Hasbro, game mechanic copyrights
Ken Witherow
Just so we know exactly who we're dealing with here... Hasbro owns Atari
and WOTC.
In this suit, Hasbro filed copyright infringement charges against GT
Interactive, Varcon, eGames, Webfoot, MVP Software, and Xtreme Games for
making clones of Atari games and releasing them for PCs and Macs.
So far, GTI and Varcon have settled out of court. GTI will pay a damages
fee and stop producing their titles and Varcon will stop selling it's
games.
Fortunately, this is a settlement and not a ruling in favor of Hasbro. I'm
not sure why the precident set by Connectix wasn't used. If the court
later rules in favor of Hasbro, I can't help but feel Article 1, Section
8, Clause 8 of the Constitution has been ignored. So much for ideas not
being copyrightable and encouraging new works.
In view of Dancey's claims and the actions of Hasbro, I don't feel safe
publishing my works on my webpage for free anymore and I feel terrified
for their competitors. After all, D&D is the granddaddy of all RPGs so
everyone must be stealing from them and they're part of Hasbro now. Way to
scare off the customers guys... If the precedent is set and I moved by
campaging to GURPS, I would be infringing on WOTC's copyright on D&D since
GURPS is obviously infringing on their copyrights. I wonder who's more
clueless, the corporations screwing over their customers or the judges who
have no common sense. Where does it end?
I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and I'll
be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro and
it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
--
Ken Witherow ICQ: 21840670 <phan...@frontiernet.net>
http://www.frontiernet.net/~phantoml
Linux 2.3.49 - Because I'd like to get there today
Nov 5, 1999. The "duh" heard 'round the world.
Don
Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00041...@krw.penguinpowered.com...
Long live greed!
- Don
Alan Kellogg
<Pine.LNX.4.21.00041...@krw.penguinpowered.com>, Ken
Witherow <phan...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Ken, the suit you refer to was against companies out to make a buck off
of Hasbro properties. As long as you don't seek to make any moolah off
the original DnD material on your site, your fine.
And, for your information, when the D20STL goes into effect you'll be
able to author DnD compatible material, and professionally publish it.
So long as you agree to abide by the terms of the license.
In other words; you're legal, Wizards aint gonna monopolize the RPG biz
(not if a bunch of folks can help it:), and you don't have to give up
the hobby.
Alan
Ken Witherow
> Ken, the suit you refer to was against companies out to make a buck off
> of Hasbro properties. As long as you don't seek to make any moolah off
> the original DnD material on your site, your fine.
And if someday I decide to write a story about the adventures my party had
(in my own original world), since Dancey says he owns the copyright on my
material and Hasbro has shown that they're willing to sue startups, I feel
completely uncomfortable putting my works on my page. Copyright protects a
particular expression and it's long been held in programming that as long
as the source is different and produces the same results, there's no
infringement.
> And, for your information, when the D20STL goes into effect you'll be
> able to author DnD compatible material, and professionally publish it.
> So long as you agree to abide by the terms of the license.
There are conditions under the license that limit rights I already
have. Both the D20 license and the current stance WOTC/Hasbro has taken, I
refuse to release work that potentially could make them more profitable
and harm me at the same time.
> In other words; you're legal, Wizards aint gonna monopolize the RPG biz
> (not if a bunch of folks can help it:), and you don't have to give up
> the hobby.
Alas it is but a bunch of folks versus a huge billion dollar
conglomerate. I'm not willing to take the risk that Hasbro/WOTC will sick
dozens of $1000 an hour lawyers after me. It doesn't matter if I've
infringed or not. How can I fight a lawsuit like that? Spend thousands
of dollars and years of my life fighting? If they're so serious about
preventing their customers from telling their own original tales, they're
not a company worth supporting. As for RPGs, no, I don't have to give up
my hobby but I'm not sure if it's worth switching to another system (after
all, they're made by companies that make something awfully similar to D&D
for a profit so Hasbro must own their stuff too). In any event, my D&D
days are officially over; it was a great 13 years.
JD Lail
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>http://www.imgmagazine.com/news/
>Just so we know exactly who we're dealing with here... Hasbro owns Atari
>and WOTC.
>In this suit, Hasbro filed copyright infringement charges against <snip a
>list of game makers>
>Fortunately, this is a settlement and not a ruling in favor of Hasbro. I'm
>not sure why the precident set by Connectix wasn't used. If the court
>later rules in favor of Hasbro, I can't help but feel Article 1, Section
>8, Clause 8 of the Constitution has been ignored. So much for ideas not
>being copyrightable and encouraging new works.
Hmm, I was under the impression that Computer Programs were given
copyright protection rather than that of the patent. Isn't that what
happened here ?
>In view of Dancey's claims and the actions of Hasbro, I don't feel safe
>publishing my works on my webpage for free anymore and I feel terrified
>for their competitors. After all, D&D is the granddaddy of all RPGs so
>everyone must be stealing from them and they're part of Hasbro now. Way to
>scare off the customers guys... If the precedent is set and I moved by
>campaging to GURPS, I would be infringing on WOTC's copyright on D&D since
>GURPS is obviously infringing on their copyrights. I wonder who's more
>clueless, the corporations screwing over their customers or the judges who
>have no common sense. Where does it end?
Common sense has no place in a court of law. :) Where did you come up
with that piece of strangeness ? BTW the granddaddy of all RPG's is
Chainmail (imo). As far as your web page is concerned imo that would
be wise. Unless your content can be copyrighted by publishing (i.e.
posting) it to the web you are making the work you did public domain.
>I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
>RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and I'll
>be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro and
>it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
I suggest you investigate the particulars some more before you start
sawing on that limb Elmer. :)
L8R
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:54:51 -0400, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.imgmagazine.com/news/
>
> >Just so we know exactly who we're dealing with here... Hasbro owns Atari
> >and WOTC.
>
> >In this suit, Hasbro filed copyright infringement charges against <snip a
> >list of game makers>
>
> >Fortunately, this is a settlement and not a ruling in favor of Hasbro. I'm
> >not sure why the precident set by Connectix wasn't used. If the court
> >later rules in favor of Hasbro, I can't help but feel Article 1, Section
> >8, Clause 8 of the Constitution has been ignored. So much for ideas not
> >being copyrightable and encouraging new works.
>
> Hmm, I was under the impression that Computer Programs were given
> copyright protection rather than that of the patent. Isn't that what
> happened here ?
Specific algorithms can be patented. Source code can be copyrighted. Ideas
can't be copyrighted and games are nothing more than an
idea/system. Sure the text that describes the idea is copyrightable
and nobody is arguing that. Systems can be patented but there's no such
patent in the case of RPGs.
> >In view of Dancey's claims and the actions of Hasbro, I don't feel safe
> >publishing my works on my webpage for free anymore and I feel terrified
> >for their competitors. After all, D&D is the granddaddy of all RPGs so
> >everyone must be stealing from them and they're part of Hasbro now. Way to
> >scare off the customers guys... If the precedent is set and I moved by
> >campaging to GURPS, I would be infringing on WOTC's copyright on D&D since
> >GURPS is obviously infringing on their copyrights. I wonder who's more
> >clueless, the corporations screwing over their customers or the judges who
> >have no common sense. Where does it end?
>
> Common sense has no place in a court of law. :) Where did you come up
> with that piece of strangeness ? BTW the granddaddy of all RPG's is
> Chainmail (imo). As far as your web page is concerned imo that would
... which later became? :)
> be wise. Unless your content can be copyrighted by publishing (i.e.
> posting) it to the web you are making the work you did public domain.
Copyright is granted upon the transmission of expression onto a permanent
medium. That is, as soon as I write something down( or type it into my
computer, scratch it on a rock, carve it into a tree... ), it's
copyrighted. You don't give up your copyright (to the public
domain) unless you expressly grant the work to the public domain OR your
copyright expires( 70 years after you die :) ). If I didn't want people
taking ideas from it, I wouldn't have placed it out there for public
consumption, would I?
> >I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
> >RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and I'll
> >be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro and
> >it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
>
> I suggest you investigate the particulars some more before you start
> sawing on that limb Elmer. :)
Perhaps you should be more worried about corporations stealing your rights
simply because they have more money than you. I'd throw an insult back at
you but I'm above your childish antics...
JD Lail
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Alan Kellogg wrote:
>
>> Ken, the suit you refer to was against companies out to make a buck off
>> of Hasbro properties. As long as you don't seek to make any moolah off
>> the original DnD material on your site, your fine.
>
>And if someday I decide to write a story about the adventures my party had
>(in my own original world), since Dancey says he owns the copyright on my
>material and Hasbro has shown that they're willing to sue startups, I feel
>completely uncomfortable putting my works on my page. Copyright protects a
>particular expression and it's long been held in programming that as long
>as the source is different and produces the same results, there's no
>infringement.
Actually this has already happened and TSR did nothing. The World
was Midkemia and the Author was Raymond Feist (The Rift War).
He and his gaming group even put out some gaming materials
(rather generic iirc) based on the world.
There are several other authors whose worlds owe a great deal to
DnD, Elizabeth Moon's "Sheepfarmers Daughter" and David Weber's
Bahzell Bahnakson spring quickly to mind.
Your problem is that you think that your work is entitled to some
level of copyright protection and the legal situation is that if it is
a derivative it won't be accorded that status.
> And, for your information, when the D20STL goes into effect you'll be
>> able to author DnD compatible material, and professionally publish it.
>> So long as you agree to abide by the terms of the license.
>There are conditions under the license that limit rights I already
>have. Both the D20 license and the current stance WOTC/Hasbro has taken, I
>refuse to release work that potentially could make them more profitable
>and harm me at the same time.
What rights do you think you are giving up ?
>> In other words; you're legal, Wizards aint gonna monopolize the RPG biz
>> (not if a bunch of folks can help it:), and you don't have to give up
>> the hobby.
>Alas it is but a bunch of folks versus a huge billion dollar
>conglomerate. I'm not willing to take the risk that Hasbro/WOTC will sick
>dozens of $1000 an hour lawyers after me. It doesn't matter if I've
>infringed or not. How can I fight a lawsuit like that? Spend thousands
>of dollars and years of my life fighting? If they're so serious about
>preventing their customers from telling their own original tales, they're
>not a company worth supporting. As for RPGs, no, I don't have to give up
>my hobby but I'm not sure if it's worth switching to another system (after
>all, they're made by companies that make something awfully similar to D&D
>for a profit so Hasbro must own their stuff too). In any event, my D&D
>days are officially over; it was a great 13 years.
So long Pilgrim.
R. Serena Wakefield
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:17:29 -0400, Ken Witherow
><k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Alan Kellogg wrote:
>>> Ken, the suit you refer to was against companies out to make a buck off
>>> of Hasbro properties. As long as you don't seek to make any moolah off
>>> the original DnD material on your site, your fine.
>>And if someday I decide to write a story about the adventures my party had
>>(in my own original world), since Dancey says he owns the copyright on my
>>material and Hasbro has shown that they're willing to sue startups, I feel
>>completely uncomfortable putting my works on my page. Copyright protects a
>>particular expression and it's long been held in programming that as long
>>as the source is different and produces the same results, there's no
>>infringement.
>Actually this has already happened and TSR did nothing. The World
>was Midkemia and the Author was Raymond Feist (The Rift War).
>He and his gaming group even put out some gaming materials
>(rather generic iirc) based on the world.
>There are several other authors whose worlds owe a great deal to
>DnD, Elizabeth Moon's "Sheepfarmers Daughter" and David Weber's
>Bahzell Bahnakson spring quickly to mind.
>Your problem is that you think that your work is entitled to some
>level of copyright protection and the legal situation is that if it is
>a derivative it won't be accorded that status.
Are you implying that Feist, Moon, and Weber are NOT entitled to
copyright protection for their books?
If those authors are entitled to copyright books that owe something to
D&D, why wouldn't I be, if I converted my campaign into novels and got
them published?
>>As for RPGs, no, I don't have to give up
>>my hobby but I'm not sure if it's worth switching to another system (after
>>all, they're made by companies that make something awfully similar to D&D
>>for a profit so Hasbro must own their stuff too). In any event, my D&D
>>days are officially over; it was a great 13 years.
>So long Pilgrim.
A lot of people are overreacting. I mean, I *am* probably going to
switch games at this point, since for me a great deal of the fun of
RPGs is self-publishing materials I've created for them. But if you
don't plan on doing that there's no reason to switch; contrary to
apparent public opinion Hasbro isn't going to go around bugging
people's houses and stealing their ideas.
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Ay Dios ko! May palakol sa ulo ko!
Ken Witherow
> Your problem is that you think that your work is entitled to some
> level of copyright protection and the legal situation is that if it is
> a derivative it won't be accorded that status.
But it's not derivative... Sure, it uses several ideas presented in D&D
but ideas aren't copyrightable.
> > And, for your information, when the D20STL goes into effect you'll be
> >> able to author DnD compatible material, and professionally publish it.
> >> So long as you agree to abide by the terms of the license.
>
> >There are conditions under the license that limit rights I already
> >have. Both the D20 license and the current stance WOTC/Hasbro has taken, I
> >refuse to release work that potentially could make them more profitable
> >and harm me at the same time.
>
> What rights do you think you are giving up ?
It depends on the final wording of the document... However, from the
statements made by WOTC regarding it, by accepting the license, I would be
professing my work to be a derivative and thus the property of WOTC. Once
that happens, my rights as a copyright holder disappear and I'm bound to
WOTC's whims wrt my own works.
OTOH, I feel my works are substantial enough to not be a derivative work
and the closest I come to infringing on WOTC's copyrights are by referring
to them( generally this would amount to generic monster stats( enough to
use the monsters without looking them up if you are familiar with them but
not enough that you would understand the monster if you weren't familiar
with the MM )). I don't think my reference infringes on WOTC's copyrights
and even if they did, at most, only the infringing parts could be claimed
by WOTC making the vast majority of my work still mine.
The difference? Under the D20 license I would essentially admit creating a
derivative work while without it, I'm not declaring it to be a derivative
work. I don't need a license from WOTC to create and publish stories
about a group of adventurers chasing after a world hopping undead
mage-king.
Michael Scott Brown
> I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
> RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and I'll
> be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro and
> it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
You sir, are an idiot.
-Michael
Ken Witherow
How astounding. Did you spend all night coming up with that? I'd love to
see your research since you were so terse in your statement.
Michael Scott Brown
> > > I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
> > > RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and
I'll
> > > be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro
and
> > > it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
> >
> > You sir, are an idiot.
>
> How astounding. Did you spend all night coming up with that? I'd love to
> see your research since you were so terse in your statement.
Exhibit A: Your Post, and the knowledge and reasoning displayed within.
"I'm going to quit playing D&D because Hasbro might swoop down and steal
the writing on my website!"
Horse-pucky.
You would have to be a bloody fool to come to the conclusion that hasbro
is Coming For You, especially given that TSR/WOTC have tried to make it
plain that players are encouraged to put their game material on the web (as
long as they don't try to make money off of it or throw up the guts of their
rulebooks wholesale). It's even more foolish to *quit playing the game* you
(may) love due to your (poorly grounded) displeasure with the company.
You've been playing for the last decade with 2nd edition - if Hasbro truly
does do something that makes them deserving of being stripped of the D&D
line, boycott *3rd edition*, don't quit your games. Sheesh!
You're quitting D&D for what amounts to paranoia about Hasbro and an
utter misunderstanding of copyrights..
Pathetic.
-Michael
Steve Miller
<< The difference? Under the D20 license I would essentially admit creating a
derivative work while without it, I'm not declaring it to be a derivative
work. >>
If I do a D20 version of "Fairies!", WotC does not automatically own the Magic
Forest (the setting for "Fairies!") nor does it become part of the general D20
pool of stuff... unless I'm so boneheaded so as to not put the 'licensed stuff'
in a seperate section, specifically labeled with the text of the licensing
agreement.
Hell, I refer to D&D multiple times in the NUELOW gamebooks. But WotC still
doesn't have copyright on any them. And they never will. (Unless they give me a
bucket of money... or at least lunch.)
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
And Jesus, he knows me, and he knows I'm right.
I've been talking to Jesus all my life.
--Genesis, "Jesus He Knows Me"
Ryan S. Dancey
> http://www.imgmagazine.com/news/
> Where does it end?
I invite you to join the Open Game Movement; www.opengamingfoundation.org
which will address these issues once and for all and permit people to copy,
modify and distribute Open Game content without restriction, fees, or review
by any other party.
Ryan
Ken Witherow
>
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0004200528370.189-
> > > > I guess it's time for me to find another hobby to fill the gap left by
> > > > RPGs. I will also be encouraging my other gaming friends to stop and
> I'll
> > > > be writing a letter to my paper encouraging everyone to boycott Hasbro
> and
> > > > it's subsidiaries for their egregious attack on consumers.
> > >
> > > You sir, are an idiot.
> >
> > How astounding. Did you spend all night coming up with that? I'd love to
> > see your research since you were so terse in your statement.
>
> Exhibit A: Your Post, and the knowledge and reasoning displayed within.
> "I'm going to quit playing D&D because Hasbro might swoop down and steal
> the writing on my website!"
> Horse-pucky.
