Repost: TSR Online Policy
Sean K Reynolds
Since it seems that we have many people who have not seen the TSR
Online Policy, I'm reposting it....
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
REGARDING TRADEMARKED AND COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL USED ON-LINE:
TSR is now an active member of the on-line gaming community. Since
Day-One, TSR products and artwork have been developed by creative people
employed or hired by TSR. This has resulted in the creation of an extensive
line of products, identities, names, rules, game mechanics, logos, and
standards of quality, to name a few. The gaming products, novels, and
publications are designed to encourage resourcefulness and creativity in
play. All of these created properties are owned by TSR through national
trademarks and copyrights which protect their publication P electronically
or published on paper. When they are published by anyone other than TSR,
Inc. or their licensees, this publication becomes an infringement to TSR
trademarks and copyrights.
However, the gamers, designers, writers, artists, and editors who work
for TSR, do not wish to inhibit role playing game play.
>SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTINUED PLAY:
WHEN USING TSR PROPERTIES:
You can create material using the AD&D game mechanics, etc. and place
that material on MPGNet, a licensee of TSR, or place it on AOL on TSR's new
Bulletin Board. You can download anything -- graphics, games, etc. appearing
on TSR AOL for your personal use. Currently, any other distribution to the
general public P in paper form or on the net P of AD&D adventures, other
TSR materials and game mechanics, or copyrighted materials is considered
unauthorized. However, you CAN freely distribute or publish "generic"
novels, stories, game mechanics, etc. Read on.
HOW TO CREATE GENERIC MATERIAL P SOME TIPS:
Don't specifically use AD&D statistics. Be creative. If you want a PC
to encounter a stupid but strong NPC, let the GM determine the NPC's actual
stats for the game system used by that GM. If the party encounters a hydra,
let the GM look up the stats for the hydra in the game system he is using.
Don't set the adventures in a TSR world. Create your own or use one
from history or legend. For example, you could set your adventure in
Atlantis, but not in the FORGOTTEN REALMS Adventure World.
Don't use monsters, spells, etc. that were created by TSR. Create and
name your own. Draw on history, legend or reality P even spell their actual
names backward for uniqueness.
Or, if a monster or spell is used in several different game systems,
this is a good indication that it is not owned by TSR. For example, Drow
were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary monster and is public
domain.
You really can get going creatively when you invent your own, unique,
game mechanics . . . worlds, monsters, etc. And you are free to publish
anywhere when you specifically do not rely on AD&D game mechanics or other
material from TSR.
With our new on-line forum on AOL, we'd like to hear from you about
games, graphics, audio, and other material you'd like to download for your
own gaming. Please let us know. We plan to be electronically publishing a
lot of great things in the future for your gaming use.
(R) and TM designate trademarks owned by TSR, Inc. (c) 1994 TSR, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>I couldn't resist this one...
You probably should have...it's been done before (considering how many times
it's been posted and ripped to shreds both seriously and humorously in the
past year...). <grins anyway>
I don't think it's ever been properly MSTied, though. I'd ask if anyone
feels up to it, but that would actually be an honor this document doesn't
deserve. ;)
>Sean K Reynolds (skr...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>Who seems like a decent fellow.
Oh he is, he is. It's his predecessor you gotta watch out for.
>: Since it seems that we have many people who have not seen the TSR
>: Online Policy, I'm reposting it....
>I imagine that you might want to post it regularly, not situationally.
Uploading it to MPGN would probably be a smarter move, if it hasn't already
been done. That way, you can just point and say "Go", and then e-mail it to
the few schmucks who want it but can't ftp.
Either that, or rewrite it completely to better reflect the current
situation... <hint, hint> ;)
>Nothing personal against you, Sean.
I doubt Sean considers your comments as much skin off of his back--as he
didn't write the thing. That would be his predecessor, who got something of
a reputation (deserved or not, make up your own mind) for going full speed
ahead, damn the torpedoes.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Basil Fawlty
: You can create material using the AD&D game mechanics, etc. and place
:that material on MPGNet, a licensee of TSR, or place it on AOL on TSR's new
:Bulletin Board.
It's that man, again...
...tanx for the info. One question, though:
How do I get on MPGNet? Since I don't have access to AOL, I'd like to see
what's going on anyway. Tanx.
Basil
(Every Mother's Slug)
Fawlty
--
AHHHHHhahahahah! I got a million of 'em!
