White Wolfs pay to play deal...

[Bobitron]

Philippe Boulle posted on the WW boards that the issue is one of scale, and they realize it is not enforceable at a small level. They are considering writing in a clause for groups of under ten players to make small groups exempt fromt eh policy.

While I think the whole thing is rather silly, I can understand the desire to protect IP. I just can't say for certain if the gameplay that results from a book that I bought is something that is the IP of the designer.

 

[Evilboy]

(Since if you don't zealously protect your copyright, you lose it.)

Just wanted to point out that this is generally untrue, although this might come from the fact that a TRADEMARK (not a copyright) can be nullified if it falls into the realm of "common language."

 

[Ghostwind]

My bad, I have been reminded by my companions at the time that it was I that was moshing into the wedding party, while Justin fed me more alcohol and encouraged it.

Yeah, but it was Justin who was tucking bucks for Peter's table dance. Peter still has a soft spot in his heart for "that cute boy."

 

[Quicken]

I love it. White wolf are so stupid. If they seriously thought they could protect their intellectual property they'd be suing the estate of Bram Stroker.

What they say they are getting out of it: "Protecting copyright and trademark"
This is clearly untrue. As pointed out previously in this thread, copyright infringement without profit is taken just as seriously as copyright infringement with profit. Besides which, just someone playing their game, does not void their copyright. They still retain the rights to control who can print or re-print their work. I don't think acting out character, concept or location of their creation would constitute a breach of copyright. If that was true then DC would be suing every child who thought he was SupermanTM pretending to fly.

What they might be getting out of it:
Protection against litigation of the 'my boy injured himself playing you game' type
A chance to get a piece of the pie from those making money playing their game
A chance to screw over and kill any competiting 'fan club'
Prove once again that they're fools and alienate their players

 

[wingsandsword]

Just wanted to point out that this is generally untrue, although this might come from the fact that a TRADEMARK (not a copyright) can be nullified if it falls into the realm of "common language."

Exactly, if copyright lapsed because it was unenforced, abandonware wouldn't be much of an issue, for example. Copyright and Patents last one way or the other. (Obligatory IANAL, but it's hard to be a geek today without learning some basic IP law, if only to be careful with).

As for a trademark falling into common language, I think the courts have ruled that White Wolf does NOT own the worlds "Vampire" and "Werewolf", something about a movie last year that featured them.

Also, having looked through the discussion on White Wolf's forums, I notice a distinct difference in the way many of us are looking at this and the way some White Wolf fans are looking at it. I've noticed some fans there actually agreeing with this, on the grounds that if you have a public performance of a play or a piece of music you have to give royalties to the author, and they say that larps are just a different kind of performance art, so you have to give royalties to the author, which they consider to be White Wolf. White Wolf has always encouraged their games to be seen as something more than games, as an artform, as an interactive story. Thus paying White Wolf to use their book is no different than a theater company paying a playwright to use his newest play. White Wolf even encourages this line of thought by calling gaming groups "troupes" like a group of actors (I never hear that term outside WW fandom to refer to gamers, ever).

This is pretty much unenforceable, and it sounds like maybe they have little intent on enforcing it at all and just using it as a token legal shield of deniability whenever something goes wrong ("that game was unsanctioned!"), but it could be a big blowback in the faces of their fans.

 

[Yalius]

I don't think it's half as bad as most people are calling it.

Q. Who exactly needs to be a Camarilla member?
A. All participants in a chronicle need to be members, although players need only become members before their second game. Only the organizers of a one-off game need to be members. If the game doesn’t charge any mandatory fees, then no one need become a member.

It's not mandatory, but all donations accepted.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

What do you think would happen if WotC did the same with their d20 games?

They'd be laughed at. Just as I'm laughing at WW right now. Never did have an interest in their games and now I have even less.

Firstly, I think it's highly objectionable and downright stupid to try to charge people for the privelege of playing in an RPG that you run. It is SO not the point that it's staggering. As a correlation I find it nearly as stupid to run D&D COMPETITIVELY at a convention as a general rule. How can you compete (and why would you want to try) at a game that BY DESIGN has no way to win much less keep score?

Secondly, this kind of policy is utterly unenforceable anywhere but at a convention where the company has representatives and lawyers at the ready to crack down on it. Even if an angry player rats on his paid DM to try to get him in dutch with The Gaming Police (and this means there really WOULD be gaming police!) it's not as if they're going to be able to haul your butt into court to try to get you to comply because they can't possibly prove you're violating their licenses unless you're stupid enough to both admit it and refuse to stop. It could only happen if you're running a game in public where they can see you, confront you, and where you nonetheless insist on being paid WAGES for running a specific game system.

The implications are, however, nothing short of staggering. I thought it was whacky enough that people wanted to be PAID DM's in the first place, but now that people have managed to BECOME paid DM's, a game company thinks they need to... what? Forcibly unionize DM's? Sue anyone who uses their RPG AS an RPG but not in a manner they approve of? <BOGGLE>

The only thing they'll really accomplish is sending the paid game operators underground. Think I'm a paid DM at home using your game system? Prove it. Prove that my use of your RPG carries with it a license that I implicitly subscribe to that legally disallows me to get paid for running a game of it. Just TRY to force me to join your little club before you'll "allow" me to charge for my services and see how far you can get. No really. I'd like to see this end up in court to watch the clowns and listen to the calliope music.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

But the whole issue is about the commercial use of White Wolf's products.

But how is getting paid as a DM (who happens to use a WW game) a commercial use of their product? I'm not charging people to USE the WW game - I'm charging them for services that I offer. Those services may or may not involve the use of rules that may or may not be found in WW game products.

After all, if I run a WW game but manage to not need to actively consult their rulebooks, how can they possibly prove I'm violating their copyrights or licenses?

I'm no lawyer, but this is so clearly problematic in so many ways it's incomprehensible. I'd love to see it end up in court. I really, truly would. When it gets out of court in 5-10 years it'll be just that much more irrelevant.

 

[Corinth]

In my conversation with Mr. Boulle, collecting for food was specifically mentioned, and forbidden. Since no distinction is made between tabletop games and larps, then you may infer from Mr. Boulle's comments that your group would be required to buy Camarilla memberships.

It came out during the thread that if money changes hands for any reason related to the game, then the license issue applies.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Philippe Boulle posted on the WW boards that the issue is one of scale, and they realize it is not enforceable at a small level. They are considering writing in a clause for groups of under ten players to make small groups exempt fromt eh policy.

While I think the whole thing is rather silly, I can understand the desire to protect IP. I just can't say for certain if the gameplay that results from a book that I bought is something that is the IP of the designer.

The entire affair is, insofar as I can see, so legally muddy and indeterminate that even at Cons I question whether they could LEGALLY make it stick if they really, honestly wanted to try. It's amusing that they would be so generous to exempt groups of under 10 members from being held to a new, legally unproven and inherently questionable policy.

Of course, the policy won't need to stand up to a legal test if it's effective merely as a threat and goes unchallenged by anyone on the recieving end of it.