On January 17th on the Greytalk list, Ryan Dancey said the
following: "Under the statute, if a person creates an
"infinging" derivitive [sic] work, the >>entire work< becomes the property
of the original content owner." Lynne Simpson replied, "If that's your
true position on the topic, then you believe that the content on *all*
AD&D related web sites are [sic] your property." He responded, "That's
accurate." His reply can be viewed in the Greytalk archive at the
following
URL: http://24.112.96.246/Add/Greytalk.nsf/b44505cda4beea3285256664005e00fa/7f208cdb6bbdc5d385256869006fbea0?OpenDocument.
> You would have to be a bloody fool to come to the conclusion that hasbro
> is Coming For You, especially given that TSR/WOTC have tried to make it
> plain that players are encouraged to put their game material on the web (as
> long as they don't try to make money off of it or throw up the guts of their
> rulebooks wholesale). It's even more foolish to *quit playing the game* you
Have they? It seems that their online policy can be twisted into something
insideous. Also, in view of the above statement, Dancey already claims
anything related to D&D belongs to them.
> (may) love due to your (poorly grounded) displeasure with the company.
> You've been playing for the last decade with 2nd edition - if Hasbro truly
> does do something that makes them deserving of being stripped of the D&D
> line, boycott *3rd edition*, don't quit your games. Sheesh!
But part of what I love is showing my work to others. In light of what
Hasbro's done and Dancey's view, I can't safely do that any longer. Also,
if a precendent is set by Hasbro winning the case against the remaining
defendents, it's a short step for WOTC to sue their competitors for making
a product that's too much like D&D.
> You're quitting D&D for what amounts to paranoia about Hasbro and an
> utter misunderstanding of copyrights..
Quite the contrary. I understand copyrights quite well. Ryan Dancey has
shown blatent disregard for the purpose of copyright law and Hasbro has
abused their position. Perhaps I'll switch to GURPS or another system but,
like I said, WOTC could sue them if they wanted to.
Ken Witherow
> Hell, I refer to D&D multiple times in the NUELOW gamebooks. But WotC still
> doesn't have copyright on any them. And they never will. (Unless they give me a
> bucket of money... or at least lunch.)
According to Dancey's claims, you are indeed violating their copyright and
have made a derivative work. If they were to come after you with a pack of
corporate attorneys, do you have the money and time to defend yourself?
Steve Buza
Wakefield) wrote:
>A lot of people are overreacting. I mean, I *am* probably going to
>switch games at this point, since for me a great deal of the fun of
>RPGs is self-publishing materials I've created for them.
I'm switching to Lejendary Adventures (www.gygax.com) for precisely
this reason. Not only can I self-publish materials without fear of
reprisal.
Steve
Steve Buza
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>as long as they don't try to make money off of it
WoTC does not have the authority to strip this right from authors.
They have the power to do so via intimidation. That I'll grant.
Steve
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com> wrote in message
news:sfufpb2...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00041...@krw.penguinpowered.com...
> > http://www.imgmagazine.com/news/
> I invite you to join the Open Game Movement; www.opengamingfoundation.org
> which will address these issues once and for all and permit people to
copy,
> modify and distribute Open Game content without restriction, fees, or
review
> by any other party.
>
> Ryan
It's this one that has me a bit confused...
___________________________
11. Use of Contributor Credits:
You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any
Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do
so.
___________________________
So, if I created an adventure supplement to work with D&D as a main
game, but also workable with other 'simple' systems, and then put it on the
market with a cover that said something like...
"NEW ADVENTURE! A classic dungeon bash for your favorite RPG! Easily
adaptable to any setting that uses the D20 system such as D&D, BrandX or
BrandY!"
...how would that work? If I made it to work with D&D, how the hell
would people know that unless I told them? It would be like going to the
computer store to look for a video card to buy...and then have the box not
tell you what it worked with (Linux? Windows98? WindowsNT? BeOS? Mac?).
"NEW VIDEO CARD! Awesome performance! Works with [actual company and
product names withheld; you'll just have to guess and hope for the best that
it works with your system]!"
;-)
Please tell me I'm missing something obvious and how it seems isn't how
it is.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Lost Dragon
>Interactive, Varcon, eGames, Webfoot, MVP Software, and Xtreme Games for
>making clones of Atari games and releasing them for PCs and Macs.
I don't really understand it. These games were cloned to death way
back when they were actually popular... Why all the stink now, some
10 years later?
/| .oo__. .-----.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='-----' C
Ken Witherow
> >In this suit, Hasbro filed copyright infringement charges against GT
> >Interactive, Varcon, eGames, Webfoot, MVP Software, and Xtreme Games for
> >making clones of Atari games and releasing them for PCs and Macs.
>
> I don't really understand it. These games were cloned to death way
> back when they were actually popular... Why all the stink now, some
> 10 years later?
Hasbro didn't aquire Atari (or at least the rights to the games) until
1998. Hasbro has the big bully attitude that, apparently, the previous
owner(s?) didn't have.
Ryan S. Dancey
>
> I don't really understand it. These games were cloned to death way
> back when they were actually popular... Why all the stink now, some
> 10 years later?
Hasbro believes that there is long-term value in those brands. Recent
studies have shown that internet gaming is a very profitable venture. In
addition, some of those brands have been successfully updated and turned
into popular CD-ROM and modern console games. In the next year or two there
will even be a Centipede TV show.
Ryan
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0004201444260.189-
> > > "I'm going to quit playing D&D because Hasbro might swoop down and
> steal
> > > the writing on my website!"
> > > Horse-pucky.
> >
> > On January 17th on the Greytalk list, Ryan Dancey said the
> > following: "Under the statute, if a person creates an
> > "infinging" derivitive [sic] work, the >>entire work< becomes the property
> > of the original content owner." Lynne Simpson replied, "If that's your
> > true position on the topic, then you believe that the content on *all*
> > AD&D related web sites are [sic] your property." He responded, "That's
> > accurate."
>
> And Ryan is *wrong*, you paranoid person-creature! Thus, what Ryan says
> about what he believes is not terribly relevant, given his poor command of
> the nuances involved. Wave your paw at him and say Bah, and encourage him
> to learn to communicate better about what he is discussing.
I've tried to get him to clarify his position several times and every one
of my messages regarding clarification has been ignored or else his pulled
a clinton and spun the answer off into a completely different direction
rather than answering the question.
> One, notice that the case in question deals with a particularly
> egregious overstepping of the bounds of intellectual property; this isn't a
> matter of some copyrighted character making a cameo in the story or lurking
> in the background, but an inextricable entangling with the original writer's
> concepts. The infringement is well beyond the level where the offending
> bits could simply be snipped or modified to taste, thus, in this special
> case the _entire_ work became subject to The Law (tm). Notice, as a counter
> example, how Tolkein's people dealt with the presence of Hobbits in original
> D&D rules concepts - there as no threat of transfer of ownership, simply a
> "hey, you can't use the Hobbit, that's ours". If TSR had gone ahead anyway,
> they'd be open to a lawsuit for infringement, but ownership of D&D itself
> would not have been at stake.
If you read the copyright threads over the past could weeks, Dancey claims
any reference to any D&D ideas makes the work a derivative entirely owned
by WOTC even if you don't use setting materials or detailed characters
like Elminster.
> Two: Ryan is using "becomes the property" in a way which is misleading.
> The primary copyright holder has _control_ over any derivative work's
> publishing future in the sense that he now has "veto power". It can't be
> published (for $$, etc.) without his consent - but nor can he take it from
> the original author and publish it without *his* consent.
Dancey also claims that if taken to court, a judge would likely rule to
give one party all the copyright and leave the other with nothing. It
amounts to nothing less than a threat to steal your property by WOTC
despite what we know about how derivative copyright works.
> Just think about how things would be if that were the case - you write a
> short story for yourself about Luke Skywalker, and Lucasfilm could just
> swoop down, take it off your hard drive, and publish it as a comic book.
> This is obviously ludicrous. Yet, this is what you're assuming will be the
> case. That's why I think you're being so silly, by the way - the
> implications of your decision making assumptions are far ranging and goofy.
But this is exactly what Dancey has stated. All the stories told in the
process of a D&D campaign, any work created to expand RPGs if it relates
to D&D, all new worlds designed with D&D in mind, virtually EVERYTHING
which may be associated with D&D in the most minute way is derivative of
D&D and thus the property of WOTC. You and I know better BUT I don't have
$20,000 and a couple years of my life to prove Dancey wrong if he should
decide to sue me.
> Now, if the derivative author *does* publish the work _without
> permission_, *then* justice sees fit that all the products and proceeds are
> considered the property of the actual copyright holder. It is only in this
> sense that Wotc would come to "own" anything we write (and Ryan must have
> been referring to this, else he is a fool worthy of great mockery).
The problem comes in Dancey's sense of derivative work. He believes
everything which has some tangent to D&D, even if it merely references it
and doesn't borrow text, settings or principal characters from it, belongs
to WOTC. He believes even laying out stats or tables in D&D terms makes
the product a derivative.
> If you write a specifically AD&D product involving their game mechanics,
> and try to sell it without their aegis, you'll be in for an unprofitable
> surprise. Such works are considered derivative and Wotc has some copyright
> authority over it *along with the author*. This might be construed as
> 'ownership' but only ... loosely.
Mechanics can't be copyrighted, they're ideas. Only the particular
expression of mechanics can be (ie, the text describing it). One could
argue it would have been possibly for them to patent their rule system but
it's far too late for that (and the patent would have expired already
anyways).
I completely agree it would be a violation to write "The Further
Adventures of Elminster" (assuming of course it wasn't done under fair use
exceptions like parody). However, in the case of my work on my setting, I
use no D&D characters, settings or text. The closest I come to infringing
on WOTC copyrights is by referencing the generic monsters in the MM in
the adventures I've written. The monsters are completely useless without
the MM.
> > > You're quitting D&D for what amounts to paranoia about Hasbro and an
> > > utter misunderstanding of copyrights..
> > Quite the contrary. I understand copyrights quite well. Ryan Dancey has
> > shown blatent disregard for the purpose of copyright law and Hasbro has
> > abused their position.
> If you understand copyrights well, then you wouldn't be worried about
> what Ryan is misrepresenting.
I do understand copyrights well. You apparently don't understand modern
corporate bullying very well. How does an average citizen fight a
multi-billion dollar corporation over a copyright claim?
Tim Dugger
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Lost Dragon wrote:
>
>> >In this suit, Hasbro filed copyright infringement charges against GT
>> >Interactive, Varcon, eGames, Webfoot, MVP Software, and Xtreme Games for
>> >making clones of Atari games and releasing them for PCs and Macs.
>>
>> I don't really understand it. These games were cloned to death way
>> back when they were actually popular... Why all the stink now, some
>> 10 years later?
>
>Hasbro didn't aquire Atari (or at least the rights to the games) until
>1998. Hasbro has the big bully attitude that, apparently, the previous
>owner(s?) didn't have.
>
Or it could just be that since they paid good money for the
rights to a product, they want to make sure that they will not be hurt
(silly, I know considering the size of them) by infringements on those
products. All perfectly legal for them to do, and actually the right
thing for them to do as well. This does not mean that they are a big
bully, just that they are interested in protecting their copyrights
and trademarks from illegal use.
**TANSTAAFL**
Ken Witherow
> So Dancey is WotC's lawyer now too?
He's in a position to unleash the lawyers on someone.
> >Have they? It seems that their online policy can be twisted into something
> >insideous. Also, in view of the above statement, Dancey already claims
> >anything related to D&D belongs to them.
>
> Sure you can twist it. *Why* are you twisting it? You just come off
> as paranoid. Again, who the hell cares what Dancey thinks? I like
> the guy, personally, but I don't go to him for legal advice. That's
> not his forte. I'd be willing to bet he doesn't even talk to the
> company lawyers before saying this stuff.
According to what he's said in the recent copyright threads, WOTC legal
agrees with him. A little bit of paranoia is healthy.
> >But part of what I love is showing my work to others. In light of what
> >Hasbro's done and Dancey's view, I can't safely do that any longer.
>
> Complete bullshit. I bet the old TSR policy had you cringing under
> the covers for your rights, eh?
I've only begun putting my works online in the past 18 months or so. Until
Dancey opened his mouth about his position on copyright, I had no qualms
about it.
> >Also,
> >if a precendent is set by Hasbro winning the case against the remaining
> >defendents, it's a short step for WOTC to sue their competitors for making
> >a product that's too much like D&D.
>
> I don't think WotC is interested in doing that. It won't win them any
> customers and will more than likely lose some of what they've got.
> You think Hasbro's going to sue? They didn't sue all the other
> companies making board games.
But after aquiring Atari, they did begin to immediately sue. Now that
they've acquired WOTC, will we see the same thing? How about if the
religious wacko's start chasing after such a large, family oriented
target?
> >Quite the contrary. I understand copyrights quite well. Ryan Dancey has
> >shown blatent disregard for the purpose of copyright law and Hasbro has
> >abused their position. Perhaps I'll switch to GURPS or another system but,
> >like I said, WOTC could sue them if they wanted to.
>
> Ryan Dancey has shown his ignorance of copyright law. Hasbro has
> protected their interests. The rest is paranoia on your part.
Even though we all know Dancey's wrong, it doesn't change the fact that
he's in a position to order WOTC legal to go after you. I'd rather remove
my work from my web pages than give Dancey fodder to come after me if he
or Hasbro chooses. Why WOTC lets a VP go spouting off about inaccurate
claims of legality, I have no idea. Why they leave him in his position
scaring away customers further baffles me. I don't care if the guy is the
greatest game designer or staff manager who ever lived. If he scares off
customers, he's not good for the company.
Ken Witherow
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:17:29 -0400, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> > In any event, my D&D
> >days are officially over; it was a great 13 years.
>
> Good. Does that mean you'll shutup now?
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Are you really that dense?
I'm sorry if I value my rights more than some of you. I'm sorry if I don't
like the threatening tone of a VP in a corporation with billions backing
it. Maybe your tune will change when, instead of suing software
manufacturers, they come after you.
Are you really that dense to think that just because a particular case
doesn't affect you directly it doesn't set a dangerous precident that may?
Ken Witherow
> >Hasbro didn't aquire Atari (or at least the rights to the games) until
> >1998. Hasbro has the big bully attitude that, apparently, the previous
> >owner(s?) didn't have.
> Or it could just be that since they paid good money for the
> rights to a product, they want to make sure that they will not be hurt
> (silly, I know considering the size of them) by infringements on those
> products. All perfectly legal for them to do, and actually the right
> thing for them to do as well. This does not mean that they are a big
> bully, just that they are interested in protecting their copyrights
> and trademarks from illegal use.
In court cases, violation of software copyright infringement has come from
stealing source code. I've never seen a successful case where someone sued
another company for making a game that looked and felt too much like
theirs( the Data East case seems relevant here. They were sued for making
a game too similar to Street Fighter and won on the basis that you can't
copyright game ideas ).
Lost Dragon
>will even be a Centipede TV show.
'k - I can see that...
But how does a clone game, which isn't called Centipede and obviously
isn't Centipede to anyone but the most casual of shoppers, going to
affect any of that?
I can only see them winning in cases where the original trademarks
have been infringed upon (IE: some 3rd party calls their Centipede
clone "Centipede 3000")...
But I think they know that. I hope Xtreme Games LLC and the others
stick it out.
Michael Scott Brown
> > What the hell are you talking about? Are you really that dense?
>
> I'm sorry if I value my rights more than some of you.
<falls on the floor laughing>
Do you have any idea how much you sound like one of those retarded
"they're coming to take my guns" nuts right now?
In order to be taken seriously about how much you value your rights, you
must first be *correct* in identifying what are actually threatening them.
> Are you really that dense to think that just because a particular case
> doesn't affect you directly it doesn't set a dangerous precident that may?
What is the "dangerous precedent" here? A for-profit computer game
infringed on their intellectual holdings (in an arena where they intended to
product a competing product), and they exercised the priveleges of ownership
to squelch it. No matter how much ganga Ryan D smokes, no judge in the
United States of America cannot be convinced that he owns *your* work. The
two situations are not equivalent, and this certainly isn't a *precedent*.
-Michael
Ken Witherow
> nothing to do with your amateur efforts. Wizards, which is fairly
> autonomus, has made its stance re web published DnD material quite
> clear; so long as you don't try making a buck off it, and you include a
> disclaimer telling folks the stuff on your site aint official DnD
> material, you're cool.
Until the next time they change the license to post your material? Until
they sue a competitor, like Hasbro did, for making something too similar?
> > There are conditions under the license that limit rights I already
> > have. Both the D20 license and the current stance WOTC/Hasbro has taken, I
> > refuse to release work that potentially could make them more profitable
> > and harm me at the same time.
>
> And how would material that you own, that uses nothing Wizards has any
> proprietary interest in, and is published according to a license that
> let's you do so freely make Wizards more profitable and harm you? You
> publish a DnD adventure under the D20STL. It sells, people who buy your
> adventure go and buy the DnD game. You and Wizards make money. A plus
> sum game.
And when WOTC revokes the license? The license doesn't grant much compared
to the rights people already have. It's nothing more than an attempt to
try to catch some of the open source buzz.
> What part of, "They have no interest in pestering you over your amateur
> efforts" is giving you problems? You're not worth it. You're not making
> any money off it, and the costs of suing you would be more than they'd
> get. You're not that important.
I've never claimed to be important. What I have seen is an ignorant Ryan
Dancey going around making false claims about copyright. You don't have a
problem with a VP, who has the power to sue you if he chooses, making
false legal claims about your material? It doesn't matter whether he's
right or wrong. By making his veiled threats, he's making people chose
distributing your own work and risking a legal battle or not publishing
anything. With the legal power he commands at his fingertips, he is in
fact taking away your right to distribute your own work. Sure... I'm an
unimportant little guppy. All they have to do is sue one guppy to make a
point and I'm not willing to take the chance that it'll be me.
