What will Masterplan be after the C&D?

[Oldtimer]

As I stated above, it is my belief (and I have heard no reason from WotC behind the particulars of why they sent the C&D letter) that WotC sent the C&D because MP (a) automates the access and saving of Compendium data; and (b) makes it trivial to share that data with other non-DDI subscribers.

I'm confused. Outside of copyright infringement, what legal ground can WotC have for their C&D? "We don't like your software"? In this country, I would have told them to go sit on a sharp stick. Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...

Honestly, I have no idea whether Masterplan is actually infringing on a legal statute-level or not. No clue. So I'm not going to disagree with your assertion. However, as Mudbunny suggested, this could all be a matter of an end-user agreement, which may be problematical itself, but would also be a matter of civil contract law, rather than copyright infringement.

Masterplan would not need an end-user agreement to be able to offer their tool to the public. I can see no civil contract law being applied between WotC and Masterplan.

Web service APIs, due to their exposed public nature, always have strings attached. Whether its Amazon or the USPS, when you connect to someone's server to use their interfaces, there will always be some kind of agreement in play.

Not if they are public. And not if you just offer a tool that can consume said APIs. If you connect to someone's server through a public API (like when someone reads posts on ENWorld without logging in) or when you publish a tool to connect to a particular API (like when someone produces a Web Browser that can connect to a server over HTTP), you are not bound by any agreement at all.

There is also a difference between white-knighting WotC, and attempting to rationalize their behavior.

Trying to rationalize something irrational and absurd, borders on white-knighting in my book.

 

[Kafen]

Honestly, I have no idea whether Masterplan is actually infringing on a legal statute-level or not. No clue. So I'm not going to disagree with your assertion. However, as Mudbunny suggested, this could all be a matter of an end-user agreement, which may be problematical itself, but would also be a matter of civil contract law, rather than copyright infringement.

Web service APIs, due to their exposed public nature, always have strings attached. Whether its Amazon or the USPS, when you connect to someone's server to use their interfaces, there will always be some kind of agreement in play.

So, you agree with me - it is an end user problem for DDI users.

Anyways, the matter is a clear one. I suspect cable companies rent out DVRs to keep consumers from using burner able DVRs to record shows as a response to the copyright laws that allow reasonable usage. You can't prevent people from storing the data, but you can encourage them to do it for only a short time.

 

[Kafen]

Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...

No, it is how big companies force small companies to defend legit software in the US. The actual laws provide a secure shelter for developers unless the software developers host/transmit/encourage the distribution of the copyright infringing material.

The cost of defending the case is where most people find themselves in trouble. It takes a good lawyer around 2,100 dollars to defend this type of case in Virginia with a week worth of work from my own personal experience. Fortunately, the insurance covers most of it.

Masterplan might not be developing the software under an actual company. So, they might not be able to afford the fight...if they want to fight it. I like the Masterplan software. I hope this does not hurt them on that level. It would be a shame for them to take a hit in the pocketbook.

 

[malraux]

I'm confused. Outside of copyright infringement, what legal ground can WotC have for their C&D? "We don't like your software"? In this country, I would have told them to go sit on a sharp stick. Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...

C&D's from private persons need not have a legal basis, though SLAAP courts do give a reasonable defense. But unless its a court issuing the C&D, it's just a letter asking for an action.

 

[Kafen]

C&D's from private persons need not have a legal basis, though SLAAP courts do give a reasonable defense. But unless its a court issuing the C&D, it's just a letter asking for an action.

SLAPP is the word, methinks. There is an anti-SLAPP group known as FAP that fights against such bully tactics.

 

[Asmor]

It's not really so much that one particular thing Masterplan was doing was necessarily illegal, but rather (I suspect WotC would argue...) Masterplan itself, like many fan-made tools--including the ones I've made--fundamentally violate WotC's copyright*.

As such, the existence of such fan tools is at the discretion of WotC, and you need to be careful not to do anything that would make them want to exercise their copyright against you.

For the most part, WotC's fairly reasonable. They're not TSR, and definitely not Games Workshop. They at least tacitly allow if not explicitly encourage fan-made tools which serve to enhance the game for their customers. As long as you're not selling the stuff for a profit or doing something which would raise red flags with WotC (and downloading the compendium wholesale was obviously risky in that regard), you should be fine.

*It's worth noting that game mechanics are not copyrightable, and it's questionable whether Masterplan actually does violate WotC's copyrights. It's also rather moot; when a corporation with WotC's funding sends you a C&D, if there's a snowball's chance in hell that they might be in the right, you cease and desist. The law is all well and good, but who's got the resources to fight the battle to prove you're right?

 

[Kurtomatic]

Hmm...

If I offer a web information service (via a HTTP API, for example), I can specify a contract agreement that you have to sign in order for you to access and consume that service. If I think that agreement has been broken, I can take steps to fix the problem, such as terminating access. I could also send you a C&D, which might simply be a formal notice that I think you've busted our contract, and some kind of remediation is in order to stay in agreement.