Deanna Hatter
: : WHEN USING TSR PROPERTIES:
: : You can create material using the AD&D game mechanics, etc. and place
: :that material on MPGNet, a licensee of TSR, or place it on AOL on TSR's new
: :Bulletin Board.
: It's that man, again...
: ...tanx for the info. One question, though:
: How do I get on MPGNet? Since I don't have access to AOL, I'd like to see
: what's going on anyway. Tanx.
If you have ftp capabilities, ftp to ftp.mpgn.com. I've never had a
problem getting on there......or rather, never had to try more than twice...
Jason
Jason Still
>:
>: Or, if a monster or spell is used in several different game
systems,
>: this is a good indication that it is not owned by TSR. For example,
Drow
>: were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary monster and is
public
>: domain.
were.
js
Ken Arromdee
Robert Luben <d009...@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
>: Or, if a monster or spell is used in several different game systems,
>: this is a good indication that it is not owned by TSR. For example, Drow
>: were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary monster and is public
>: domain.
Besides, drow weren't created by TSR.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back! Until then, there must
be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs,
and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine...." -- Doctor Who
Brett D Altschul
Jason Still <jst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Am I dreaming or were drow mentioned in The Hobbit? I thought they
>were.
You're definitely dreaming. However, TSR did not invent to word "drow."
Demon Sultan of Khaipur
Brett Altschul
The Amorphous Mass
>
> >:
> >: Or, if a monster or spell is used in several different game
> systems,
> >: this is a good indication that it is not owned by TSR. For example,
> Drow
> >: were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary monster and is
> public
> >: domain.
> Am I dreaming or were drow mentioned in The Hobbit? I thought they
> were.
Drow are mentioned in Norse mythology as well. IIRC "Drow" is an
anglicization of the word for "dark elf" in one of those Scandinavian
languages. They might also pop up in other myths, but that's one I'm
fairly sure of.
----------------
The Amorphous Mass (james-f-...@uiowa.edu)
aka Hyacinth, elven ambassador to the Human Islands
"Black as the night, swift as the wind, subtle as a summer sunset,
lovely as moonlight on the sea, and generally pretty wierd"
The Amorphous Mass
> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
> : Besides, drow weren't created by TSR.
>
> Weren't they created by EGG?
No. EGG authored the TSR instantiation of Drow: the exact statistics
and weapons and so forth that appeared in the Fiend Folio (which means
that in all likelihood it appeared somewhere else first).
The idea of an evil, dark-skinned elf called a "Drow" goes all the way
back to the Norse, at least.
Guy Robinson
>On 16 Oct 1995, Robert Luben wrote:
>> Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>> : Besides, drow weren't created by TSR.
>>
>> Weren't they created by EGG?
> No. EGG authored the TSR instantiation of Drow: the exact statistics
>and weapons and so forth that appeared in the Fiend Folio (which means
>that in all likelihood it appeared somewhere else first).
The Drow can not have appeared in the Fiend Folio first as I can not
remember them being in it and this would simply have been too ironic.
For the source of monsters for the Fiend Folio was from the reader's
monster column of the UK gaming magazine, White Dwarf.
If this was the true origins of the Drow then TSR would be seeking to
suppress and control the legally created writings of the players of their
games with an example monster created through this very same type of use!
Could TSR be this daft?
> The idea of an evil, dark-skinned elf called a "Drow" goes all the way
>back to the Norse, at least.
It has even been accepted by Sean, TSR's net rep, that TSR did not invent
the word "Drow" and that it was formerly associated with a type of evil elf
from a European mythology.
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
Oh for the wings of any bird, Other than a battery hen.
Hawkwind, "Spirit of the Age"
Sean K Reynolds
> Uploading it to MPGN would probably be a smarter move, if it hasn't
> already been done. That way, you can just point and say "Go", and
> then e-mail it to the few schmucks who want it but can't ftp.
Good idea, I'll do that.
> Either that, or rewrite it completely to better reflect the current
> situation... <hint, hint> ;)
Hint taken, hint taken.
> I doubt Sean considers your comments as much skin off of his back--
> as he didn't write the thing. That would be his predecessor, whogot
> something of a reputation (deserved or not, make up your own mind) for
> going full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.
Some of those torpedoes needed a damning or two, mind you.
Naughty little devices. I could just pich them.