> Besides, Wizards doesn't have a monopoly on RPGs, anybody can go, start
> up their own company, and publish their own game. People do it all the
> time. If Wizards was suing folks over publishing RPGs, the mailing lists
> and newsgroups would be full of nothing but discussions about it. I know
> of just one company that sued somebody for designing and having
> published an RPG, and TSR is no longer with us.
But Hasbro, parent of WOTC, has sued people over making similar
games. Regardless of their 'autonomy' from Hasbro, if Hasbro gets itchy or
gets pressure from the religion nuts, they can sue without WOTC's consent.
With Dancey as high up as he is and as clueless as he is wrt copyright, he
too could order a lawsuit against someone.
> Get over yourself, Ken. In the RPG seas you're a guppy, and great white
> sharks don't eat guppies.
Ever notice how tragedies happen to the same people who say "It'll never
happen to me."?
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0004201930490.189-
> > > What the hell are you talking about? Are you really that dense?
> >
> > I'm sorry if I value my rights more than some of you.
>
> <falls on the floor laughing>
> Do you have any idea how much you sound like one of those retarded
> "they're coming to take my guns" nuts right now?
I _AM_ one of those "they're coming to take my guns" nuts. Guns are what
ensures our freedom from an oppressive government. They ensure that I have
a chance to defend myself from those willing to harm me. Would the
Holocaust have happened had the german citizens remained armed?
I'm sorry to see that you, like most Americans these days, are so blinded
by ideology and emotion that you can't see the importance of protecting
all of your rights. All little right here, a little one there. It all adds
up sooner or later.
> In order to be taken seriously about how much you value your rights, you
> must first be *correct* in identifying what are actually threatening them.
I have made it blatently clear. You have shut your eyes so hard in your
defense of WOTC that you can't see it.
>
> > Are you really that dense to think that just because a particular case
> > doesn't affect you directly it doesn't set a dangerous precedent that may?
>
> What is the "dangerous precedent" here? A for-profit computer game
> infringed on their intellectual holdings (in an arena where they intended to
> product a competing product), and they exercised the priveleges of ownership
A game, similar to a game which was originally produced by a now
subsidiary of Hasbro, isn't an infringement just for being similar. The
precedent that Hasbro is trying to establish is that game mechanics, feel,
etc can be copyrighted. There's also question of whether the competiting
products were actually taking sales from Atari. Whether the game was
created for a profit is irrelevant as non-profit/free infringements can
still cause damages. Again, see the case regarding Data East and the game
they made similar to Street Fighter( made by Capcom ). A judge ruled there
was no infringement for having similar game play, feel, characters, etc.
> to squelch it. No matter how much ganga Ryan D smokes, no judge in the
> United States of America cannot be convinced that he owns *your* work. The
> two situations are not equivalent, and this certainly isn't a *precedent*.
...And where do you propose I get the money and time to actually let a
judge decide should Ryan get some good bud? I would be forced to spend
thousands of dollars and a couple years of my life defending my rights or
give them up because I can't afford to fight.
That's the one question that none of you WOTC/Hasbro defenders can
answer. WHAT IF they decide to go after someone? WHAT IF they choose
you? Would you be so quick to defend them? Would you be able to afford to
defend yourself through a trial and appeal(s)?
Michael Scott Brown
> > And Ryan is *wrong*, you paranoid person-creature! Thus, what Ryan
says
> > about what he believes is not terribly relevant, given his poor command
of
> > the nuances involved. Wave your paw at him and say Bah, and encourage
him
> > to learn to communicate better about what he is discussing.
>
> I've tried to get him to clarify his position several times and every one
> of my messages regarding clarification has been ignored or else his pulled
> a clinton and spun the answer off into a completely different direction
> rather than answering the question.
Perhaps because he has no more patience with dealing with a paranoid
psycho than the rest of us?
Even if he hasn't answered directly because he doesn't want to admit his
goober, so what? The scenario that you are constructing is quite simply,
impossible. Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that they're explicitly
encouraging fan material (gee, weren't they going to suppress it, Ken?),
ignoring also that fan material is *good* for them, ignoring further that
"taking" fan material would be the single most stupid thing a game company
has ever done (instant boycott), ignoring further that Hasbro has no
*reason* to "come after" your stuff anyway... just park your laurels on the
fact that, should hasbro suddenly transform into a company run by the
cosmically retarted, US Courts will not recognize any claim they might make
of outright "ownership" of your gaming creations, nor will a claimed right
to stop your web-publishing of fan material be recognized.
You will have *already won* any such lawsuit simply by showing up in
court. Hell, it would most likely be thrown out just on the merits.
Therefore, you have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT even in the most
mind-numbingly absurd scenario possible.
Remember that fairy tale about the critter who thougt the sky was
falling and ran around like a sod yelping about it?
That's you.
> If you read the copyright threads over the past could weeks, Dancey claims
> any reference to any D&D ideas makes the work a derivative entirely owned
> by WOTC even if you don't use setting materials or detailed characters
> like Elminster.
You've got to be intelligent about what the definition of "reference to
D&D ideas" are. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game, so everything of yours
that reflects popular mythological culture is already out of their purvue,
as are _generic_ RP gaming elements. All they can claim as "referring to
D&D" are uses of *their* game mechanics and character/setting/critter stuff.
And in that case, guess what? Your work is *deserving* of the label
'derivative' at that point because it's clearly relying on D&D! Of *course*
you can't publish it thereafter without WOTC's permission.
Dancey's claim of "entirely owned" is either outright wrong or horribly
mis-stated - the only right they have is control of their intellectual
property, which means you have to deal with them before you can publish for
money, but if you *do*, then they get to sue for the proceeds you made off
of *their* work..
Use your head. A generic module for fantasy roleplay - they can't touch
it. But if you want to include an appendix on how to convert the contents to
GURPS mechanics, guess what? YOU HAVE TO TALK TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES.
.oO(I hope I remembered their name right, it'd be horrible to have
shouted wrongly)
> > Two: Ryan is using "becomes the property" in a way which is
misleading.
> > The primary copyright holder has _control_ over any derivative work's
> > publishing future in the sense that he now has "veto power". It can't
be
> > published (for $$, etc.) without his consent - but nor can he take it
from
> > the original author and publish it without *his* consent.
>
> Dancey also claims that if taken to court, a judge would likely rule to
> give one party all the copyright and leave the other with nothing.
Dancey is outright wrong. A judge is only likely to do this in the case
of severe infringement, such as the case he's been using an example. The
trouble here is, he seems to be using this one extreme situation as the
basis for all his decision making and that's just plain bad jurisprudence.
You generally can't establish a trend in case law from one case.
> It amounts to nothing less than a threat to steal your property by WOTC
> despite what we know about how derivative copyright works.
Bullshit.
Given that we *know* how derivative copyrights work, and given that we
*know* that they don't work the way Dancey is claiming they do, then how can
his blabbering be a threat? It's completely empty.
Further, and I'll repeat this until it sticks into your paranoid head -
THEY'RE TRYING TO *ENCOURAGE* WEB-PUBLISHING OF FAN MATERIAL. Given that
this is explictly their goal, how in holy f*ck can you have concluded that
they're threatening to take it all away from you? To postulate this you
have to assume that they're insane, which is insane given that Hasbro, a
successful company, has displayed no evidence of grossly irrational
behaviour..
> > Just think about how things would be if that were the case - you
write a
> > short story for yourself about Luke Skywalker, and Lucasfilm could just
> > swoop down, take it off your hard drive, and publish it as a comic book.
> > This is obviously ludicrous. Yet, this is what you're assuming will be
the
> > case. That's why I think you're being so silly, by the way - the
> > implications of your decision making assumptions are far ranging and
goofy.
>
> But this is exactly what Dancey has stated.
And he's *wrong*, so why should what he has stated matter?
>All the stories told in the
> process of a D&D campaign, any work created to expand RPGs if it relates
> to D&D, all new worlds designed with D&D in mind, virtually EVERYTHING
> which may be associated with D&D in the most minute way is derivative of
> D&D and thus the property of WOTC.
This is also outright incorrect. Games, game systems, aren't
copyrighted - only their specific expression.
> You and I know better BUT I don't have
> $20,000 and a couple years of my life to prove Dancey wrong if he should
> decide to sue me.
Where did you conclude that years and twenty thousand dollars would be
required? Judges know the law. The case will be thrown out instantly. It's
a no brainer.
You also have *YET* to establish a reasonable basis for assuming that
Ryan is coming for you.
Go on, *think*!
Why would he even try this?
> The problem comes in Dancey's sense of derivative work. He believes
> everything which has some tangent to D&D, even if it merely references it
> and doesn't borrow text, settings or principal characters from it, belongs
> to WOTC. He believes even laying out stats or tables in D&D terms makes
> the product a derivative.
Using D&D terms (in a way that is clearly D&D's use of those ideas)
*does* make the product derivative! Referencing. Look it up. It's pretty
damnned relevant to derivative status. The distinction is where references
to "fantasy roleplaying" becomes references to fantasy roleplaying with
*D&D*.
> > If you write a specifically AD&D product involving their game
mechanics,
> > and try to sell it without their aegis, you'll be in for an unprofitable
> > surprise. Such works are considered derivative and Wotc has some
copyright
> > authority over it *along with the author*. This might be construed as
> > 'ownership' but only ... loosely.
>
> Mechanics can't be copyrighted, they're ideas. Only the particular
> expression of mechanics can be (ie, the text describing it).
And once that expression is copyrighted, anyone using those mechanics is
*referring* to that expression. You can no more write a fantasy roleplaying
game that uses the same rules as D&D as I can write a Star Wars story using
the same characters as Lucas did.
> I completely agree it would be a violation to write "The Further
> Adventures of Elminster" (assuming of course it wasn't done under fair use
> exceptions like parody). However, in the case of my work on my setting, I
> use no D&D characters, settings or text. The closest I come to infringing
> on WOTC copyrights is by referencing the generic monsters in the MM in
> the adventures I've written. The monsters are completely useless without
> the MM.
If you
(a) wanted to publish your work for money and
(b) wanted to completely insulate yourself from having to deal with WotC
*at all*
Then you *would* have to excise those specific references to D&D
material - becuase you _are_ relying on their monsters and therefore your
work is obviously derivative! If it is meaningless without *their* work ...
then that's a no brainer. The good thing for you is that many fantasy
monsters in D&D have "real" mythological analogues and thus using those does
not neccessarily connotate a reference to D&D. Strip out the D&D specific
critters and people can use your work in any game system that has stats for
those monsters, right? Bingo, you're no longer derivative.
But if you're unwilling to do that, then you have to talk to Wotc if you
want to *publish this for money*.
Why do you have a problem with this?
It's completely fair.
> I do understand copyrights well. You apparently don't understand modern
> corporate bullying very well. How does an average citizen fight a
> multi-billion dollar corporation over a copyright claim?
By being right on the merits of their case.
<shrug>
If you get sued, I'll have to bill you $1 for that legal advice, you
know.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> A little bit of paranoia is healthy.
Bah.
> But after aquiring Atari, they did begin to immediately sue. Now that
> they've acquired WOTC, will we see the same thing?
No. Perhaps you should consider the motives involved before going
coo-coo?
> Even though we all know Dancey's wrong, it doesn't change the fact that
> he's in a position to order WOTC legal to go after you. I'd rather remove
> my work from my web pages than give Dancey fodder to come after me if he
> or Hasbro chooses.
You would rather *change your gaming life* on the _off chance_ that
Hasbro does something *completely insane*? Do you also put steel blast doors
on the windows of your house in case a crazy comes by?
Try to exercise a modicum of rationality here!
> Why WOTC lets a VP go spouting off about inaccurate
> claims of legality, I have no idea. Why they leave him in his position
> scaring away customers further baffles me. I don't care if the guy is the
> greatest game designer or staff manager who ever lived. If he scares off
> customers, he's not good for the company.
Now *this* is a legitimate question, and it's one you should be putting
more mental effort into rather than your paranoid deliusion that hasbro is
going to sue you.
--Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > nothing to do with your amateur efforts. Wizards, which is fairly
> > autonomus, has made its stance re web published DnD material quite
> > clear; so long as you don't try making a buck off it, and you include a
> > disclaimer telling folks the stuff on your site aint official DnD
> > material, you're cool.
>
> Until the next time they change the license to post your material?
You misunderstand something. YOU HAVE LICENCE TO POST YOUR GAME
MATERIAL BECAUSE YOU WROTE IT. No permission needed. That only crops up
when you want to *publish* for $$, or when you are putting up excerpts of
their work (over which they have control of distribution as well - and if
they decide that no-one may post quotes from their books, then THEY HAVE
THAT RIGHT, for all that it would be ass-stupid to exercise it).
> Until they sue a competitor, like Hasbro did, for making something too
similar?
They have the *right* to sue someone who is infringing on their
intellectual property rights. If they're correct in their perception, then
they'll win, and rightfully so. <shrug> This is not relevant to *YOUR* work.
For someone who is hyper-nazi-bugaboo about *his* rights, you are mighty
convenient about forgetting Hasbro's.
> And when WOTC revokes the license? [ to publish a work with them using d20
system]
They have the right to do so. End of a moneymaking partnership for
*both* parties. So be it.
> By making his veiled threats, he's making people chose
> distributing your own work and risking a legal battle or not publishing
> anything. With the legal power he commands at his fingertips, he is in
> fact taking away your right to distribute your own work.
Unbelievable bullshit. He's taken away *none* or your rights.
The only person infringing on what you do right now is *you*, and it's
because of your PARANOIA.
> Sure... I'm an
> unimportant little guppy. All they have to do is sue one guppy to make a
> point and I'm not willing to take the chance that it'll be me.
Chicken shit.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > <falls on the floor laughing>
> > Do you have any idea how much you sound like one of those retarded
> > "they're coming to take my guns" nuts right now?
>
> I _AM_ one of those "they're coming to take my guns" nuts. Guns are what
> ensures our freedom from an oppressive government. They ensure that I have
> a chance to defend myself from those willing to harm me. Would the
> Holocaust have happened had the german citizens remained armed?
>
> I'm sorry to see that you, like most Americans these days, are so blinded
> by ideology and emotion that you can't see the importance of protecting
> all of your rights. All little right here, a little one there. It all adds
> up sooner or later.
<pats Ken on the head>
This explains so much. Not only do you feel that access to arms is an
important defense against tyranny (possibly true, though a cost-benefit
analysis might come up with another conclusion), but you feel that THEY'RE
COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, KEN!!!
That's the part that makes you ... special.
> > In order to be taken seriously about how much you value your rights,
you
> > must first be *correct* in identifying what are actually threatening
them.
>
> I have made it blatently clear. You have shut your eyes so hard in your
> defense of WOTC that you can't see it.
You have made it blatantly clear that your perceptions are paranoid and
warped.
Lesson time: what *you* think about what people are planning for your
future is highly unlikely to be accurate.
This isn't true for all people, but it's true for you.
> > What is the "dangerous precedent" here? A for-profit computer game
> > infringed on their intellectual holdings (in an arena where they
intended to
> > product a competing product), and they exercised the priveleges of
ownership
>
> A game, similar to a game which was originally produced by a now
> subsidiary of Hasbro, isn't an infringement just for being similar.
Seeing as H won the case, I'm not so sure that you understand the basis
of the suit or the reason for the judgement in favor of H.
> > to squelch it. No matter how much ganga Ryan D smokes, no judge in the
> > United States of America cannot be convinced that he owns *your* work.
The
> > two situations are not equivalent, and this certainly isn't a
*precedent*.
>
> ...And where do you propose I get the money and time to actually let a
> judge decide should Ryan get some good bud? I would be forced to spend
> thousands of dollars and a couple years of my life defending my rights or
> give them up because I can't afford to fight.
Bullshit. Show up. Case thrown out.
> That's the one question that none of you WOTC/Hasbro defenders can
> answer. WHAT IF they decide to go after someone? WHAT IF they choose
> you? Would you be so quick to defend them? Would you be able to afford to
> defend yourself through a trial and appeal(s)?
See above. What does it cost to drive to the courthouse?
-Michael
Ken Witherow
> <pats Ken on the head>
> This explains so much. Not only do you feel that access to arms is an
> important defense against tyranny (possibly true, though a cost-benefit
> analysis might come up with another conclusion), but you feel that THEY'RE
> COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, KEN!!!
> That's the part that makes you ... special.
Didn't Hitler start with gun registration... followed by confiscation?
> > > In order to be taken seriously about how much you value your rights,
> you
> > > must first be *correct* in identifying what are actually threatening
> them.
> >
> > I have made it blatently clear. You have shut your eyes so hard in your
> > defense of WOTC that you can't see it.
>
> You have made it blatantly clear that your perceptions are paranoid and
> warped.
> Lesson time: what *you* think about what people are planning for your
> future is highly unlikely to be accurate.
> This isn't true for all people, but it's true for you.
You figure as long as nothing seems to affect you personally, it must be
ok.
>
> > > What is the "dangerous precedent" here? A for-profit computer game
> > > infringed on their intellectual holdings (in an arena where they
> intended to
> > > product a competing product), and they exercised the priveleges of
> ownership
> >
> > A game, similar to a game which was originally produced by a now
> > subsidiary of Hasbro, isn't an infringement just for being similar.
