ways things are vastly different for companies based in the UK instead of the US? Or is it equally up to whatever judge and appeals courts get it in whatever country? In a work for hire case, does the country of the hired author matter at all?

 

[S'mon]

Some history from RSDancey apepars on page 7 with a brief follow-up by you again:

theRPGSite: Maintenance

and he gives his opinion on technology in ttrpging (back in 2014) down at:

theRPGSite: Maintenance

with musings on MMOs a few posts below that and another on the OGL a bit after that.

The following from him seems pretty relevant to today, especially the last paragraph:

"If there's a meaningfully large number of people who will jump through hoops to play an "old school" retro clone of 1e, that's critical information that Wizards wants. There's very little Wizards could do to uncover that information short of letting people just make whatever the hell they wish, and then seeing what sells and what doesn't.

Wizards should have the "retro-clone" market under a microscope, at least to the extent that they can figure out if it's real, or just a small group of really loud people. If it is real, that is something worth knowing. And if it's just a small group of really loud people, that's something worth knowing too.

If the company threw cease & desist letters around at anything it found offensive or "dangerous" to its intellectual property, it would squash the kind of innovation required to explore all the market niches, and scratch all the itches. And it wouldn't likely sell one more D&D book, or generate one more dollar of D&D license revenue. It's all downside, and no upside.

Eventually I think Wizards will want to clear the ground and fight to define its rights to copyright roleplaying game materials. The recent string of court cases in the US that are expanding the concept of copyright to "worlds" beyond "works" is all in their favor. But they're not going to fight that battle over OSRIC, for goodness' sake. They're going to fight over something worth tens of millions of dollars. The target for that fight doesn't even exist yet, but if it arises, Wizards wants to keep its powder dry. Remember that copyright, unlike trademark, does not lose enforceability if it is not defended"

-Dancey in reply #116

There is more by him later in that thread to. Feels worth a read to those interested in the history of the game who haven't read much up on it before (ranging from rumors of how well things were selling to 4e to Forge).

I thought post 116 was very relevant re strategy Have Hasbro/WotC ever sued or threatened a retro-clone publisher or author?

First, I have to remind people that if the OGL had had meaningful restrictions is is very doubtful that it would have worked. People at the time were absolutely convinced it was a secret plot by Wizards to destroy all competition in the category, to steal everyone's intellectual property. It was, in their minds, the One Ring to Rule Them All.

 

[S'mon]

@S'mon @Snarf Zagyg @Ruin Explorer

Looking back at the OSRIC stuff, assuming WotC wants to deactivate the OGL 1.0a, are there any obvious ways things are vastly different for companies based in the UK instead of the US? Or is it equally up to whatever judge and appeals courts get it in whatever country? In a work for hire case, does the country of the hired author matter at all?

I think the main difference on jurisdiction is that in England/Wales the loser usually pays the winner's legal fees, so lawfare by baseless intimidation is a lot less effective as a tactic. You can potentially scare people, but if they have a good case, only until they get lawyered up. Though the initial legal consultation will be a whack of change ofc.

 

[S'mon]

@S'mon @Snarf Zagyg @Ruin Explorer

Looking back at the OSRIC stuff, assuming WotC wants to deactivate the OGL 1.0a, are there any obvious ways things are vastly different for companies based in the UK instead of the US? Or is it equally up to whatever judge and appeals courts get it in whatever country? In a work for hire case, does the country of the hired author matter at all?

We actually don't have 'Work for Hire' doctrine in the UK. Under our law (CDPA 1988) the author is the first owner of copyright in the commissioned work. Same across the EU.

 

[Dausuul]

Concerned, of course they are.

That's not evidence that the leak is true. That's evidence that change is coming, which we already know because WotC stated publicly that change is coming.

If they're under NDA, then they have information about what the change is going to be.

Taking a step back, we have seen the following:

1. Rumors that the OGL was going away.
2. Wizards stepped in to "clarify" that there would be an OGL 1.1, except when they described what they had in mind, it was quite definitely not an open license.
3. This supposed leak, coming from people in the industry with some credibility (i.e., not random YouTubers trolling for clicks).
4. Griffon's Saddlebag, under NDA, expressing extreme concern, saying the new license makes producing content "extremely painful and challenging" and he's consulting with his lawyers.
5. Various other unnamed sources under NDA also expressing concern.

No one of these is solid evidence of anything (well, except #2), but the accumulation suggests A Bad Thing coming down the pike.

 

[Art Waring]

I don't think I do misunderstand: I think WotC's statement that they're changing the terms of the OGL is evidence that something important is happening. I don't think Owen's post or the rumor mill catching fire, burning down, and falling into the river adds any evidence.

But cool: no sparring.

Daniel Fox of Zweihander RPG was in the live chat, stating that he has read the entire 1.1 OGL from end to end, and that he can't comment yet (likely NDA'd), but that he will be making a statement after wotc's next official statement, and that the new 1.1 OGL is in his own words "undesirable."

Edit: I don't know anything about DF or Zweihander or have any opinions on the individual, I am simply reporting the facts, as we now have multiple publishers saying things of a similar nature.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

These are all definitely worth checking out. Rick Beato and Adam Neely both have a very strong grasp of the music side of this and how it will impact music. I will say make your own decision and if the statement by the appellate judge changes your mind, fair enough. But I think the core claim presents a huge problem for music (it would in my opinion be like a case in RPGs undermining the concept that you can't copyright a game mechanic).

Did you read the linked opinion?

Look, I watch Adam Neely. I respect his opinions on music. His knowledge of the law ... not so much. But to put this in very simple terms- no system is perfect. Litigation involves decisions. Bad decisions were made in the Blurred Line case. Those bad decisions (procedural decisions) are evident in the appellate opinion. Q. E. D.

As a general rule, think of something you know a lot about. Now, think about how it is covered in the popular press ... let alone youtube. Legal opinions are public- I provided you a link. If you don't understand it, that's fine. But at least appreciate that there is more going on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Did you read the linked opinion?

Look, I watch Adam Neely. I respect his opinions on music. His knowledge of the law ... not so much. But to put this in very simple terms- no system is perfect. Litigation involves decisions. Bad decisions were made in the Blurred Line case. Those bad decisions (procedural decisions) are evident in the appellate opinion. Q. E. D.

As a general rule, think of something you know a lot about. Now, think about how it is covered in the popular press ... let alone youtube. Legal opinions are public- I provided you a link. If you don't understand it, that's fine. But at least appreciate that there is more going on.

I read it, perhaps I misunderstood the point, or missed something, but it still seemed to be saying you could copyright these elements we don't normally copyright because of how they come together (but that is still fundamentally allowing the groove and vibe to be copyrighted---again unless I am missing something here)

 

[Cadence]

We actually don't have 'Work for Hire' doctrine in the UK. Under our law (CDPA 1988) the author is the first owner of copyright in the commissioned work. Same across the EU.

How does that work for things done by a team? (Like Level-Up where there are a bunch of designers and a publisher listed, or, as I'm beginning to suspect, do I have absolutely no clue about wrok for hire and the like).