Also, a request: will the people that are archiving all of the
net-debate PLEASE update your material to show events from the past three
months? Now that the college students are back in school and online, I'm
getting nasty letters about how we're claiming copyright on "Strength" and
"Hit Points" again, which ony wastes their time and mine (time which I
could use on more productive things, like stealing candy from babies).
Thank you!
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
house and ask for veal parmesan?
Sean K Reynolds
Guy Robinson (guy....@rx.xerox.com) wrote:
: The Drow can not have appeared in the Fiend Folio first as I can not
: remember them being in it and this would simply have been too ironic.
I believe the drow first appeared in the D series modules, and were then
reprinted in the Fiend Folio. In my copy (1st edition, of course),
their creator is listed as Gary Gygax, which probably explains why
they didn't appear in the Fiend Factory monthly article.
: > The idea of an evil, dark-skinned elf called a "Drow" goes all the way
: >back to the Norse, at least.
: It has even been accepted by Sean, TSR's net rep, that TSR did not invent
: the word "Drow" and that it was formerly associated with a type of evil elf
: from a European mythology.
BUT, the AD&D version of drow/dark elf (dark skin, white hair, matriarchal,
worships spider goddess, magic resistant, conjuring darkness, etc.)
is TSR's, regardless of the mythological origin of the word "drow" here
on Earth.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
Tech Support: "Are you running this under Windows?"
Customer: "No, I'm running it under File Manager."
Aardy R. DeVarque
> : Besides, drow weren't created by TSR.
> Drow who were cursed by Correlon Larethian, and who live in the
> underdark and worship Lloth/Lolth certainly were....drow as the
> mythological creature were not....
For those who are curious, this means that you can refer to a character
as being "drow" as well as a "dark elf", but also mentioning that the
character worships Lolth or Elistrae, can levitate & cast faerie fire,
and has 270' infravision, then you've got Trouble with a capital T, which
rhymes with D and stands for Drow. ;)
"Shipoopee, shipoopee..."
Guy Robinson
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>Guy Robinson (guy....@rx.xerox.com) wrote:
>: The Drow can not have appeared in the Fiend Folio first as I can not
>: remember them being in it and this would simply have been too ironic.
>I believe the drow first appeared in the D series modules, and were then
>reprinted in the Fiend Folio. In my copy (1st edition, of course),
>their creator is listed as Gary Gygax, which probably explains why
>they didn't appear in the Fiend Factory monthly article.
This is why I felt that this could not be the case as I was a reader of odd
White Dwarfs over the period from which the bulk of the monsters where
taken. I even have the episode which featured the monsters that where
rejected.
However, as the more intelligent reader of this newsgroup will have noted,
I did state that I was relying on my memory.
I was correct in remembering that the drow first appeared in a prior series
of modules but incorrect in my recollection that the Fiend Folio was
composed in it's entirity from UK fan monsters.
This is not too suprising as I disciplined myself not to read this book so
as a player I could be suprised by these excellent range of monsters.
>: > The idea of an evil, dark-skinned elf called a "Drow" goes all the way
>: >back to the Norse, at least.
>: It has even been accepted by Sean, TSR's net rep, that TSR did not invent
>: the word "Drow" and that it was formerly associated with a type of evil elf
>: from a European mythology.
>BUT, the AD&D version of drow/dark elf (dark skin, white hair, matriarchal,
>worships spider goddess, magic resistant, conjuring darkness, etc.)
>is TSR's, regardless of the mythological origin of the word "drow" here
>on Earth.
"Is TSR's" is a bit vague. Can you be a bit clearer?
Do you mean that TSR possesses a character copyright on their particular
rendition of a Drow?
Do you mean that TSR owns the copyright on TSR's actual text in which the
Drow is described or featured?
For Drow is not a Trademark of TSR, or is it?
Yours curiously,
Guy Robinson
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
[...]
> Also, a request: will the people that are archiving all of the
>net-debate PLEASE update your material to show events from the past three
>months? Now that the college students are back in school and online, I'm
>getting nasty letters about how we're claiming copyright on "Strength" and
>"Hit Points" again, which ony wastes their time and mine (time which I
>could use on more productive things, like stealing candy from babies).
>Thank you!
Unfortunately I only archive the official word of TSR so untill you, as
TSR's net representative, officially update your companies policy
statements then I can not update my material.
As soon as you update and release new material I for one will keep a copy
of the new deal that you seem to be offering.