>
> Seeing as H won the case, I'm not so sure that you understand the basis
> of the suit or the reason for the judgement in favor of H.
Did you actually read the case referenced or are you blindly rushing to
support Hasbro? The case was SETTLED with 2 defendents and the other 6 or
so are continuing with it. There hasn't been a ruling. Only rulings can
set legal precedent.
> > > to squelch it. No matter how much ganga Ryan D smokes, no judge in the
> > > United States of America cannot be convinced that he owns *your* work.
> The
> > > two situations are not equivalent, and this certainly isn't a
> *precedent*.
> >
> > ...And where do you propose I get the money and time to actually let a
> > judge decide should Ryan get some good bud? I would be forced to spend
> > thousands of dollars and a couple years of my life defending my rights or
> > give them up because I can't afford to fight.
>
> Bullshit. Show up. Case thrown out.
>
> > That's the one question that none of you WOTC/Hasbro defenders can
> > answer. WHAT IF they decide to go after someone? WHAT IF they choose
> > you? Would you be so quick to defend them? Would you be able to afford to
> > defend yourself through a trial and appeal(s)?
>
> See above. What does it cost to drive to the courthouse?
I'm glad to see you take your liberty so lightly. Do you know how to block
WOTC's motions without a lawyer if the court accepts the case? Do you know
enough case law to show precedent for your arguement? Do you have enough
time to argue in a court all day for weeks( or maybe months ) on
end? Wouldn't you rather trust your defense to a lawyer? What if you're an
average joe and have to work so you don't have the time and don't have the
money to hire a lawyer to argue on your behalf? You'd end up rolling over
and giving WOTC exactly what they wanted, for free, without them having to
bone up money for court.
Ken Witherow
> > he's in a position to order WOTC legal to go after you. I'd rather remove
> > my work from my web pages than give Dancey fodder to come after me if he
> > or Hasbro chooses.
>
> You would rather *change your gaming life* on the _off chance_ that
> Hasbro does something *completely insane*? Do you also put steel blast doors
> on the windows of your house in case a crazy comes by?
> Try to exercise a modicum of rationality here!
I would rather take a minor precaution to protect myself than to take a
chance of giving up my rights. To that effect, I'm currently looking at
different gaming systems to convert my campaign to. Someone who
appreciates me as a customer rather than seeing me as infringing on their
holier-than-thou work.
> > Why WOTC lets a VP go spouting off about inaccurate
> > claims of legality, I have no idea. Why they leave him in his position
> > scaring away customers further baffles me. I don't care if the guy is the
> > greatest game designer or staff manager who ever lived. If he scares off
> > customers, he's not good for the company.
>
> Now *this* is a legitimate question, and it's one you should be putting
> more mental effort into rather than your paranoid deliusion that hasbro is
> going to sue you.
For the last time... I don't believe they _ARE_ going to sue me. I do
believe they _MAY_ based on Dancey's claims. If you don't look to the
future, you can't protect yourself from being blindsided at the last
minute.
Ken Witherow
> > If you read the copyright threads over the past could weeks, Dancey claims
> > any reference to any D&D ideas makes the work a derivative entirely owned
> > by WOTC even if you don't use setting materials or detailed characters
> > like Elminster.
>
> You've got to be intelligent about what the definition of "reference to
> D&D ideas" are. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game, so everything of yours
> that reflects popular mythological culture is already out of their purvue,
> as are _generic_ RP gaming elements. All they can claim as "referring to
> D&D" are uses of *their* game mechanics and character/setting/critter stuff.
Game mechanics are rules and cannot be copyrighted. Peter showed the
relevant case law for this last week.
> Use your head. A generic module for fantasy roleplay - they can't touch
> it. But if you want to include an appendix on how to convert the contents to
> GURPS mechanics, guess what? YOU HAVE TO TALK TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES.
My work goes far beyond a mere module or adventure. It's an entirely knew
setting. It is fairly generic except in the statistics of characters,
which are described in the same format D&D uses. I believe Peter also
presented case law which says that formats can't be copyrighted.
> > But this is exactly what Dancey has stated.
>
> And he's *wrong*, so why should what he has stated matter?
>
> >All the stories told in the
> > process of a D&D campaign, any work created to expand RPGs if it relates
> > to D&D, all new worlds designed with D&D in mind, virtually EVERYTHING
> > which may be associated with D&D in the most minute way is derivative of
> > D&D and thus the property of WOTC.
>
> This is also outright incorrect. Games, game systems, aren't
> copyrighted - only their specific expression.
Exactly. You know that. I know that. Dancey doesn't.
The difference? You and I aren't in a position to bring a case argued by a
contingent of corporate lawyers against someone due to our own ignorance.
> > You and I know better BUT I don't have
> > $20,000 and a couple years of my life to prove Dancey wrong if he should
> > decide to sue me.
>
> Where did you conclude that years and twenty thousand dollars would be
> required? Judges know the law. The case will be thrown out instantly. It's
> a no brainer.
The latest Hasbro case hasn't been thrown out yet. Seeing as my Dad's
attorney bills $350 an hour, $20k is simple to hit in a dragged out
lawsuit.
> You also have *YET* to establish a reasonable basis for assuming that
> Ryan is coming for you.
> Go on, *think*!
> Why would he even try this?
You assume I think he is. Rather, I said he _MIGHT_. There's a big
difference.
> > Mechanics can't be copyrighted, they're ideas. Only the particular
> > expression of mechanics can be (ie, the text describing it).
>
> And once that expression is copyrighted, anyone using those mechanics is
> *referring* to that expression. You can no more write a fantasy roleplaying
> game that uses the same rules as D&D as I can write a Star Wars story using
> the same characters as Lucas did.
So... everyone who uses a die to determine whether or not someone got hit
his derivative of D&D. Wouldn't that be a process? Aren't processes only
covered under patent law? The textual/graphic description of the mechanics
D&D operates on is the only thing that's copyrighted. You're contradicting
yourself from earlier when you said "Games, game systems, aren't
copyrighted - only their specific expression is".
> Then you *would* have to excise those specific references to D&D
> material - becuase you _are_ relying on their monsters and therefore your
> work is obviously derivative! If it is meaningless without *their* work ...
> then that's a no brainer. The good thing for you is that many fantasy
However, referencing doesn't constitute infringement. If I were to copy
descriptive text from their works, I would be infringing. If referencing
_IS_ infringement, boy are they in deep shit over Oriental
Adventures. Have you seen how many works are in the bibliography?
> <shrug>
> If you get sued, I'll have to bill you $1 for that legal advice, you
> know.
So... Are you a lawyer and if so, which jurisdiction are you licensed
in? Of course, if you are a lawyer, you know that selling legal advice
while not being authorized is a BIG no-no with pretty serious
reprocussions, right?
Alan Kellogg
brada...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:56:03 -0700, Alan Kellogg
> <mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.LNX.4.21.00042...@krw.penguinpowered.com>, Ken
> >Witherow <phan...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >> And if someday I decide to write a story about the adventures my party
> >> had
> >> (in my own original world), since Dancey says he owns the copyright on
> >> my
> >> material and Hasbro has shown that they're willing to sue startups, I
> >> feel
> >> completely uncomfortable putting my works on my page. Copyright
> >> protects a
> >> particular expression and it's long been held in programming that as
> >> long
> >> as the source is different and produces the same results, there's no
> >> infringement.
> >
> >Kumquats and oil shale, lad. What Hasbro did to some companies has
> >nothing to do with your amateur efforts. Wizards, which is fairly
> >autonomus, has made its stance re web published DnD material quite
> >clear; so long as you don't try making a buck off it, and you include a
> >disclaimer telling folks the stuff on your site aint official DnD
> >material, you're cool.
>
> I was looking at your netbook page, Alan, and in your disclaimer you
> say the following: "The material on this site is for private,
> personal use only. It is not to be used for commercial gain of any
> sort. You are welcome to use this material, but you may not claim it
> as your own." Ryan Dancey has said here and on Greytalk that WotC
> owns all fan-created material based on WotC's intellectual property.
> Unless Dancey backs off from his position, he thinks WotC owns your
> netbook. :-)
Don't mean Ryan's got it right.
> I don't think that WotC is going to start suing or harassing web site
> owners tomorrow or even that WotC employees or freelancers are
> appropriating material from fan sites. Nonetheless, I think WotC
> should revise its online policy to "legitimize" derivative works that
> are in compliance with the policy. If they can't do that, then they
> should change the online policy to state outright that it is not a
> license and that, although they have no intention to prosecute anyone
> who complies with the online policy, they view any derivative works
> based on their products to be infringements. Under the current
> wording of the online policy, it *sounds* like they're granting a
> limited license to create derivative works, and it's unfair to mislead
> people this way.
Thus the OGF, OGL, and the D20STL. Make everything open and aboveboard.
Dominion Games is trying the idea out. Abide by the D20STL and you can
produce all the DnD material you want, as long as it is original.
BTW, that netbook is going to be replaced by a more "traditional" web
site, and a "book" in PDF.
> <snip>
>
> >What part of, "They have no interest in pestering you over your amateur
> >efforts" is giving you problems? You're not worth it. You're not making
> >any money off it, and the costs of suing you would be more than they'd
> >get. You're not that important.
>
> Here's what I think is more likely to happen. One day, an article in
> Dragon (or a module, a source book, etc.) will contain material that
> is *too* similar to something that is already out on a web site
> somewhere. The similarity might be a coincidence, or it could be one
> of those cases where the article's author accidentally appropriated
> something he read on a web site. The third possibility is that the
> material was deliberately copied. The author of the material on the
> web site is justifiably upset, but what can he do? The article has
> already been printed in Dragon, and as a result, WotC has already
> asserted ownership of it. Not only has he lost control of his
> creation, but now he also has to remove the item from his web site in
> order to avoid violating the part of the online policy that says you
> can't reprint large sections of WotC's text on your web page. The
> author would probably have to sue WotC in order to re-establish his
> ownership of the material, and he'd have to ask himself if he's
> willing to spend the amount of money and time it'd take to do that,
> just to protect ownership of some material he posted for free on the
> Internet.
Or it could be a case of great minds thinking alike. If the plagairism
is blatant, the original author can sue. But ideas are free, what
matters is how they are expressed. I can't claim The Window as my work,
but I can take the core premise behind it and make it my own.
> Because WotC's online policy is vague about the legal status of fan
> material, defending against theft is a much more daunting prospect for
> individual authors. Additionally, Dancey's statements claiming
> ownership of all WotC-related fan material on the Internet make it
> more likely that thefts will occur. Upon hearing that WotC already
> owns all of this material, a person who is working on an article to
> submit to Dragon might feel that it is perfectly ok to use material
> from fan sites in the same way that he uses official source books. A
> well-intentioned person could possibly make this mistake if he had not
> read the discussions here or on Greytalk.
Never take legal advice from Uncle Louie or Usenet. Ryan aint a lawyer
and others have disagreed with him about fan material. Besides, Wizards
has put up a liberal use policy on their site, one vetted by their pet
shysters. It comes down to honor, but lots of folks have decided to take
Wizards at their word. Compare the number of Star Trek sites with the
number of DnD sites sometime.
> <snip>
>
> >Get over yourself, Ken. In the RPG seas you're a guppy, and great white
> >sharks don't eat guppies.
>
> Actually, I think that large predators destroy smaller creatures all
> the time without even being aware of doing so. Some people in these
> discussions may feel they are in danger of being pursued and devoured
> by WotC, but I think what's really happening here is that the great
> white shark (or the 800 lb. gorilla, or whatever) doesn't care enough
> to notice the damage it causes.
You missed the point, Wizards aint going to go out of their way to
swallow up poor old Ken. Wouldn't be worth their time. let's face it,
unless it has no meaningful competition, no company will long survive
that treats potential customers like trash. Wizards of the Coast is in
no position to alienate people, and trashing DnD sites would do just
that.
These days DnD is in the hands of gamers. One of them being one Ryan S.
Dancey, who sometimes takes his job a tad too seriously. And changes are
coming which will make publishing DnD material a much easier thing to
do, even if you don't work for WotC.
Wariness carried to an extreme leads to a very lonely life.
Alan
Alan Kellogg
brada...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:44:27 -0400, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >In court cases, violation of software copyright infringement has come
> >from
> >stealing source code. I've never seen a successful case where someone
> >sued
> >another company for making a game that looked and felt too much like
> >theirs( the Data East case seems relevant here. They were sued for
> >making
> >a game too similar to Street Fighter and won on the basis that you can't
> >copyright game ideas ).
>
> Right. Lotus sued Borland over the "look and feel" of Quattro Pro,
> which was very similar to Lotus 1-2-3. Initially, the courts ruled in
> favor of Lotus, but it was overturned on appeal. If you sue someone
> over their software product having a similar "look and feel" to yours,
> you're probably on fairly shaky ground. I was pretty amused that
> Hasbro would sue over some of these old, old titles -- for which
> dozens of clones have existed in the shareware marketplace for years.
But, are the cases equivalent? Are the games Hasbro sued over equivalent
to the "clones" you know of? I have no idea, so I can make no meaningful
observation regarding the subject.
One day of research can save you weeks of mea culpas.
Alan
Lynne Simpson
I don't think that WotC is going to start suing or harassing web site
owners tomorrow or even that WotC employees or freelancers are
appropriating material from fan sites. Nonetheless, I think WotC
should revise its online policy to "legitimize" derivative works that
are in compliance with the policy. If they can't do that, then they
should change the online policy to state outright that it is not a
license and that, although they have no intention to prosecute anyone
who complies with the online policy, they view any derivative works
based on their products to be infringements. Under the current
wording of the online policy, it *sounds* like they're granting a
limited license to create derivative works, and it's unfair to mislead
people this way.
<snip>
>What part of, "They have no interest in pestering you over your amateur
>efforts" is giving you problems? You're not worth it. You're not making
>any money off it, and the costs of suing you would be more than they'd
>get. You're not that important.
Here's what I think is more likely to happen. One day, an article in
Dragon (or a module, a source book, etc.) will contain material that
is *too* similar to something that is already out on a web site
somewhere. The similarity might be a coincidence, or it could be one
of those cases where the article's author accidentally appropriated
something he read on a web site. The third possibility is that the
material was deliberately copied. The author of the material on the
web site is justifiably upset, but what can he do? The article has
already been printed in Dragon, and as a result, WotC has already
asserted ownership of it. Not only has he lost control of his
creation, but now he also has to remove the item from his web site in
order to avoid violating the part of the online policy that says you
can't reprint large sections of WotC's text on your web page. The
author would probably have to sue WotC in order to re-establish his
ownership of the material, and he'd have to ask himself if he's
willing to spend the amount of money and time it'd take to do that,
just to protect ownership of some material he posted for free on the
Internet.
Because WotC's online policy is vague about the legal status of fan
material, defending against theft is a much more daunting prospect for
individual authors. Additionally, Dancey's statements claiming
ownership of all WotC-related fan material on the Internet make it
more likely that thefts will occur. Upon hearing that WotC already
owns all of this material, a person who is working on an article to
submit to Dragon might feel that it is perfectly ok to use material
from fan sites in the same way that he uses official source books. A
well-intentioned person could possibly make this mistake if he had not
read the discussions here or on Greytalk.
<snip>
>Get over yourself, Ken. In the RPG seas you're a guppy, and great white
>sharks don't eat guppies.
Actually, I think that large predators destroy smaller creatures all
the time without even being aware of doing so. Some people in these
discussions may feel they are in danger of being pursued and devoured
by WotC, but I think what's really happening here is that the great
white shark (or the 800 lb. gorilla, or whatever) doesn't care enough
to notice the damage it causes.
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0004202151580.189-
> > > nothing to do with your amateur efforts. Wizards, which is fairly
> > > autonomus, has made its stance re web published DnD material quite
> > > clear; so long as you don't try making a buck off it, and you include a
> > > disclaimer telling folks the stuff on your site aint official DnD
> > > material, you're cool.
> >
> > Until the next time they change the license to post your material?
>
> You misunderstand something. YOU HAVE LICENCE TO POST YOUR GAME
> MATERIAL BECAUSE YOU WROTE IT. No permission needed. That only crops up
> when you want to *publish* for $$, or when you are putting up excerpts of
> their work (over which they have control of distribution as well - and if
> they decide that no-one may post quotes from their books, then THEY HAVE
> THAT RIGHT, for all that it would be ass-stupid to exercise it).
Yes. I have a license to post my material because I wrote it, thus own
copyright. I can publish it for money if I want, because I wrote it and it
isn't derivative of WOTC's material. However, Dancey claims that the
slightest hint of D&D's mechanics makes it derivative. Copyright doesn't
apply to mechanics. Period. However, because of his claims, I'm a hostage
to my own work.
> > Until they sue a competitor, like Hasbro did, for making something too
> similar?
>
> They have the *right* to sue someone who is infringing on their
> intellectual property rights. If they're correct in their perception, then
> they'll win, and rightfully so. <shrug> This is not relevant to *YOUR* work.
And who has the money to battle Hasbro if they decide to sue you?
> For someone who is hyper-nazi-bugaboo about *his* rights, you are mighty
> convenient about forgetting Hasbro's.
I'm not forgetting Hasbro's in the least. They have a right to the
SPECIFIC EXPRESSION set forth in their published (and
unpublished) materials.