For example, the US Postal Service offers a free address data API. To use it, you have to apply for an account. Since they don't owe anyone access, they can deny your application if they don't like your answers. You have to jump through some testing hoops to prove your client code works correctly, and you have to agree to a whole bunch of very restrictive usage rules. Since you only get access to the live data with a unique account, they can cut you off at any time if they even think you're breaking the agreement. You cannot access this service without explicitly agreeing to these terms.

Now, if I wanted to make it easy for lots of people to use my web service without a lot of up-front red tape, I could simply offer a blanket agreement that says, "Here is my web service and how to connect to it; by using my service you agree to the following restrictions..."

Notice that the actual content of my web service is entirely irrelevant up to this point. The USPS data isn't copyrighted in any way. There is certainly nothing criminal in any of this, unless (maybe) fraud is somehow involved.

In the case of the DDI, WotC never had to implement a web service to begin with. All the DDI features: Character Builder, Adventure Tools, Compendium web page, magazines, etc., would continue to work just as they do now. Everything would be exactly the same, except that third-party apps could no longer access the Compendium database. WotC doesn't owe anybody a web service. The only purpose for offering such a public API is so that third party apps such as iPlay4e and Masterplan can exist in the first place.

WotC wants these apps to exist (otherwise: no API), but they also want to set some boundaries on them and they do have a right to attempt this, for better or worse. The Compendium API is their sandbox and they get to set the rules. It doesn't require copyright infringement or criminal activity for them to attempt enforce those rules. Whether those rules are actually enforcible (or 'fair', or 'good for D&D', or 'fun to use', 'or totally metal', etc.) is another question entirely.

Trying to rationalize something irrational and absurd, borders on white-knighting in my book.

How did I just know I was going to read that answer?

I get why people say that, but here is another way of looking at it: its all matter of context. Is WotC Legal rolling a d20 and consulting a random C&D encounter table? If not, then at least they think they have a reasonable basis for taking the actions they take. It may not look rational to you, and their behavior may not make much sense to their customers, but in a publicly-traded corporation, there is usual a method buried somewhere in the madness.

To tie this back to the actual thread topic: in speculating what Masterplan might look like post-C&D, you first have to guess what's in the C&D. To do that, you need to try reverse-engineering WotC's motives and frame of reference. In this way, "rationalizing" means trying to find a context in which their actions might make sense and extrapolating from there. Simply sticking a Snidely Whiplash mustache on a Greg Leads cut-out doesn't contribute much to that effort. Um.., as far as I know, anyway...

 

[tomBitonti]

Not if they are public. And not if you just offer a tool that can consume said APIs. If you connect to someone's server through a public API (like when someone reads posts on ENWorld without logging in) or when you publish a tool to connect to a particular API (like when someone produces a Web Browser that can connect to a server over HTTP), you are not bound by any agreement at all.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think that is the case. In my understanding, a computer with open ports is still private property. Imprudent, but still private. (I'm thinking) that for someone to access the port would require an allowance of some sort.

Although, for a private business, (also, just my understanding), if you create a public access, for example, a store, you aren't allowed to prevent access using a number of factors such as race, age, or disability. (That is an incomplete list.) You can, however, require a membership, or provide preferential access based on a membership level.

Also, for something like a web site, the site owner is allowed to limit how you navigate and link into the site. If I remember correctly, there was a decision that noted that forcing users along a particular path had definite commercial value, and that enables lawsuits in regards to controlling access.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Kafen]

*It's worth noting that game mechanics are not copyrightable, and it's questionable whether Masterplan actually does violate WotC's copyrights. It's also rather moot; when a corporation with WotC's funding sends you a C&D, if there's a snowball's chance in hell that they might be in the right, you cease and desist. The law is all well and good, but who's got the resources to fight the battle to prove you're right?

Most states have local groups that fight such cases - the ACLU and local bar association groups can point you to the right places. I see a lot of people in this topic that are scared to face WOTC. The reverse side of that coin is WOTC has the deep pockets to pay damages if there is a clear counter suit. What some people call fear, I call opportunity for a lawyer to make a big paycheck off of a trivial claim. I know several lawyers willing to take that chance. Anyways, the point is that WOTC is not a Space Traveling Megacorp. They are subject to US laws like everyone else.

Masterplan is a good piece of software. Imagine what they could do if they had the funding from a counter claim. I'd look forward to that development. They could afford to bring in people to develop code for a Pathfinder option. Mutants and Masterminds?

 

[doctorhook]

Most states have local groups that fight such cases - the ACLU and local bar association groups can point you to the right places. I see a lot of people in this topic that are scared to face WOTC. The reverse side of that coin is WOTC has the deep pockets to pay damages if there is a clear counter suit. What some people call fear, I call opportunity for a lawyer to make a big paycheck off of a trivial claim. I know several lawyers willing to take that chance. Anyways, the point is that WOTC is not a Space Traveling Megacorp. They are subject to US laws like everyone else.

Is Masterplan American?

Masterplan is a good piece of software. Imagine what they could do if they had the funding from a counter claim. I'd look forward to that development. They could afford to bring in people to develop code for a Pathfinder option. Mutants and Masterminds?

Forget that stuff, there's still tons of 4E features to implement. Why should they split their talent across different projects? At most, they should leave room for fans to generate their own alternative rulesets.