Bruce Pierpont
>
>>:
>>: Or, if a monster or spell is used in several different game
>systems,
>>: this is a good indication that it is not owned by TSR. For example,
>Drow
>>: were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary monster and is
>public
>>: domain.
>Am I dreaming or were drow mentioned in The Hobbit? I thought they
>were.
The word Drow was invented by TSR. The idea of underground elves is not solely
their idea. The religion, culture, special powers were mostly, if not all,
TSR's doing. If you want to use Drow and have them be "generic" creatures name
them anything other than Drow. Dark Elves, Shadow Elves, Night Elves, etc. are
all acceptable. Just be careful of how close to Drow culture your elves are
(at least in the actual writting).
--
____ |] |]
|]ruce | ierpont
Do I live? [Do I live?]
Am I dead? [Am I dead?]
Or do I mearly dream of the life that once was mine?
--Etienne d'Ambreville "Mark of Amber"
Brett D Altschul
Bruce Pierpont <pier...@mitre.org> wrote:
>The word Drow was invented by TSR.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't win the $10,000,000 grand prize. However,
you do get a copy of our exciting home game, and you can feel free to come back
and play again when you've read the thread and know what you\re talking about.
Guy Robinson
>On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Guy Robinson wrote:
>> The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> > No. EGG authored the TSR instantiation of Drow: the exact statistics
>> >and weapons and so forth that appeared in the Fiend Folio (which means
>> >that in all likelihood it appeared somewhere else first).
>>
>> The Drow can not have appeared in the Fiend Folio first as I can not
>> remember them being in it and this would simply have been too ironic.
> I'd check if I were you. :) All my 1st Ed books are in a box in
>storage somewhere :( but I'm about 90% sure I remember them being there.
>It had a really good David C. Sutherland III illustration of a male Drow
>holding a hand crossbow accompanying it. There's a vague possibility
>that it was in the MMII but I doubt it.
I don't have a copy so I can not check but I trust your memory. I remember
books by artwork and layout as well so I can sympathise with your
recollections.
>> For the source of monsters for the Fiend Folio was from the reader's
>> monster column of the UK gaming magazine, White Dwarf.
> There were a few monsters that were created by TSR staff as well.
>Maybe they submitted them to White Dwarf? I remember that Gygax authored
>the Drow entry in the FF.
This was the problem. I forgot about these contributions by TSR staff to
the Fiend Folio (I doubt that they passed through White Dwarf first though)
and remembered instead the D series.
I presume they added these monsters because they felt that they fitted in
well with the high standard of races and critters that were culled from the
White Dwarf monster column.
As I said in the post I was not 100% confident about being accurate.
>> > The idea of an evil, dark-skinned elf called a "Drow" goes all the way
>> >back to the Norse, at least.
>>
>> It has even been accepted by Sean, TSR's net rep, that TSR did not invent
>> the word "Drow" and that it was formerly associated with a type of evil elf
>> from a European mythology.
> Which is what the original poster wasn't sure about. That's why I took
>the trouble to point that out.
No criticism intended. This was just me seeking add a little more detail.
bax...@hookup.net
> I believe the drow first appeared in the D series modules, and were then
> reprinted in the Fiend Folio. In my copy (1st edition, of course),
Just to be pedantic, their very first appearance was in G3, Hall of the Fire Giant
King. And may I say, it was one hell of a shock. ;-)
FWIW, it looks very much like all of the D-series were at least sketched out at
that point, because the Drow that appear belong to different clans, carry the
appropriate clan pins, feud with each other, etc. And Eclavdra is a much cooler
Drow than Driz'zt will ever be.
> BUT, the AD&D version of drow/dark elf (dark skin, white hair, matriarchal,
> worships spider goddess, magic resistant, conjuring darkness, etc.)
> is TSR's, regardless of the mythological origin of the word "drow" here
> on Earth.
Have you guys sued Elizabeth Moon (author of the Paksenarrion novels) over
that yet?
email: bax...@hookup.net Scott Baxter
web: http://www.hookup.net/~baxter
Promise from the Win '95 theme song: "You make a grown man cry!"
HARTMANN
>
> Hope this adds to the debate in a positive manner. It's too bad TSR
>feels so threatened by their customers. Maybe they wouldn't be if they
>would publish some decent modules now and then. Seems like nowadays you
>can't even get a module without buying a boxed set. And they call it
>progress...?