>
> > And when WOTC revokes the license? [ to publish a work with them using d20
> system]
>
> They have the right to do so. End of a moneymaking partnership for
> *both* parties. So be it.
In which case, by licensing it under the D20 license, I have declared my
work to be derivative of D&D and thus the property of WOTC. I refuse to do
that. Of course, it all depends on the final wording of the license.
>
> > By making his veiled threats, he's making people chose
> > distributing your own work and risking a legal battle or not publishing
> > anything. With the legal power he commands at his fingertips, he is in
> > fact taking away your right to distribute your own work.
>
> Unbelievable bullshit. He's taken away *none* or your rights.
> The only person infringing on what you do right now is *you*, and it's
> because of your PARANOIA.
By scaring me into not publishing my works by a veiled threat of lawsuit
for ownership which he could file, he has indeed rendered my rights
virtually non-existant. Do I publish and possibly face a lawsuit or do I
keep the material to myself to avoid it? So much for my right to
distribute my copyrighted material as I see fit.
>
> > Sure... I'm an
> > unimportant little guppy. All they have to do is sue one guppy to make a
> > point and I'm not willing to take the chance that it'll be me.
>
> Chicken shit.
Ooooh... More name calling. You defenders of Hasbro/WOTC/Dancey are so
mature. How can I argue with someone so mature to call people names for
disagreeing? You obviously have so much more wisdom by virtue of your
actions I must be wrong.
Michael Scott Brown
> > You would rather *change your gaming life* on the _off chance_ that
> > Hasbro does something *completely insane*? Do you also put steel blast
doors
> > on the windows of your house in case a crazy comes by?
> > Try to exercise a modicum of rationality here!
>
> I would rather take a minor precaution to protect myself than to take a
> chance of giving up my rights.
Oh, pfiffle. What "chance of giving up your rights" is there, here?
Ironically, the only person giving up any rights is *you*. Because of your
irrational fear, you're going to can your participation in an entire hobby.
What a *brilliant* defense of your intellectual property.
Bah.
Did you move to safe and isolated farm in Montana, too?
>To that effect, I'm currently looking at
> different gaming systems to convert my campaign to. Someone who
> appreciates me as a customer rather than seeing me as infringing on their
> holier-than-thou work.
Nowhere has anything Wotc described about their web policies been other
than supportive of fan creations. For all that Dancey got wrong, he
*never* has taken the position that WotC is hostile to such things, he is
simply explaining, very poorly, that Wotc intends to maintain rightful
control over publish-for-profit efforts that are directly based on the game.
> > Now *this* is a legitimate question, and it's one you should be
putting
> > more mental effort into rather than your paranoid deliusion that hasbro
is
> > going to sue you.
>
> For the last time... I don't believe they _ARE_ going to sue me. I do
> believe they _MAY_ based on Dancey's claims.
Why do you believe this? What about Dancey's claims supports the
conclusion that it would _EVER_ be in Hasbro's interests to sue *you*
becasue of work you are *NOT PUBLISHING FOR MONEY*???
> If you don't look to the future, you can't protect yourself from being
blindsided at the last minute.
A suggestion to you: if you are so, incredibly worried that this might
happen, a *sensible* response would be to review the basic rules on
derivative copyrights ( use the web! ) so as to be sure that should the
earth start turning backwards and Hasbro comes for your fan fiction (in some
strange attempt to, what, take it from your hard drives?) you can be
confident that any judge who knows the relevant law will not honor their
suit. Problem solved. Thumb your nose at Dancey, get on with your life.
You are martyring yourself out of sheer idiocy.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, KEN!!!
> > That's the part that makes you ... special.
>
> Didn't Hitler start with gun registration... followed by confiscation?
No idea. You do realize, however, that you don't live in a remotely
similar environment, don't you? Oh, wait ... I already know the answer. The
Government is indistinguishable from the gestapo for you, isn't it? New
World Order is a catch phrase you lose sleep over? You've seen the Black
Helicopters ...and you know they've been photographing your house.
> > Lesson time: what *you* think about what people are planning for
your
> > future is highly unlikely to be accurate.
> > This isn't true for all people, but it's true for you.
>
> You figure as long as nothing seems to affect you personally, it must be
ok.
Logic is apparently not your hobby, either. The point here is that your
conclusion about what "might happen" is not a reasonable one, given the
motives of the actors involved and their actual legal priveleges. There's
nothing but paranoia in your thinking, and therefore you are a blight on the
gaming community. I'm your last chance at salvation, buddy. The voice of
reason, knocking on your monitor.
> > See above. What does it cost to drive to the courthouse?
> I'm glad to see you take your liberty so lightly.
There you go again with this "threat to liberty" stuff. Sheesh, you gun
nuts are just as bad as christian evangelists. Zealous sound bites are
inserted in place of thinking. I value my liberty just fine - but I *do*
take this threat lightly. No chance of it happening in the first place,
100% effective defense already provided by the existing basics of copyright
law.
You haven't even figured out what Hasbro could sue you for!
Go on.
Hazard a guess.
You have game world stuff on your website, no excerpts from the D&D
rulebooks, and it's public domain ... *what* is Hasbro going to bring
against you?
> Do you know how to block
> WOTC's motions without a lawyer if the court accepts the case? Do you
know
> enough case law to show precedent for your arguement? Do you have enough
> time to argue in a court all day for weeks( or maybe months ) on end?
The defense's case is about a sentence long. <yawn>
The judge knows the case law, this one is open and shut.
Nothing to worry about.
>Wouldn't you rather trust your defense to a lawyer? What if you're an
> average joe and have to work so you don't have the time and don't have the
> money to hire a lawyer to argue on your behalf? You'd end up rolling over
> and giving WOTC exactly what they wanted, for free, without them having to
> bone up money for court.
All that yammer about your rights and your guns, and yet you don't have
the mental fortitude to memorize a basic point of copyright law and pledge
to defend your intellectual property from all comers?
Now I think I understand why you feel so strongly about needing a gun.
Substitute spine.
-Michael
Ken Witherow
> > > Lesson time: what *you* think about what people are planning for
> your
> > > future is highly unlikely to be accurate.
> > > This isn't true for all people, but it's true for you.
> >
> > You figure as long as nothing seems to affect you personally, it must be
> ok.
>
> Logic is apparently not your hobby, either. The point here is that your
> conclusion about what "might happen" is not a reasonable one, given the
> motives of the actors involved and their actual legal priveleges. There's
> nothing but paranoia in your thinking, and therefore you are a blight on the
> gaming community. I'm your last chance at salvation, buddy. The voice of
> reason, knocking on your monitor.
We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people like
Ryan Dancey and his defenders like you. There's nothing preventing them
from bringing a lawsuit, baseless as it may be, against any of us.
> > > See above. What does it cost to drive to the courthouse?
> > I'm glad to see you take your liberty so lightly.
>
> There you go again with this "threat to liberty" stuff. Sheesh, you gun
> nuts are just as bad as christian evangelists. Zealous sound bites are
> inserted in place of thinking. I value my liberty just fine - but I *do*
> take this threat lightly. No chance of it happening in the first place,
Remember, everyone ALWAYS says "I thought it never would happen to
me."
> 100% effective defense already provided by the existing basics of copyright
> law.
> You haven't even figured out what Hasbro could sue you for!
Dancey's ignorant claims. Right or wrong, he can bring a case on whim.
> Go on.
> Hazard a guess.
> You have game world stuff on your website, no excerpts from the D&D
> rulebooks, and it's public domain ... *what* is Hasbro going to bring
> against you?
It's not public domain. For the 100th time, why don't you read what I've
said. It's copyright me. Have you not paid attention to a word of what
Dancey's said? Have we also not witnessed a case of Hasbro using Dancey's
same logic here?
> > Do you know how to block
> > WOTC's motions without a lawyer if the court accepts the case? Do you
> know
> > enough case law to show precedent for your arguement? Do you have enough
> > time to argue in a court all day for weeks( or maybe months ) on end?
>
> The defense's case is about a sentence long. <yawn>
> The judge knows the case law, this one is open and shut.
> Nothing to worry about.
And why has the case Hasbro brought in the name of Atari lasted so
long? Details, details... but you don't care about them do you.
> >Wouldn't you rather trust your defense to a lawyer? What if you're an
> > average joe and have to work so you don't have the time and don't have the
> > money to hire a lawyer to argue on your behalf? You'd end up rolling over
> > and giving WOTC exactly what they wanted, for free, without them having to
> > bone up money for court.
>
> All that yammer about your rights and your guns, and yet you don't have
> the mental fortitude to memorize a basic point of copyright law and pledge
> to defend your intellectual property from all comers?
And like I said, what if the judge lets the case continue like they have
with this one?
> Now I think I understand why you feel so strongly about needing a gun.
> Substitute spine.
You know, I've had enough of your attacks on my character. Disagree with
what I'm saying if you're so stubborn as to not open your eyes but it's
downright childish to attack me. Grow the fuck up. <plonk>
Ken Witherow
> >To that effect, I'm currently looking at
> > different gaming systems to convert my campaign to. Someone who
> > appreciates me as a customer rather than seeing me as infringing on their
> > holier-than-thou work.
>
> Nowhere has anything Wotc described about their web policies been other
> than supportive of fan creations. For all that Dancey got wrong, he
> *never* has taken the position that WotC is hostile to such things, he is
> simply explaining, very poorly, that Wotc intends to maintain rightful
> control over publish-for-profit efforts that are directly based on the game.
But his masters higher up on the Hasbro ladder HAVE gotten it wrong. I'm
sorry you're too ignorant to see that.
> A suggestion to you: if you are so, incredibly worried that this might
> happen, a *sensible* response would be to review the basic rules on
> derivative copyrights ( use the web! ) so as to be sure that should the
> earth start turning backwards and Hasbro comes for your fan fiction (in some
> strange attempt to, what, take it from your hard drives?) you can be
> confident that any judge who knows the relevant law will not honor their
> suit. Problem solved. Thumb your nose at Dancey, get on with your life.
You don't seem to understand the fact that Dancey, WOTC and Hasbro can
still attempt to sue someone whether their work is legitimately derivative
or not. I'm not at all confident in most judges based on how poorly they
handle cases related to things like technology. The fact that Hasbro has
the ongoing copyright infringement cases affirms that. Someday, you're
gonna get bitten in the ass. Don't be so confident in the integrity of
others out there, especially if you get in the way of a corporation making
a buck.
Michael Scott Brown
> copyright. I can publish it for money if I want, because I wrote it and it
> isn't derivative of WOTC's material. However, Dancey claims that the
> slightest hint of D&D's mechanics makes it derivative. Copyright doesn't
> apply to mechanics. Period. However, because of his claims, I'm a hostage
> to my own work.
On _this_, Dancey is correct. Your claim that copyright "doesn't apply
to mechanics" overlooks an important nuance. Yes, copyright doesn't apply
to the *idea* of a particular game mechanic. TSR can't copyright the idea
of an RPG statistic called "Strength"; it is on _this_ basis that mechanics
aren't copyrightable, "period".
But if you refer to someone else's game mechanics in your work, then you
are now referencing that "specific expression" and this makes it derivative.
The analogy with fiction would be between "kinds" of characters (French
swordsmen)- which cannot be copyrighted - and specific characters (Cyrano de
Bergerac), which certainly are. Use D&D Strength rules (ie; same range,
capabilities, mechanical bonuses), and you're using part of D&D and it's
owners will rightfully have a say in how it is to be published.
This is simple stuff.
And it involves basic respect for the rights of *D&D*'s creators.
How is it that you overlook theirs while so loudly asserting your own?
You are displaying classic gun-nut thinking, you know- always yapping
about *your* rights and about the threats you see to *you* but never
thinking for a moment about how what you want might be a threat to someone
*else* ...
> > They have the *right* to sue someone who is infringing on their
> > intellectual property rights. If they're correct in their perception,
then
> > they'll win, and rightfully so. <shrug> This is not relevant to *YOUR*
work.
>
> And who has the money to battle Hasbro if they decide to sue you?
None is needed. How much gas is the drive to the courthouse?
> > > And when WOTC revokes the license?
> > They have the right to do so. End of a moneymaking partnership for
> > *both* parties. So be it.
>
> In which case, by licensing it under the D20 license, I have declared my
> work to be derivative of D&D and thus the property of WOTC. I refuse to do
> that. Of course, it all depends on the final wording of the license.
Your work, if it is based on D&D mechanics, is *already* derviative and
you can't publish it without their consent anyway - D20 licensing is just a
formalization of that stage (among other things). If your work wasn't
derivative, then you didn't need their consent - you'd only involve yourself
with D20 because you *wanted* to join the club for bigger marketing
possibilities, in which case the joint copyright situation is fair trade.
In either case, I repeat: if they decide not to participate in the
venture anymore, *that's their privelege*. What's the big deal? What *if*
they revoke their license? BFD.
You can go back to
(a) public domain publishing on the web
(b) writing mechanics-generic products
(c) collecting royalties on what you have sold together.
I find your paranoia on this extra amusing given that Hasbro is offering
a system *clearly* designed to expand the boundaries of fan created material
and you see this as a "cleverly disguised attempt to mystically and
illegally steal your personal writings."
> > Unbelievable bullshit. He's taken away *none* or your rights.
> > The only person infringing on what you do right now is *you*
>
> By scaring me into not publishing my works by a veiled threat of lawsuit
> for ownership which he could file, he has indeed rendered my rights
> virtually non-existant. Do I publish and possibly face a lawsuit or do I
> keep the material to myself to avoid it? So much for my right to
> distribute my copyrighted material as I see fit.
<ROTFL>
Your rights haven't changed one bit in that situation. In fact, if there
_was_ such a threat, you would be within your rights to bring about a suit
yourself on the subject of unfair business practices. Your rights just
*grew*, chickadee.
Further, there HAS BEEN NO THREAT. You made that up completely yourself
based on a horrid lack of common sense.
All I see here is complete cowardice.
> > Chicken shit.
>
> Ooooh... More name calling. You defenders of Hasbro/WOTC/Dancey are so
> mature. How can I argue with someone so mature to call people names for
> disagreeing?
I call you names because your reasons for disagreeing are *stupid*.
Kooks get mocked.
I suggest you get used to it, Waco boy.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
other
> > than supportive of fan creations. For all that Dancey got wrong, he
> > *never* has taken the position that WotC is hostile to such things, he
is
> > simply explaining, very poorly, that Wotc intends to maintain rightful
> > control over publish-for-profit efforts that are directly based on the
game.
>
> But his masters higher up on the Hasbro ladder HAVE gotten it wrong. I'm
> sorry you're too ignorant to see that.
Sigh. Someone here is ignorant, that much I'll grant.
> > confident that any judge who knows the relevant law will not honor their
> > suit. Problem solved. Thumb your nose at Dancey, get on with your
life.
>
> You don't seem to understand the fact that Dancey, WOTC and Hasbro can
> still attempt to sue someone whether their work is legitimately derivative
> or not.
So the hell WHAT!!! *Anyone* can "attempt to sue". But that suit
won't hold water once the facts are checked. Open. Shut. This is a non
issue, you paranoid buffoon. It's against their interests and it isn't
possible for the to succeed anyway. What on earth prevents you from grasping
this?
> I'm not at all confident in most judges based on how poorly they
> handle cases related to things like technology.
High technology is not copyright law. It hasn't been around long enough
to have all the kinks worked out. The rules for ownership of the written
word are well established, and patently obvious in this case.
> The fact that Hasbro has
> the ongoing copyright infringement cases affirms that.
Affirms *what*? It's a completely different situation.
> Someday, you're
> gonna get bitten in the ass. Don't be so confident in the integrity of
> others out there, especially if you get in the way of a corporation making
> a buck.
The corporation is not going to bribe the judge, you sod.
All I can gather from this is that you keep getting bitten on the ass
because your head's stuffed up there.
-Michael
JD Lail
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0004202331420.189-
>> > COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, KEN!!!
>> > That's the part that makes you ... special.
>> Didn't Hitler start with gun registration... followed by confiscation?
> No idea. You do realize, however, that you don't live in a remotely
>similar environment, don't you? Oh, wait ... I already know the answer. The
>Government is indistinguishable from the gestapo for you, isn't it? New
>World Order is a catch phrase you lose sleep over? You've seen the Black
>Helicopters ...and you know they've been photographing your house.
Mikey you went too far. I don't agree with much of what Ken is saying
but his position on gun control does not deserve such vitriol aa you
are providing.
> Logic is apparently not your hobby, either. The point here is that your
>conclusion about what "might happen" is not a reasonable one, given the
>motives of the actors involved and their actual legal priveleges. There's
>nothing but paranoia in your thinking, and therefore you are a blight on the
>gaming community. I'm your last chance at salvation, buddy. The voice of
>reason, knocking on your monitor.
>> > See above. What does it cost to drive to the courthouse?
>> I'm glad to see you take your liberty so lightly.
> There you go again with this "threat to liberty" stuff. Sheesh, you gun
>nuts are just as bad as christian evangelists. Zealous sound bites are
>inserted in place of thinking. I value my liberty just fine - but I *do*
>take this threat lightly. No chance of it happening in the first place,
>100% effective defense already provided by the existing basics of copyright
>law.
> You haven't even figured out what Hasbro could sue you for!
> Go on.
> Hazard a guess.
> You have game world stuff on your website, no excerpts from the D&D
>rulebooks, and it's public domain ... *what* is Hasbro going to bring
>against you?
