White Wolfs pay to play deal...

[Elder-Basilisk]

I can't say on the basis of market research either, but I know that I played as much LC as LG at my first con. When LC switched to pay for play, I though about it and then decided that that was it for me. And I'd only played really low level tables so I had no experience of the wonky conversion. So, for me at least, pay for play killed LC before the disintegrating play environment had a chance to.

He massively overestimated how much revenue he'd generate, and lost money hand over fist, apparently. One could argue how much of this was due to the pay-for-play scheme, and how much was due to LC having already suffered a possibly-fatal wound with the wonky conversion to 3E (which predated Dancey's ownership of the campaign).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Plays do. If you're putting on a play, you need to order the play from whichever company holds the rights--there are several IIRC--and work out the royalties arrangement. (Which is pretty standardized).

WRT sheet music, I'm not certain about that in general but I know that most evangelical churches using modern hymns/worship songs end up paying ASCAP or some such organization royalties. I'm pretty sure that cover bands pay royalties on the songs they perform as well.

In both cases, a lot of uses fly under the radar. AFAIK, my directing class one acts never had to go through the royalties arrangements (though the professor might have made those arrangements for us given that it was a directing class and such arrangements are generally the responsibility of the producer). I know that nobody goes around to prayer meetings and asks for royalties if someone sings a hymn or chorus that's not public domain. And I'd be willing to bet that a lot of battle of the band type events, high school dance bands, etc. get away without paying any royalties too.

I guess there are things like putting on a play or using sheet music for a live performance, do these require permission if the copywright is still active?

 

[Ry]

Wow. That might be the single dumbest thing I have ever, ever seen in gaming. And this hobby has such a long and varied history of dumb things

What about TSR telling Speilburg that he'd have to PAY them to use D&D in ET?

I mean, this is pretty dumb. My god. But I still think that ET thing takes the cake.

 

[Garnfellow]

What about TSR telling Speilburg that he'd have to PAY them to use D&D in ET?

I mean, this is pretty dumb. My god. But I still think that ET thing takes the cake.

Was it D&D or M&Ms that blew a great product placement in ET? Or both? If you're right, the E.T. thing should probably be the first inductee into the Hall of All-Time Gaming Stupidity.

But I'm betting this White Wolf crap will a first ballot lock for being voted into the Hall. A toothless, pointless, unenforceable policy that does nothing to protect their IP, potentially opens them up to completely new legal exposures *, and ticks off customers? Again, let me offer up congratulations to those litigious little vampires at WW with far, far too much angst and time on their hands.

* Imagine this: what happens if something truly awful happened at a WW Sanctioned (tm) event, maybe a freak accident like a fire or a crime.

 

[S'mon]

* Imagine this: what happens if something truly awful happened at a WW Sanctioned (tm) event, maybe a freak accident like a fire or a crime.

That's the weird thing - certainly under UK law & I'd think US is similar, WW are opening themselves up to contractual & tortious liability in a way they wouldn't be before. I think it's idiotic.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I would just like to yell:

Copyrights:
COPYRIGHT DOES NOT LAPSE IF YOU DON'T PROTECT IT!

Trademarks:
Under US law trademarks can lapse if they are used generically and people don't protect them - eg WoTC needs to prevent "D&D" being used as a synonym for "RPG" - but it is NOT the case that any use of a TM word, even commercial use, threatens the TM. US law calls this nominative use - descriptive of the goods/services. Eg if I charge to run a "Dungeons & Dragons game" - because that's the ruleset I'm using - that is not likely to infringe TMs. Nor BTW is putting "compatible with the D&D ruleset published by WotC" on a game product (though the OGL may not allow this, but that's a completely different issue - agreeing to the OGL you give WoTC contractual rights they don't otherwise possess).

 

[isidorus]

I thought a whike back DriveThruRpg ate the cake of crazy public Relations. So far this has just about did it for me and WW. Anyway after boycotting WW and others for DTR I bought into V:tr now wish it hadn't.

FYI, this has hit Slashdot's games section. Link http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/07/08/1912245.shtml?tid=209&tid=155

and boingboing link http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/08/white_wolf_cuts_own_.html

Last thoughts, as far as I can see right now, this has become a PR Nightware for WW. I am not sure they can do much about it or even fix it. The seem to have angered quite a few people.

Sigh is it me or are Companies just plain stupid at times.

 

[Caerin]

I can understand why White Wolf is starting the new policy. As you say, it's a legal matter. People are charging other people for using their product. If they don't have a piece of that (as I understand it), their copyright is in danger of being nullified. (Since if you don't zealously protect your copyright, you lose it.)

This may have been mentioned (I'm trying to read all of the posts, but I may have missed one). That's incorrect. You only "lose" copyright if you sign over copyright or if copyright never should have been yours in the first place. You're thinking of trademark, which requires protection or risks loss. And trademark does not differentiate between for proift and not for profit use.

 

[S'mon]

And trademark does not differentiate between for proift and not for profit use.

Trademark 'use' in the legal sense requires 'commercial use' though (Lanham Act), ie use in the course of trade, the provision of goods or services for remuneration. Personally I don't think a private LARP group that simply covers its costs is commercial use, though I can see a weak judge finding differently. A professional outfit that runs for-profit LARPS would be commercial use though. Mere commercial use is not in itself sufficient for TM infringement, it has to be infringing use. Normally that means members of the public thinking the LARP originates from/was licensed by WW when it wasn't.

 

[Caerin]

Trademark 'use' in the legal sense requires 'commercial use' though (Lanham Act), ie use in the course of trade, the provision of goods or services for remuneration. Personally I don't think a private LARP group that simply covers its costs is commercial use, though I can see a weak judge finding differently. A professional outfit that runs for-profit LARPS would be commercial use though. Mere commercial use is not in itself sufficient for TM infringement, it has to be infringing use. Normally that means members of the public thinking the LARP originates from/was licensed by WW when it wasn't.

I agree- but I think that they are categorizing any transaction, for profit or not for profit, as a commercial use as defined by trademark law, and leaving them vulnerable to dilution, not just false origin.

 

[S'mon]

I agree- but I think that they are categorizing any transaction, for profit or not for profit, as a commercial use as defined by trademark law, and leaving them vulnerable to dilution, not just false origin.

That WW are apparently defining it that way doesn't make it so, though. BTW reading the policy on WW's website it doesn't refer to trademark law, they may not even be worried about that. It doesn't say "don't use our trademarks to advertise a for-money LARP", it says "don't run a for-money LARP (unless you join our authorised network". It also uses the word 'request' I noticed. I'm not sure if they even think they have any legal ability to enforce this new policy.