>
>David Wright
>
Hear, hear! Whatever happened to the good old fashioned 32 page modules
with low quality artwork and actual plotlines? (sniff) I miss 'em.
Ty
Brett D Altschul
>Just to be pedantic, their very first appearance was in G3, Hall of the Fire
>Giant King. And may I say, it was one hell of a shock. ;-)
When TSR redid the really great modules (mostly by Gygax) as supermodules, they
decided to use them as a single long-running campaign. You play T1-4, then
A1-4, then GDQ1-7 (and optionally S1-4 to top it off). However, the slaver
series (Scourge of the Slavelords, A1-4) was written after the giant-drow-Lolth
series, and it includes a small drow caravan in the uderground portion of A2
(Secret of the Slaver's Stockade). If the modules are played in order, this
means that the characters have already encountered the drow when they're sup-
posed to discover them (with the appropriate shock) in G3.
>FWIW, it looks very much like all of the D-series were at least sketched out
>at that point, because the Drow that appear belong to different clans, carry
>the appropriate clan pins, feud with each other, etc. And Eclavdra is a much
>cooler Drow than Driz'zt will ever be.
Item: The drow are mapped out, and their system of nobles and clans is evident
in the caves beneath Snurre's fortress. However, they do not carry the clan
pins seen in the later modules. This is quite reasonable. The pins are prec-
ious as well as worthless among the fire giants.
it always struck me as odd that you are virtually certain to fight Eclavdra the
Eph'ss in G3, yet she's pictured fighting the party on D3 (Vault of the Drow),
when fighting her Elservs clan would be suicide. I guess putting a drow on a
giant module might give too much away, but there are some module covers that
give quite a bit away (the green slime on the back of S4, the boggles on A2,
the ankylasaurus illusion on A3, and especially the stuff on S3. This rather
implies that the players are not intended to see the cover, so why not put the
drow on the cover of G3 or G1-3).
Sean K Reynolds
> However, as the more intelligent reader of this newsgroup willhave noted,
> I did state that I was relying on my memory.
Chill, Guy, I wasn't attacking you. The computer is your friend.
See, I won't even be offended that you implied that I was a less
intelligent reader of this newsgroup.
> >BUT, the AD&D version of drow/dark elf (dark skin, white hair,matriarchal,
> >worships spider goddess, magic resistant, conjuring darkness, etc.)
> >is TSR's, regardless of the mythological origin of the word "drow" here
> >on Earth.
> "Is TSR's" is a bit vague. Can you be a bit clearer?
> Do you mean that TSR possesses a character copyright on their particular
> rendition of a Drow?
Yes. Just as Lucasfilm has a copyright on their version of
Wookies, and Roddenberry's has a copyright on their version of the
creatures known as Klingons.
> Do you mean that TSR owns the copyright on TSR's actual text in which the
> Drow is described or featured?
Yes. Published text is automatically copyrighted, thus the
published text describing the TSR version of drow is copyrighted.
So, yes, to both.
> For Drow is not a Trademark of TSR, or is it?
I haven't seen it TM'd on any recent products, but that doesn't
necessarily mean it hasn't been trademarked. However, as we both
know by now, trademarks and copyrights are two entirely different
arenas, and in this case, it is a matter of copyright.
Sean K Reynolds
> Unfortunately I only archive the official word of TSR so untill
> you, as TSR's net representative, officially update your companies
> policy statements then I can not update my material. As soon as you
> update and release new material I for one will keep a copy of the
> new deal that you seem to be offering.
If you are one of the people archiving old usenet posts on the
copyright debate, then you're three months out of date. If you consider
what I say to be the "official word" of TSR to your satisfaction to argue
with me about semantics and clarifications, then I should be "official"
enough to include with all of the inflammatory information. If you're going
to expose everything Rob Repp said as The Word From TSR, you should at least
mention what is going on _now_. Otherwise you are deliberately acting to
mislead people.
It's the decent thing to do. Then again, you have said that you
have your own personal code of ethics; perhaps you see this differently.
Oh, and you don't consider the new MPGN disclaimer as "new material?"
Brian Gray Perkins
>I believe you're both partly correct. As far as I can recall, though
>they appear in more detail in the FF, Drows are first spotted in that
>ridiculous D1-D2-D3 module series, along with Lloth and her temple. I'm
>not sure (I never owned the modules myself), but I think it's module D2.