>> Do you know how to block
>> WOTC's motions without a lawyer if the court accepts the case? Do you
>know
>> enough case law to show precedent for your arguement? Do you have enough
>> time to argue in a court all day for weeks( or maybe months ) on end?
> The defense's case is about a sentence long. <yawn>
> The judge knows the case law, this one is open and shut.
> Nothing to worry about.
Mike you seem to think that a case like this is going to be dismissed
by the Judge on day one. Sorry but Ken is right. WotC is going to be
allowed to present evidence at very least. That means you have
to get a lawyer. You can make a motion to dismiss after WotC
has rested but that will be several months and many thousands of
dollars down the road. All they have to do is to allege in their
complaint that copyrighted material has been appropriated un
order to get a trial. Sorry but the threat is a real one.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bryan J. Maloney
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> No. Perhaps you should consider the motives involved before going
> coo-coo?
What evidence have you that they won't? If a bee gets up the butts of
Hasbro's chief execs to sue, they'll sue, and being right or wrong has
nothing at all to do with it. They can easily discover that any
prospective victim in this field will be too poor to mount a defense for
long. Thus, they will win merely by buying the pot, as we call it in
poker.
> Now *this* is a legitimate question, and it's one you should be putting
> more mental effort into rather than your paranoid deliusion that hasbro is
> going to sue you.
If their VP keeps spouting the claims he spouts, Hasbro going bahooties
with lawsuits is not that paranoid.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Steve Miller
<< According to Dancey's claims, you are indeed violating their copyright and
have made a derivative work. If they were to come after you with a pack of
corporate attorneys, do you have the money and time to defend yourself? >>
No, but I do know a firm specializing in entertainment law who would take the
case pro-bono. I also know that if such a suit were to be brought, it wouldn't
even make it past discovery.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
And Jesus, he knows me, and he knows I'm right.
I've been talking to Jesus all my life.
--Genesis, "Jesus He Knows Me"
Bryan J. Maloney
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> So the hell WHAT!!! *Anyone* can "attempt to sue". But that suit
> won't hold water once the facts are checked. Open. Shut. This is a non
Ever been sued? I can tell you from experience that it can very well be
true that you might be forced to settle even if you are in the right. The
SLAPP class of lawsuits counts on this--make the expense and hardship of
mounting a defense so great that your victim will cave in before the trial
even gets really running.
> High technology is not copyright law. It hasn't been around long enough
> to have all the kinks worked out. The rules for ownership of the written
> word are well established, and patently obvious in this case.
And what about the rules for ownership of game rules? Where do game rules
end and "artistic expression" begin? It has never been determined in
court.
Bryan J. Maloney
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> Nowhere has anything Wotc described about their web policies been other
> than supportive of fan creations. For all that Dancey got wrong, he
That policy was written before Hasbro bought the shop. Policies can be changed.
> *never* has taken the position that WotC is hostile to such things, he is
> simply explaining, very poorly, that Wotc intends to maintain rightful
> control over publish-for-profit efforts that are directly based on the game.
Define how much control is "rightful". Where do "game rules" end and
"artistic expression thereof" begin?
Bryan J. Maloney
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> On _this_, Dancey is correct. Your claim that copyright "doesn't apply
> to mechanics" overlooks an important nuance. Yes, copyright doesn't apply
> to the *idea* of a particular game mechanic. TSR can't copyright the idea
> of an RPG statistic called "Strength"; it is on _this_ basis that mechanics
> aren't copyrightable, "period".
> But if you refer to someone else's game mechanics in your work, then you
> are now referencing that "specific expression" and this makes it derivative.
You over-extend "specific expression".
> The analogy with fiction would be between "kinds" of characters (French
> swordsmen)- which cannot be copyrighted - and specific characters (Cyrano de
> Bergerac), which certainly are. Use D&D Strength rules (ie; same range,
> capabilities, mechanical bonuses), and you're using part of D&D and it's
> owners will rightfully have a say in how it is to be published.
You over-extend. "Swordsman" is "strength". "romanticized French
Swordsman of the 17th century" is "D&D Strength". "Cyrano deBergerac" is
"As strong as Elminster".
> > And who has the money to battle Hasbro if they decide to sue you?
>
> None is needed. How much gas is the drive to the courthouse?
Do you truly think that there is no price to mounting a defense even if
you are in the right? How often have you been sued?
> Your work, if it is based on D&D mechanics, is *already* derviative and
> you can't publish it without their consent anyway - D20 licensing is just a
Learn copyright law and stop being a WoTC shill. D&D mechanics are GAME
RULES and game rules are not covered by copyright. Also, copyright law
does NOT require that one sell a work to be liable. It can INFLUENCE any
damages awarded, but one can be assessed monetary damages for giving
something away for free.
Robin Lim
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote in message
news:20000420131645...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> Ken Witherow wrote:
>
> << The difference? Under the D20 license I would essentially admit
creating a
> derivative work while without it, I'm not declaring it to be a derivative
> work. >>
>
> If I do a D20 version of "Fairies!", WotC does not automatically own the
Magic
> Forest (the setting for "Fairies!") nor does it become part of the general
D20
> pool of stuff... unless I'm so boneheaded so as to not put the 'licensed
stuff'
> in a seperate section, specifically labeled with the text of the licensing
> agreement.
The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules than
about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic Forest?
Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on alt.games.white-wolf
about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't think
so.
Rob
Robin Lim
Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote in message
news:sfuvda4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Hasbro believes that there is long-term value in those brands. Recent
> studies have shown that internet gaming is a very profitable venture. In
> addition, some of those brands have been successfully updated and turned
> into popular CD-ROM and modern console games. In the next year or two
there
> will even be a Centipede TV show.
A Centipede TV show? What's next, action figures, board games, and the D&D
supplement? Sometimes I wonder if decisions at Hasbro aren't made through a
strange mixture of horuspication, dart throwing, and sniffing glue. IRC,
the Centipede 3D game was a bit of a flop, due to poor control design. I
don't see Frogger 3D winning any gameplay awards, either. It seems Hasbro
has a hyperinflated notion of the effects of nostalgia.
Rob
Steve Miller
<< The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules than
about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic Forest? >>
And that's a valid concern. There are two camps of thought on the matter and
none have any real facts to back themselves up: Gamers will go for rules over
setting, and gamers will go for setting over rules. (I personally think they go
for rules over setting... which makes me sad, because I'm much better with
settings and characters than I am with game mechanics.)
<< Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on alt.games.white-wolf
about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't think
so. >>
I dropped out off that newsgroup many moons ago. What was this discussion?
Michael Scott Brown
> > On _this_, Dancey is correct. Your claim that copyright "doesn't
apply
> > to mechanics" overlooks an important nuance. Yes, copyright doesn't
apply
> > to the *idea* of a particular game mechanic. TSR can't copyright the
idea
> > of an RPG statistic called "Strength"; it is on _this_ basis that
mechanics
> > aren't copyrightable, "period".
> > But if you refer to someone else's game mechanics in your work, then
you
> > are now referencing that "specific expression" and this makes it
derivative.
>
> You over-extend "specific expression".
Bah. The work makes clear reference, and not in a way that is blessed
by the rules for fair use.
> > The analogy with fiction would be between "kinds" of characters
(French
> > swordsmen)- which cannot be copyrighted - and specific characters
(Cyrano de
> > Bergerac), which certainly are. Use D&D Strength rules (ie; same range,
> > capabilities, mechanical bonuses), and you're using part of D&D and it's
> > owners will rightfully have a say in how it is to be published.
>
> You over-extend. "Swordsman" is "strength". "romanticized French
> Swordsman of the 17th century" is "D&D Strength". "Cyrano deBergerac" is
> "As strong as Elminster".
'As strong as Eliminster' is not an element of D&D's expression of
Strength mechanics and thus your analogy does not hold. D&D's rules for
Strength are as specific a thing as Cyrano.
> > > And who has the money to battle Hasbro if they decide to sue you?
> >
> > None is needed. How much gas is the drive to the courthouse?
>
> Do you truly think that there is no price to mounting a defense even if
> you are in the right? How often have you been sued?
In *this* case, proving that I am in the right requires only that the
judge read the material.
It's a no brainer.
> > Your work, if it is based on D&D mechanics, is *already* derviative
and
> > you can't publish it without their consent anyway - D20 licensing is
just a
>
> Learn copyright law and stop being a WoTC shill.
??? I'm not being a shill, here, I'm just exercising the basic common
sense, which I was apparently granted in far greater abundance than some
people here.
Look at the basic principles of copyrightitude in the first place: it's
all a fancy way of saying "don't steal other people's creative work". I
happen to think that the idea of you or I professionally publishing "D&D"
stuff without the permission of the owners of the game is such a theft.
Common sense.
But I also happen to think that creating such material (that isn't
outright excerpts) and *not* selling it is every gamer's privelege. Should
WotC experience a brain tumor and try to squelch gamer creations, I will
beat them with the rubber chicken of derision until they cry for mercy,
which I will not grant, and will instead happily carry a quote of such
begging around on an engraved plaque.
> D&D mechanics are GAME
> RULES and game rules are not covered by copyright.
Only in the very particular sense that the *ideas* comprising the game
structure and nomenclature can't be copyrighted . Pay attention to the
nuances! Interpreting this too strongly leads to the following absurdity:
by your reasoning, you could sit down and write a game that worked *exactly*
like D&D, as long as you didn't use a clone of their text, and publish it
with impunity.
Do you think you have such a right?
> Also, copyright law
> does NOT require that one sell a work to be liable. It can INFLUENCE any
> damages awarded, but one can be assessed monetary damages for giving
> something away for free.
Only in the special case (which I have thus far ignored due to lack of
relevance) where doing so can be shown to have financial impact;
undercutting the sales of their legitimate product and whatnot.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
other
> > than supportive of fan creations. For all that Dancey got wrong, he
>
> That policy was written before Hasbro bought the shop. Policies can be
changed.
The first amendment could be repealed next year, but I'm not going to
worry about it happening. Motive, man, Motive!
> > *never* has taken the position that WotC is hostile to such things, he
is
> > simply explaining, very poorly, that Wotc intends to maintain rightful
> > control over publish-for-profit efforts that are directly based on the
game.
>
> Define how much control is "rightful". Where do "game rules" end and
> "artistic expression thereof" begin?
Where said artistic expression doesn't refer to such rules.
This is not obvious?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
realize, however, that you don't live in a remotely
> >similar environment, don't you? Oh, wait ... I already know the answer.
The
> >Government is indistinguishable from the gestapo for you, isn't it? New
> >World Order is a catch phrase you lose sleep over? You've seen the Black
> >Helicopters ...and you know they've been photographing your house.
>
> Mikey you went too far. I don't agree with much of what Ken is saying
> but his position on gun control does not deserve such vitriol aa you
> are providing.
Pfiffle. He's a kook. One mention of guns and it's "people gotta stand
up for their rights" and "liberty! liberty!". Kooks are to be bludgeoned
with rubber chickens. It's my new motto for the hour.
> Mike you seem to think that a case like this is going to be dismissed
> by the Judge on day one.
Yup. I have this silly faith in the idea that anyone who got to be a
judge will have the ability to read and comprehend english, and copyright
law. Go figure.
> Sorry but Ken is right. WotC is going to be
> allowed to present evidence at very least. That means you have
> to get a lawyer.
Bah. Let them present their little hearts out, assuming things get past
findings of fact.
You're missing something important here: your game material on the web
...
*what* can Hasbro sue you for? Hmm? What's the lawsuit going to be?
Is the issue: your work is "wholly theirs" and they can forbid you to
web-post it?
This suit will fail instantly on the merits; *you* wrote it and it's
public domain.
Is the issue: your work is "infringing on their own ability to profit
from their products"?
When? How?
Is the issue: your work is "wholly theirs" and they want it to publish
it?
This suit will instantly fail as well, *you* wrote it and retain your
copyrights.
Further, *Why* would hasbro want to squelch your work?
The repurcussions (boycott by all RPG customers) make such an endeavour
criminally stupid.
> You can make a motion to dismiss after WotC
> has rested but that will be several months and many thousands of
> dollars down the road.
Why? Why are you paying a lawyer to sit at a table and listen to
evidence that doesn't support their case? You're being ridiculous.
> All they have to do is to allege in their
> complaint that copyrighted material has been appropriated un
> order to get a trial. Sorry but the threat is a real one.
And the facts will show that no copyrighted material has been
'appropriated' (unless you really are quoting the Phb beyond fair use in
which case you deserve what you get!).
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
Not in *this* case.
-Michael
R. Serena Wakefield
wrote:
>Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote in message
>news:20000420131645...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>> If I do a D20 version of "Fairies!", WotC does not automatically own the Magic
>> Forest (the setting for "Fairies!") nor does it become part of the general D20
>> pool of stuff... unless I'm so boneheaded so as to not put the 'licensed stuff'
>> in a seperate section, specifically labeled with the text of the licensing
>> agreement.
>The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules than
>about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
>Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic Forest?
I would say absolutely yes; in fact, if the Magic Forest were to be
sold separately, I would probably consider buying it even if I had no
interest in the Fairies! game system.
After all, I can take the Magic Forest and drop it into my existing
Buccaneers&Booty game for when my players' crew drops anchor on the
Haunted Isle of Avalon, or include it as the Seelie Court in my
all-Malkavian chronicle if I don't like Changeling, or slip it into
Arborea when my PCs (player cutters) take a shiftdoor there out of
Sigil.
>Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on alt.games.white-wolf
>about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't think so.
They wouldn't -- it's understandable that a game designer might
believe a game's design to be the most important facet of the product.
In some cases that's true, when the design is a generic system
applicable to many genres.
But they never underestimate the value of a good, creative sourcebook
in the hands of a twisted GM, no matter what its INTENDED use. I wish
more publishers would realize that ...
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Sure life's fair. I wouldn't give it more than two stars.
James Robinson
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> Look at the basic principles of copyrightitude in the first place: it's
> all a fancy way of saying "don't steal other people's creative work".
"But feel free to refer to, borrow from and extend it."
Any work which cannot be used as a basis for further works falls
outside the intent of copyright law, which is not to prevent stealing,
but to /promote creation/. Publication implies a license for fair use,
and any method of publishing which moots that license (eg., the
watch-only DVD formats) violates copyright law every bit as surely as
wholesale duplication does. To that end it allows quoting,
referencing, extending, and any number of other ways of using prior,
copyrighted works toward the creation of new ones, and it leaves a
deliberately undefined distinction between "enough" and "too much," to
be decided on a case by case basis - in the worst case, by a judge.
> I happen to think that the idea of you or I professionally publishing "D&D"
> stuff without the permission of the owners of the game is such a theft.
> Common sense.
Certainly, the advantage to such a conservative position is that
you're highly unlikely to end up facing a judge. YMMV.
> But I also happen to think that creating such material (that isn't
> outright excerpts) and *not* selling it is every gamer's privelege.
In other words, you have intuited the heuristic that a profit motive
counts strongly against - but DOES NOT RULE OUT - a ruling in favor of
fair use (academic papers which refer to and rely on other academic
papers and books are sold for publication all the time, for example,
and that is literally a canonical example of fair use). However,
copyright law itself is indifferent to whether anyone profits or not.
> > D&D mechanics are GAME
> > RULES and game rules are not covered by copyright.
>
> Only in the very particular sense that the *ideas* comprising the game
> structure and nomenclature can't be copyrighted . Pay attention to the
> nuances! Interpreting this too strongly leads to the following absurdity:
> by your reasoning, you could sit down and write a game that worked *exactly*
> like D&D, as long as you didn't use a clone of their text, and publish it
> with impunity.
> Do you think you have such a right?
Ever heard of reverse engineering? It's explicitly granted
protection under copyright law.
Granted, it would be a nontrivial attempt, because it would have to
be a clean-room reverse engineering job, and provably so, but it is
possible.
At any rate, copying AD&D /tout entier/ is quite different from
referring the reader to the saving throw table in the PHB.
> > Also, copyright law
> > does NOT require that one sell a work to be liable. It can INFLUENCE any
> > damages awarded, but one can be assessed monetary damages for giving
> > something away for free.
>
> Only in the special case (which I have thus far ignored due to lack of
> relevance) where doing so can be shown to have financial impact;
> undercutting the sales of their legitimate product and whatnot.
Undercutting sales will raise the damages assessed for the violation.
The underlying fair use heuristic is whether the derivative work
supplants the old one, or obviates the need for it. This clearly does
not take the cost of - or real profit gained by publishing - either
work into account.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
James Robinson
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> Is the issue: your work is "wholly theirs" and they can forbid you to
> web-post it?
> This suit will fail instantly on the merits; *you* wrote it and it's
> public domain.
Ummm, Mike?
If it's public domain, WotC could take it, verbatim, and publish it,
with all the changes it pleased them to make, and no credit to you. So
could SJG, simultaneously. And Microsoft. And myself.
"Public domain" means a very specific thing - that NO-ONE has ANY
rights to the work. A work has to be /explicitly released/ into the
public domain by its author unless the copyright on it has expired.
NOTHING posted on the web - literally nothing - enters into the
public domain unless the author explicitly releases it that way.
I know what you're trying to say ("you wrote it and it's been
published"), but your attempt to say it has fallen face first in the
mud. If you only spend the money to the drive to a courthouse, and
fumble basic terminology like this before a hostile lawyer, you'll find
yourself in trouble before you can remember your lawyer's last name.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
jbs
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>You don't seem to understand the fact that Dancey, WOTC and Hasbro can
>still attempt to sue someone whether their work is legitimately derivative
>handle cases related to things like technology. The fact that Hasbro has
>the ongoing copyright infringement cases affirms that. Someday, you're
>gonna get bitten in the ass. Don't be so confident in the integrity of
>others out there, especially if you get in the way of a corporation making
>a buck.
Ok. I've had it with this guys nonsense. Hope you can knock some
sense into him, Mike.
*plonk*
jbs
jbs
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>I _AM_ one of those "they're coming to take my guns" nuts. Guns are what
>ensures our freedom from an oppressive government. They ensure that I have
>a chance to defend myself from those willing to harm me. Would the
>Holocaust have happened had the german citizens remained armed?
>
>I'm sorry to see that you, like most Americans these days, are so blinded
>by ideology and emotion that you can't see the importance of protecting
>all of your rights. All little right here, a little one there. It all adds
>up sooner or later.
Well, here I agree with you. And I don't want to turn this into a 2nd
Adm. issue. But bear in mind that's the government. Hasbro isn't the
government.
jbs
jbs
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people like
>Ryan Dancey and his defenders like you. There's nothing preventing them
>from bringing a lawsuit, baseless as it may be, against any of us.
Except for common sense, doofus.
>Dancey's ignorant claims. Right or wrong, he can bring a case on whim.
No he can't. He's just the VP. He'd have to get the BoD to go for
it.
jbs
jbs
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>A little bit of paranoia is healthy.
Then why not stop at a little bit?
jbs
jbs
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, jbs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:17:29 -0400, Ken Witherow
>> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>> > In any event, my D&D
>> >days are officially over; it was a great 13 years.
>>
>> Good. Does that mean you'll shutup now?
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Are you really that dense?
>
>I'm sorry if I value my rights more than some of you. I'm sorry if I don't
>like the threatening tone of a VP in a corporation with billions backing
>it. Maybe your tune will change when, instead of suing software
>manufacturers, they come after you.
So you're just going to get a new hobby? Please do. Your ignorance
is making the rest of us look bad.
>Are you really that dense to think that just because a particular case
>doesn't affect you directly it doesn't set a dangerous precident that may?
It doesn't affect me directly or set a precident of any kind. Get a
life!
Were you by any chance on the net back in TSR's net gestapo days?
They're still suffering from the backlash that caused and you think
WotC's dumb enough to do it again? You think Hasbro is?
Go take your medicine!
jbs
Michael Scott Brown
> > This suit will fail instantly on the merits; *you* wrote it and it's
> > public domain.
>
> Ummm, Mike?
>
> If it's public domain, WotC could take it, verbatim, and publish it,
> with all the changes it pleased them to make, and no credit to you. So
> could SJG, simultaneously. And Microsoft. And myself.
Ack! Total brain fart there.
-Michael
Lynne Simpson
<mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
<snip>
>In article <rkavfsc486atdag1t...@4ax.com>,
>brada...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I don't think that WotC is going to start suing or harassing web site
>> owners tomorrow or even that WotC employees or freelancers are
>> appropriating material from fan sites. Nonetheless, I think WotC
>> should revise its online policy to "legitimize" derivative works that
>> are in compliance with the policy. If they can't do that, then they
>> should change the online policy to state outright that it is not a
>> license and that, although they have no intention to prosecute anyone
>> who complies with the online policy, they view any derivative works
>> based on their products to be infringements. Under the current
>> wording of the online policy, it *sounds* like they're granting a
>> limited license to create derivative works, and it's unfair to mislead
>> people this way.
>
>Thus the OGF, OGL, and the D20STL. Make everything open and aboveboard.
>Dominion Games is trying the idea out. Abide by the D20STL and you can
>produce all the DnD material you want, as long as it is original.
Actually, doesn't the licensing provide for redistributing works as
well? Any material that has been produced under the license can be
modified and/or distributed by anyone else, and the whole thing
perpetuates itself because any author who creates material under the
license must in turn grant everyone else the same rights that were
granted to him.
This has been sold to us as our chance to publish and even *sell* our
own D20 game supplements, but there's a built-in limitation that isn't
being talked up by WotC. Sure, you're free to create supplements and
try to get game stores to put them on the shelves, but why should they
buy from you -- an unknown -- when they can get the same material from
WotC, who can reprint your material more cheaply than you can and who
can distribute it on a much larger scale? The licensing allows your
material to be repackaged and sold by anybody who has an interest in
doing so, and I have a hunch that WotC will package up the modules it
feels are most commercially viable and sell them in anthologies (or
standalone, if the modules are big enough), probably at a more
attractive price than that offered by a smaller company. If they do
this, you won't get a dime, and the WotC version will be much more
likely to get shelf space, because a) they have long-standing
relationships with distributors and gaming stores, b) they can produce
more sophisticated-looking packaging and layouts than a lot of
individual authors can, and c) their products have a history of
selling reasonably well.
Robert Baldwin
Simpson) wrote:
>RE: Ryan Dancey
>
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:57:21 -0400, Ken Witherow
><k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
>>I've tried to get him to clarify his position several times and every one
>>of my messages regarding clarification has been ignored or else his pulled
>>a clinton and spun the answer off into a completely different direction
>>rather than answering the question.
>
>He's been doing this for months. Every time it gets to a point where
>he'd have to explain where he gets a few of his unusual ideas about
>copyright law, he quits responding. He waits a little while for
>things to settle down, and then he starts up right where he left off,
>citing the same old cases and making the same unsupported claims over
>and over again. He's added a bit to his schtick this time in that
>he's recently started to claim victory and to demand apologies. ;-)
So...he's become quite the usenet regular, eh?
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
For *real* adventure, check out
www.ecochallenge.com
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Lynne Simpson
<mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
>In article <qu7vfsc3pcc9e2a7t...@4ax.com>,
>brada...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> Right. Lotus sued Borland over the "look and feel" of Quattro Pro,
>> which was very similar to Lotus 1-2-3. Initially, the courts ruled in
>> favor of Lotus, but it was overturned on appeal. If you sue someone
>> over their software product having a similar "look and feel" to yours,
>> you're probably on fairly shaky ground. I was pretty amused that
>> Hasbro would sue over some of these old, old titles -- for which
>> dozens of clones have existed in the shareware marketplace for years.
>
>But, are the cases equivalent? Are the games Hasbro sued over equivalent
>to the "clones" you know of? I have no idea, so I can make no meaningful
>observation regarding the subject.
>
>One day of research can save you weeks of mea culpas.
Not quite sure what you're implying here.
I remember a fair amount about Lotus v. Borland because I worked for
one of the aforementioned parties during the days when the lawsuit was
going on. In reading about the Hasbro suit (press releases, news
articles, legal commentary, etc.), it seems to me that the cases are
similar. Quattro Pro was (is?) a spreadsheet application produced by
Borland. It *looked* like Lotus 1-2-3, *worked* like 1-2-3, and even
used the same shortcut keys. It had a few neat features that 1-2-3
didn't have, and it was cheaper. Borland eventually won on appeal.
I'm not a lawyer, but my hunch is that Hasbro doesn't intend for this
suit to get to court or even to summary judgment. I think they'd lose
if it ever went to court, and they might even lose on summary judgment
before the case went to trial. In the first months of the suit, they
will bombard these smaller companies with tons of paperwork and try to
scare the crap out of them. Faced with mounting legal bills and lots
of intimidation from corporate lawyers who play this kind of game all
of the time, a small company will often settle a case it could've won
in court, just to get the bigger company off its back. I'd love to
see this one go to trial, but I don't know if any of the defendants
have deep enough pockets to stick it out that long.
Robin Lim
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote in message
> Robin Lim wrote:
>
> << The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules
than
> about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
> Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic Forest?
>>
>
and
> none have any real facts to back themselves up: Gamers will go for rules
over
> setting, and gamers will go for setting over rules. (I personally think
they go
> for rules over setting... which makes me sad, because I'm much better with
> settings and characters than I am with game mechanics.)
I think gamers prefer rules over setting as well. This seems logical, given
my own preferences and the preferences of my friends. Strictly anecdoctal,
of course. Someone with sales figures can, I'm sure, come to some
conclusions on the matter.
I think people can be convinced to buy setting information when there's some
kind of metaplot attached, but I've stopped buying metaplot-friendly
supplements because I'm sick to death of the whole idea, and I'd rather come
up with my own campaign, anyway. So are we likely to see a proliferation of
metaplots in the future? Probably.
> << Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on
alt.games.white-wolf
> about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't
think
> so. >>
>
> I dropped out off that newsgroup many moons ago. What was this discussion?
Oh, it was a bit silly. I complained that as of the Revised Storyteller's
Guide, WW still hadn't published their revisions of advanced Quietus,
Serpentis, and Chimerstry, all of which were pretty much reconceptualized in
the Revised edition. I got told that those disciplines were going to be in
the new clanbooks. Someone else asked, and I concured, that WW should post
them up on their website. Mr. Kiley responded by asking us whether we
expected him to work for free. I suggested that WW post up the Quietus,
Serp, and Chim from the Dark Ages Player's Guide. I was told to buy the
book. I questioned whether that would hurt sales, and started flaming.
Went downhill from there :)
Rob
Robin Lim
Lynne Simpson <brada...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f5q1gscg9jaqafkfn...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, doesn't the licensing provide for redistributing works as
> well? Any material that has been produced under the license can be
> modified and/or distributed by anyone else, and the whole thing
> perpetuates itself because any author who creates material under the
> license must in turn grant everyone else the same rights that were
> granted to him.
>
> This has been sold to us as our chance to publish and even *sell* our
> own D20 game supplements, but there's a built-in limitation that isn't
> being talked up by WotC. Sure, you're free to create supplements and
> try to get game stores to put them on the shelves, but why should they
> buy from you -- an unknown -- when they can get the same material from
> WotC, who can reprint your material more cheaply than you can and who
> can distribute it on a much larger scale? The licensing allows your
> material to be repackaged and sold by anybody who has an interest in
> doing so, and I have a hunch that WotC will package up the modules it
> feels are most commercially viable and sell them in anthologies (or
> standalone, if the modules are big enough), probably at a more
> attractive price than that offered by a smaller company. If they do
> this, you won't get a dime, and the WotC version will be much more
> likely to get shelf space, because a) they have long-standing
> relationships with distributors and gaming stores, b) they can produce
> more sophisticated-looking packaging and layouts than a lot of
> individual authors can, and c) their products have a history of
> selling reasonably well.
Well, I don't think WOTC will screw over people in such a manner any time
soon. This is a card they can only play once, and then people are going to
become wise to the scam. Once people are wise to the scam, nobody's going
to publish anything, at least in a paper form, that WOTC can exploit.
Rob
Robin Lim
jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
news:2lm1gs4cerksgbjhv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:54:25 -0400, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people
like
> >Ryan Dancey and his defenders like you. There's nothing preventing them
> >from bringing a lawsuit, baseless as it may be, against any of us.
>
> Except for common sense, doofus.
Common sense is notoriously lacking in litigation. Mr. Paranoid-Gun-Nut has
a point.
Rob
Robin Lim
R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote in message
news:3900e22d...@news.gate.net...
>
> >The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules
than
> >about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
> >Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic
Forest?
>
> sold separately, I would probably consider buying it even if I had no
> interest in the Fairies! game system.
>
> After all, I can take the Magic Forest and drop it into my existing
> Buccaneers&Booty game for when my players' crew drops anchor on the
> Haunted Isle of Avalon, or include it as the Seelie Court in my
> all-Malkavian chronicle if I don't like Changeling, or slip it into
> Arborea when my PCs (player cutters) take a shiftdoor there out of
> Sigil.
What I'm curious, though, is how representative you and I are of the general
game population, especially the Diablo-playing, hack-and-slash fancying
target audience for D&D 3e. Not everybody has the inventiveness to
improvise like that.
On the other hand, if I CAN improvise like that, why would I need the Magic
Forest when I can improvise from all the fairies supplements I already own?
I mean, I'm sure I can cook something up between Changeling, Avalon from 7th
Sea, and Ars Magica Faeries. And between all the Shadowrun, SLA, and (lone)
GURPS stuff I own, I doubt I have much interest in picking up a generic
cyberpunk setting for D&D 3e. I still like reading supplements, but unless
something really blows me away, I won't spend my money.
> >Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on alt.games.white-wolf
> >about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't
think so.
>
> They wouldn't -- it's understandable that a game designer might
> believe a game's design to be the most important facet of the product.
> In some cases that's true, when the design is a generic system
> applicable to many genres.
Well, certain things he said suggested that he felt disciplines were one of
the core sections of the book people were interested in. I know its the
first place I look at whenever I look at a new vampire supplement.
> But they never underestimate the value of a good, creative sourcebook
> in the hands of a twisted GM, no matter what its INTENDED use. I wish
> more publishers would realize that ...
I don't think such behaviour is particularly representative of the general
gaming audience. I'm certainly familiar with enough supplements (like the
Vampire Revised Storyteller's Guide) that I use for rules, and ONLY for
rules. That's why I've sort of given up on storyteller's guides from that
company.
Rob
Lynne Simpson
wrote:
>Lynne Simpson <brada...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:f5q1gscg9jaqafkfn...@4ax.com...
>> This has been sold to us as our chance to publish and even *sell* our
>> own D20 game supplements, but there's a built-in limitation that isn't
>> being talked up by WotC. Sure, you're free to create supplements and
>> try to get game stores to put them on the shelves, but why should they
>> buy from you -- an unknown -- when they can get the same material from
>> WotC, who can reprint your material more cheaply than you can and who
>> can distribute it on a much larger scale? The licensing allows your
>> material to be repackaged and sold by anybody who has an interest in
>> doing so, and I have a hunch that WotC will package up the modules it
>> feels are most commercially viable and sell them in anthologies (or
>> standalone, if the modules are big enough), probably at a more
>> attractive price than that offered by a smaller company. If they do
>> this, you won't get a dime, and the WotC version will be much more
>> likely to get shelf space, because a) they have long-standing
>> relationships with distributors and gaming stores, b) they can produce
>> more sophisticated-looking packaging and layouts than a lot of
>> individual authors can, and c) their products have a history of
>> selling reasonably well.
>
>Well, I don't think WOTC will screw over people in such a manner any time
>soon. This is a card they can only play once, and then people are going to
>become wise to the scam. Once people are wise to the scam, nobody's going
>to publish anything, at least in a paper form, that WOTC can exploit.
From what I've read on the D20 list and elsewhere, I don't think WotC
would necessarily feel that it's screwing people over, because anybody
else could do the same thing -- package up a group of modules, add
some artwork, and sell them in an anthology. The difference is that
WotC has a bigger marketing machine and a wider distribution channel.
That a company will use whatever legitimate advantages it has to
succeed in the marketplace is good business sense. However, I think
that this D20 idea was developed knowing that people who lacked a
number of WotC's key advantages (market share, distribution channels,
printing capabilities, staff artists) would be developing products in
the hopes that they could sell them, and I believe that WotC plans to
make use of those advantages to outsell smaller publishers who are
offering the same products. Basically, I think D20's number one
purpose is to make more money for WotC. While it may allow smaller
publishers to produce works related to WotC's products and make
perhaps a small amount of money, I think that the chief beneficiary of
D20 will be WotC.
Peter Seebach
Alan Kellogg <mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
>Once again the clueless, the paranoid,
The fact is, Hasbro has sued someone for producing a game involving a
"triangular ship with thrusters".
I see no paranoia; they really are out to get you.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>Hell, I refer to D&D multiple times in the NUELOW gamebooks. But WotC still
>doesn't have copyright on any them. And they never will. (Unless they give me a
>bucket of money... or at least lunch.)
That's what *you* think. Dancey has made it clear that you are probably
creating an infringing work, and that a court *COULD* decide that your
*ENTIRE* work is "derivative" and therefore belongs to WotC.
I think he's wrong. But, I also think he has a hell of a lot more lawyers
than you do.
Peter Seebach
>infringed on their intellectual holdings (in an arena where they intended to
>product a competing product),
Did you look at the "infringement"? Repeat after me: "triangular ship with
thrusters".
Look at "clue.com". It's a consulting company. They sell computer
consulting. Do you expect people looking for the board game "clue" to become
confused and purchase a network seminar?
>and they exercised the priveleges of ownership
>to squelch it. No matter how much ganga Ryan D smokes, no judge in the
>United States of America cannot be convinced that he owns *your* work. The
>two situations are not equivalent, and this certainly isn't a *precedent*.
The "precedent" isn't legal precedent, it's showing that Hasbro will file
totally frivolous suits, which will settle out of court to avoid legal fees,
or which will cost an individual person 6-figure numbers, when defending
"territory" that isn't even really theirs.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>No, but I do know a firm specializing in entertainment law who would take the
>case pro-bono. I also know that if such a suit were to be brought, it wouldn't
>even make it past discovery.
How can you be sure? Hasbro has lots of money, and has filed utterly
laughable suits before.
Look at "clue.com". Did they lose? Sure. So did the victim, who's out
6-figure numbers and a spouse for the deal.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>And that's a valid concern. There are two camps of thought on the matter and
>none have any real facts to back themselves up: Gamers will go for rules over
>setting, and gamers will go for setting over rules. (I personally think they go
>for rules over setting... which makes me sad, because I'm much better with
>settings and characters than I am with game mechanics.)