>But the original Drow, as they appear with almost identical stats in the
>FF, was almost certainly authored by Gygax, or perhaps by whoever wrote
>the module (I think it was one of the early collaborators; Greenwood
>perhaps?).
>
>For what that was worth.
>
>
>David Legault---------------------...@portal.ca
>
>"SYNCHRONIZE YOUR DOGMAS!" -Ian M. Banks.
>
>
The author of D1-2, "Descent into the Depths of the Earth" is Gary Gygax.
Got the module right here in front of me. Tough module, but not inpossible.
Brian
Peter Froehlich
On Do 19.10.1995 around 22:55:17 balt...@athena.mit.edu (Brett D Altschul)
wrote in message "Repost: TSR Online Policy":
> >But the original Drow, as they appear with almost identical stats in the
> >FF, was almost certainly authored by Gygax, or perhaps by whoever wrote
> >the module (I think it was one of the early collaborators; Greenwood
> >perhaps?).
>
> The stats are precisely identical in both places and both were written by EGG,
> because (feign surprise) Gygax wrote the modules!
But AFAIK there have been changes to the Drow in UA. That brings me to
the question of how "monsters" have evolved during the editions of the
game. Which "monsters" do you know of that were changed sometime from the
earlier 1970s stuff to nowadays? And I mean "significantly" changed, not
just renamed like devils and demons.
_
--- By(T)e... _ // "C++ is already too large and complicated..." ---
--- Peter... \X/\miga - "Gegen den Strom!" -- ANSI-X3J16/ISO-WG21 ---
e-mail: p.fro...@amc.cube.net iam: GCS/O d- s:+ a-- C++(++++) UB P? L E-
W N++ K? w-- O- M V PS PE- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5- X? R+ tv- b++ DI? D+ G e h! r-- y+
Andrew william covert
Tell it like it is
1ST EDITION IS GOD!!!!!!!!
aNDREW cOVERT
onyx
m.x.b
--
Accest that man is imperfect, that good and evil exist and you
will not.... expect too muuch of him.
Anthony Burgess
Guy Robinson
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>> However, as the more intelligent reader of this newsgroup will have noted,
>> I did state that I was relying on my memory.
>
> Chill, Guy, I wasn't attacking you. The computer is your friend.
>See, I won't even be offended that you implied that I was a less
>intelligent reader of this newsgroup.
Nor was I attacking you, Sean. That was a part of the post that was
intended for the attention of Brett Attschul. Brett's post did not deserve
a direct reply so made reference to it in my reply to you.
It was actually intended as a complement.
>> >BUT, the AD&D version of drow/dark elf (dark skin, white hair,matriarchal,
>> >worships spider goddess, magic resistant, conjuring darkness, etc.)
>> >is TSR's, regardless of the mythological origin of the word "drow" here
>> >on Earth.
>
>> "Is TSR's" is a bit vague. Can you be a bit clearer?
>
>> Do you mean that TSR possesses a character copyright on their particular
>> rendition of a Drow?
>
> Yes. Just as Lucasfilm has a copyright on their version of
>Wookies, and Roddenberry's has a copyright on their version of the
>creatures known as Klingons.
I agree whole-heartedly with this.
However as each race has been sold to be used in a role-playing game I
would not expect Lucasfilm, Roddenberry's estate or TSR to seek to hunt
down, control and suppress the legally created works of their customers
after a change of policy that occurred after the sale.
>> Do you mean that TSR owns the copyright on TSR's actual text in which the
>> Drow is described or featured?
>
> Yes. Published text is automatically copyrighted, thus the
>published text describing the TSR version of drow is copyrighted.
>
> So, yes, to both.
So if customers of TSR only use the character copyright they have paid to
use (Fiend Folio purchasers using Drow, etc.) and if they read up on
copyright law so they understand what derivation and adaption mean then
they have nothing to fear from TSR?
So a TSR customer can use Drow as long as their works are 95% original and
are of the specific nature that they bought their TSR books to create. No
full blown modules, no DM Screens, no Complete Handbooks just original
adventures, original maps, original monsters, etc.
>> For Drow is not a Trademark of TSR, or is it?
>
> I haven't seen it TM'd on any recent products, but that doesn't
>necessarily mean it hasn't been trademarked. However, as we both
>know by now, trademarks and copyrights are two entirely different
>arenas, and in this case, it is a matter of copyright.