Well, if it's any consolation, if WotC ever does back down enough that I'm
not afraid of ever getting involved with any of their stuff again, I'll be
keeping an eye out for your stuff too. I'm just afraid to spend any money
on gaming stuff right now, because WotC looks to have decided to destroy the
whole thing.
R. Serena Wakefield
wrote:
>> >The one thing that concerns me is that people care more about the rules than
>> >about the setting. If people can get the crunchy bits for the New Style
>> >Fairy Magic for free, are they likely to spend money for the Magic Forest?
>> I would say absolutely yes; in fact, if the Magic Forest were to be
>> sold separately, I would probably consider buying it even if I had no
>> interest in the Fairies! game system.
>> After all, I can take the Magic Forest and drop it into my existing
>> Buccaneers&Booty game for when my players' crew drops anchor on the
>> Haunted Isle of Avalon, or include it as the Seelie Court in my
>> all-Malkavian chronicle if I don't like Changeling, or slip it into
>> Arborea when my PCs (player cutters) take a shiftdoor there out of
>> Sigil.
>What I'm curious, though, is how representative you and I are of the general
>game population, especially the Diablo-playing, hack-and-slash fancying
>target audience for D&D 3e. Not everybody has the inventiveness to
>improvise like that.
Dunno if I'd really call it improvisation -- after all, I'm still
using somebody else's work, I'm just using a different somebody else's
work than the designers intended. A campaign using Forgotten Realms
dwarves, Tolkien elves, Dragonlance gnomes and Dark Sun halflings
still isn't original. It's only the interactions between them that
become original.
>On the other hand, if I CAN improvise like that, why would I need the Magic
>Forest when I can improvise from all the fairies supplements I already own?
>I mean, I'm sure I can cook something up between Changeling, Avalon from 7th
>Sea, and Ars Magica Faeries. And between all the Shadowrun, SLA, and (lone)
>GURPS stuff I own, I doubt I have much interest in picking up a generic
>cyberpunk setting for D&D 3e. I still like reading supplements, but unless
>something really blows me away, I won't spend my money.
You don't need to, you've already spent your money. ^_^ The point is
that those supplements are, if they're any good, worth the money just
for the campaigning information; the fact that you've already bought
them for a different reason doesn't lessen their utility for this
purpose.
>> >Given the harsh words I exchanged with Mr. Kiley on alt.games.white-wolf
>> >about a month ago, I would say that quite a few industry people don't think so.
>> They wouldn't -- it's understandable that a game designer might
>> believe a game's design to be the most important facet of the product.
>> In some cases that's true, when the design is a generic system
>> applicable to many genres.
>Well, certain things he said suggested that he felt disciplines were one of
>the core sections of the book people were interested in. I know its the
>first place I look at whenever I look at a new vampire supplement.
I've been so consistently underwhelmed by new disciplines, and new
clans/bloodlines in general, that I stopped doing that a long time
ago. Generally, on getting a new White Wolf book, I'd flip first to
the NPCs, as I've found that's the fastest way to get a handle on what
the book as a whole will be like.
>> But they never underestimate the value of a good, creative sourcebook
>> in the hands of a twisted GM, no matter what its INTENDED use. I wish
>> more publishers would realize that ...
>I don't think such behaviour is particularly representative of the general
>gaming audience. I'm certainly familiar with enough supplements (like the
>Vampire Revised Storyteller's Guide) that I use for rules, and ONLY for
>rules. That's why I've sort of given up on storyteller's guides from that
>company.
I don't know ... there are enough "usable with our game, or any other
RPG" books out there to indicate that it's not just me thinking this
way, and a whole lot of GMs go through the bargain bins at conventions
looking for discounted books from obscure systems to "adapt" to their
own.
Nevertheless, you're right that the game companies probably aren't too
interested in catering to that market. After all, someone who only
buys one of your books to use with your competition's product is not
going to develop the kind of brand loyalty that they depend upon.
(Unless, of course, your book is so spectacular that it lures them
away from your competitor and gets them to start playing your game
instead, but not a lot of books are capable of such a feat ... Way of
the Scorpion and Weather the Cuckoo Likes come to mind, and not much
else.)
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Public opinion flourishes where there are no ideas.
Lynne Simpson
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>>No, but I do know a firm specializing in entertainment law who would take the
>>case pro-bono. I also know that if such a suit were to be brought, it wouldn't
>>even make it past discovery.
If you spend all of your opponent's money while you're still *in*
discovery and scare the crap out of them and their lawyers, then the
fact that the suit lacks the merit to make it through summary judgment
or a trial is irrelevant.
On 22 Apr 2000 16:28:09 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>How can you be sure? Hasbro has lots of money, and has filed utterly
>laughable suits before.
>
>Look at "clue.com". Did they lose? Sure. So did the victim, who's out
>6-figure numbers and a spouse for the deal.
Exactly. That's the game. Even if you know you'll lose in court,
make the suit sound legitimate enough to be able to stick around a
while. Bury the other guy in paperwork and make him spend all of his
money or even go into debt to keep up with the legal bills. Don't let
things get to a point where the other side could file for summary
judgment and have any hope of getting a favorable ruling. I don't
know for sure, but I bet this latest silly Hasbro suit won't even come
close to making it through discovery. Unfortunately, their much
smaller opponents will probably run out of money and/or gumption and
go for a quick settlement. I *hate* bullies...
Lynne Simpson
>In article <20000421123616...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
>Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>>And that's a valid concern. There are two camps of thought on the matter and
>>none have any real facts to back themselves up: Gamers will go for rules over
>>setting, and gamers will go for setting over rules. (I personally think they go
>>for rules over setting... which makes me sad, because I'm much better with
>>settings and characters than I am with game mechanics.)
>
>Well, if it's any consolation, if WotC ever does back down enough that I'm
>not afraid of ever getting involved with any of their stuff again, I'll be
>keeping an eye out for your stuff too. I'm just afraid to spend any money
>on gaming stuff right now, because WotC looks to have decided to destroy the
>whole thing.
Or you could do what I'm doing -- spend every cent of your gaming
budget on gaming companies other than WotC. ;-)
jbs
wrote:
>
No he doesn't. What there *is* a precident for here is what happens
to a companies fan base when you try to sue and claim rights to their
home brewed stuff.
I think Ryan and Co have enough common sense not to make that mistake
again.
jbs
Michael Scott Brown
> discovery and scare the crap out of them and their lawyers, then the
> fact that the suit lacks the merit to make it through summary judgment
> or a trial is irrelevant.
Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money, and
there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
suffer from a crippling mental disease like Kendoll does. The level of
non-issue here is utterly amazing.
-Michael
Jeffrey Custer
Except that
1) To effectively argue the case before court (unless WotC is so utterly
incompetent in presenting the case that it is summarily dismissed) you need
to either retain a lawyer or spend a hell of a lot of time researching case
law and how to present the case.
2) If you hire the lawyer you have to pay him unless he's willing to work on
contingency - which given the chance to go after Hasbro is a possibility.
3) If you decide to go it on your own all that time you spend doing
research, responding to court inquiries, filing papers and doing all the
other tedium that has to be done in a law case is time you aren't getting
paid for. Most of us aren't willing to live like that.
4) You may not be able to recover any money at all from WotC until they've
exhausted all their appeals and other recourses.
5) You may know you're in the right, but you still have to convince a jury
of that within the artificial rules imposed by a court. If you don't know
the rules, you still can lose. Hell, the jury could still screw you over
(but since you're not a big corporation, its not too likely).
Now, if you don't mind spending all your time filing as a pauper and doing
all your own casework you're right, you don't have to spend any money. If
you're so lucky as to find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency,
then that's great too. Otherwise you're going to get shafted until the
courts make a final ruling.
The real thing keeping WotC from doing anything is:
1) Most of us would be really pissed off if WotC started to restrict fan
sites and stole material for their own publication. Should that happen,
most of us would refuse to buy anything WotC (or Hasbro) produces and would
raise one hell of a stink about it. This would be very, very bad for WotC.
I assume the people at WotC are not stupid, don't want to lose a large
portion of their fanbase and would prefer not to go out of business.
2) The possibility that someone actually would bring it to trial and win.
Hasbro has deep pockets, the average citizen doesn't, and juries are an
unknown quantity. All it would take is one court case found against WotC
for a sufficient quantity of money to get the RPG line at WotC dropped and
people fired.
Personally I think WotC would have to be insane to try to ban/limit/sue
fans. It doesn't make any sense from their end of things. IMO.
Jeff
Michael Scott Brown
> The "precedent" isn't legal precedent, it's showing that Hasbro will file
> totally frivolous suits, which will settle out of court to avoid legal
fees,
> or which will cost an individual person 6-figure numbers, when defending
> "territory" that isn't even really theirs.
Now ponder your navel a moment and come up with the *motive* for this
activity, and compare it to the strategic situation that exists with respect
to their RPG market.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Well, if it's any consolation, if WotC ever does back down enough that I'm
> not afraid of ever getting involved with any of their stuff again, I'll be
> keeping an eye out for your stuff too. I'm just afraid to spend any money
> on gaming stuff right now, because WotC looks to have decided to destroy
the
> whole thing.
How is that people so utterly misunderstand what's going on?
A plan to let fan-stuff take a ride on the Wotc marketing machine if
they want to publish, and a clear decision to support fan material on the
web ... is a decision to destroy the whole thing?
-Michael
James Robinson
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> Lynne Simpson <brada...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > If you spend all of your opponent's money while you're still *in*
> > discovery and scare the crap out of them and their lawyers, then the
> > fact that the suit lacks the merit to make it through summary judgment
> > or a trial is irrelevant.
>
> Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money, and
> there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
> suffer from a crippling mental disease like Kendoll does.
While I'm sure you'd like us all to have your Promethean
self-confidence, the fact is that most people (and most companies),
faced with a barrage of incredibly final-sounding legal language,
panic. It is a fact that they can be buried under mountains of
official, gravely written documents with lots of fine print and become
lost or intimidated, or do the wrong thing. The smart ones hire
lawyers, because even if they know for God's truth that they're in the
right /conceptually/, there's all this formal and alien stuff to take
care of before they have a chance to argue. Not to mention that
knowing a thing for true and proving it in court are two different
things.
They can even brain fart and release their work into the public
domain before they realize what just came out of their mouths! But
you'd never do something that stupid, would you? ;-)
> The level of non-issue here is utterly amazing.
Were it a non-issue, it would not be SOP among businesses to do
exactly what Hasbro is doing. Generally, no business on either side of
a lawsuit wants it to actually reach trial, or worse, judgement. Most
handle that by intimidation (The Verve's run-in with that producer
comes to mind) or by settling out of court. Microsoft does it by
swamping the court (and the other party) with paperwork, delaying, and
appealing until the other party declares bankruptcy. But the principle
remains.
Given that, it's not necessarily about wrong or right, it's about
what you can get away with. It's certainly abusive - Lawful Evil, if
you prefer - but no less factual for that. Wandering into that sort of
situation with an attitude that What is Right Must Prevail /might/
work...
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Michael Scott Brown
> > Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money, and
> >there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
> >non-issue here is utterly amazing.
>
> 1) To effectively argue the case before court (unless WotC is so utterly
> incompetent in presenting the case that it is summarily dismissed)
Right there! The case has no merit and no amount of shoe-shine will
repair that.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money,
and
> > there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
> > suffer from a crippling mental disease like Kendoll does.
>
> self-confidence, the fact is that most people (and most companies),
> faced with a barrage of incredibly final-sounding legal language,
> panic.
And that's pretty pathetic of them. *Don't* panic, if the
astronomically unlikely event comes that Hasbro sues you. Sheesh!
> They can even brain fart and release their work into the public
> domain before they realize what just came out of their mouths! But
> you'd never do something that stupid, would you? ;-)
Not in court, bubba.
> > The level of non-issue here is utterly amazing.
>
> Were it a non-issue, it would not be SOP among businesses to do
> exactly what Hasbro is doing.
SUE ITS FAN BASE???
-Michael
Jeffrey Custer
Michael Scott Brown wrote in message ...
and
>> >there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
>> >non-issue here is utterly amazing.
>>
>> 1) To effectively argue the case before court (unless WotC is so utterly
>> incompetent in presenting the case that it is summarily dismissed)
>
> Right there! The case has no merit and no amount of shoe-shine will
>repair that.
I wouldn't put any money on our justice system throwing out a suit like this
:P WotC won't pursue it for other reasons, not because they can't actually
bring it to trial.
Jeff
James Robinson
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net> wrote in message news:220420001700422519%
> > > Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money,
> and
> > > there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
> > > suffer from a crippling mental disease like Kendoll does.
> >
> > While I'm sure you'd like us all to have your Promethean
> > self-confidence, the fact is that most people (and most companies),
> > faced with a barrage of incredibly final-sounding legal language,
> > panic.
>
> And that's pretty pathetic of them.
I can only point to history, and I can only hope that I keep my head
in that sort of situation. But the fact that you consider it pathetic
doesn't mean it doesn't happen, nor does it meant that there isn't an
entire legal strategy built around the fact that people do panic.
> > They can even brain fart and release their work into the public
> > domain before they realize what just came out of their mouths! But
> > you'd never do something that stupid, would you? ;-)
>
> Not in court, bubba.
Heh.
> > > The level of non-issue here is utterly amazing.
> >
> > Were it a non-issue, it would not be SOP among businesses to do
> > exactly what Hasbro is doing.
>
> SUE ITS FAN BASE???
That's not what Hasbro is doing, silly. They're suing other
publishers for making games that look like old Atari titles.
I agree with you that the likelihood of WotC/Hasbro descending on me
with a flock of lawyers is nil, and I agree that they're not chomping
at the bit for an excuse to pull down the entire AD&D web and piss off
all their customers, laughing maniacally as they do. That's
ridiculous.
My beef with you here is specific: You seem to think that, in a
hypothetical case where a much larger company /has/ decided to come
after you, the simple fact that you know you're in the right is a
sufficient defense. Were that the case, intimidation would not be such
a common tactic.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Michael Scott Brown
> I can only point to history, and I can only hope that I keep my head
> in that sort of situation. But the fact that you consider it pathetic
> doesn't mean it doesn't happen, nor does it meant that there isn't an
> entire legal strategy built around the fact that people do panic.
<shrug> The best defense, therefore, is *not* to panic. And the
paranoid whiner babies should be putting their mental energy into calmly
reminding themselves that their work is actually quite safe from predation,
rather than boycotting the company for something it hasn't done, has no
motive to attempt, and has in fact no chance to succeed at.
> > > Were it a non-issue, it would not be SOP among businesses to do
> > > exactly what Hasbro is doing.
> >
> > SUE ITS FAN BASE???
>
> That's not what Hasbro is doing, silly. They're suing other
> publishers for making games that look like old Atari titles.
That's just it - Hasbro *isn't* suing it's fan base, it's trying
(possibly inappropriately) to take out competitors. Customers are not
competitors. Therefore ... the god of all non-issues is glaring us in the
face!
> My beef with you here is specific: You seem to think that, in a
> hypothetical case where a much larger company /has/ decided to come
> after you, the simple fact that you know you're in the right is a
> sufficient defense. Were that the case, intimidation would not be such
> a common tactic.
But that's just it! Since knowing you're in the right *is* actually
sufficient defense, caving is silly. I guess I just have high standards for
cajones. When evil comes knocking, I kick it's damnned ass.
-Michael
JD Lail
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net> wrote in message news:220420001700422519%
>> >Given that you know you're in the right, you need spend no money,
>> >and there's zero likelihood of having the crap scared out of you, unless you
>> > suffer from a crippling mental disease like Kendoll does.
>> While I'm sure you'd like us all to have your Promethean
>> self-confidence, the fact is that most people (and most companies),
>> faced with a barrage of incredibly final-sounding legal language,
>> panic.
> And that's pretty pathetic of them. *Don't* panic, if the
>astronomically unlikely event comes that Hasbro sues you. Sheesh!
The problem is that only the Lawyers are gonna come out ahead on the
deal,
<snip>
>> > The level of non-issue here is utterly amazing.
>> Were it a non-issue, it would not be SOP among businesses to do
>> exactly what Hasbro is doing.
> SUE ITS FAN BASE???
Don't need to. If I am the Evil Empire formerly known as TSR (EET)
I'll sue the publisher, the printer, and the distributors. Much easier
and even better, financially rewarding. :) Better yet since almost of
the publishers are going to have the same viewpoint on intellectual
property as I do they will police this kind of mess for me by "just
saying no" to it. Give it up Bubba ! <g>
L8R
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Steve Miller
<< That's what *you* think. Dancey has made it clear that you are probably
creating an infringing work, and that a court *COULD* decide that your
*ENTIRE* work is "derivative" and therefore belongs to WotC. >>
A court COULD decide that. They've made stupider rulings in the past.
As far as what Dancey believes...
I own your house. What's your address again? I'll be moving in tonight.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
And Jesus, he knows me, and he knows I'm right.
I've been talking to Jesus all my life.
--Genesis, "Jesus He Knows Me"
Peter Seebach
>paranoid whiner babies should be putting their mental energy into calmly
>reminding themselves that their work is actually quite safe from predation,
>rather than boycotting the company for something it hasn't done, has no
>motive to attempt, and has in fact no chance to succeed at.
If the work is "safe from predation", how do we explain the existing history
Hasbro has of gratuitous lawsuits against people percieved to be on their
"turf"?
Success doesn't mean they win the lawsuits; success means that the threat of
lawsuits is an effective one, and the story of clue.com (6 figure losses for
the "winner") pretty much answers that question.