That is correct, for I was just touching all the legal bases from which TSR
might seek legal protection from.
Guy Robinson
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>> Unfortunately I only archive the official word of TSR so untill
>> you, as TSR's net representative, officially update your companies
>> policy statements then I can not update my material. As soon as you
>> update and release new material I for one will keep a copy of the
>> new deal that you seem to be offering.
>
> If you are one of the people archiving old usenet posts on the
>copyright debate, then you're three months out of date.
I look forward then to you updating my personal archives.
>If you consider
>what I say to be the "official word" of TSR to your satisfaction to argue
>with me about semantics and clarifications, then I should be "official"
>enough to include with all of the inflammatory information.
I do not consider you to the official word of TSR. Others may but I
recognise you as someone who appears to be more sympathetic to the plight
of gamers than the people who actually make the decision at TSR.
>If you're going
>to expose everything Rob Repp said as The Word From TSR, you should at least
>mention what is going on _now_.
What I assume to be the official word from TSR is the considered statement
that Rob Rep would post. As Rob made clear that these where very official
I have to assume that they remain in place untill you specifically recind
and replace them with a more coherent policy.
Before Rob Rep made a number of promises and did not keep them. Untill you
deliver on your promises I have the right to be very skeptical indeed.
>Otherwise you are deliberately acting to mislead people.
You can post whatever you want, Sean. When you start to post considered,
official posts then I will add them to my personal archives.
> It's the decent thing to do. Then again, you have said that you
>have your own personal code of ethics; perhaps you see this differently.
This is a task I can not do. For if I summarise your arguments I might
give people a false representation of what TSR is trying to do. I would
rather have an official statement so the words of Rob Repp can be laid to
rest in a reasonable amount of storage space.
> Oh, and you don't consider the new MPGN disclaimer as "new material?"
I have honestly lost track of the number of times the MPGN has been given a
face lift or some superficial change. As I have said before, in request to
your call for discussion, while TSR equates the copyright term of
derivation with "is based on" then I still have major problems with it.
The Amorphous Mass
> Tell it like it is
>
> 1ST EDITION IS GOD!!!!!!!!
Yes, but 2nd Edition is Power. :)
Macros
> On Sun, 22 Oct 1995, Andrew william covert wrote:
>
> > Tell it like it is
> >
> > 1ST EDITION IS GOD!!!!!!!!
>
> Yes, but 2nd Edition is Power. :)
>
No kidding. I'm surprised T$R hasn't put out the 1st level spell "kill DM and do
whatever you want" yet.
Joe Dimech
.
The Amorphous Mass
I think it's in the High Level Campaign sourcebook. :) If not, then it
will be appearing soon, since 2nd Ed made a point of including popular
1st Ed house rules. :)
Sean K Reynolds
> However as each race has been sold to be used in a role-playing game I
> would not expect Lucasfilm, Roddenberry's estate or TSR to seek to hunt
> down, control and suppress the legally created works of their customers
> after a change of policy that occurred after the sale.
Ah, but Lucasfilm, etc., give permission for people to create and
_distribute_ these works? No. Neither has TSR. And non-permission for
distribution has been TSR's policy for many years now. And even if it were
a "change" in policy, the law would function the same way - committing an
act that _used_ to be legal but now is _illegal_ is _still_ illegal.
Slavery used to be legal in the U.S. (and even in England). However, it is
not legal now. When slavery was declared illegal, all the people already
owning slaves weren't told, "Oh, you just keep on slaving, since you've been
doing it since before this new law came out." They had to stop owning
slaves - immediatly.
I don't know about the UK, but here in the USA, ignorance of a law does
not make you exempt from a law. Not knowing that distributing AD&D IP was
illegal will not protect you if you are caught doing it.
> So if customers of TSR only use the character copyright they have paid to
> use (Fiend Folio purchasers using Drow, etc.)
You have paid for _personal_ use, but not for distribution rights. All
rights over the material other than "personal use" are still controlled by
TSR. This is indicated by two lines in each TSR work:
"Any reproduction or other unauthorized use of the material or artwork
contained herein is prohibited without the express written consent of TSR,
Inc."
"All Rights Reserved." (yes, it is capitalized)
Public distribution falls outside of "personal use," and so you'd need
the express written consent of TSR to do that.
> So a TSR customer can use Drow as long as their works are 95% original and
> are of the specific nature that they bought their TSR books to create.
If their adventure only says "Drow," and doesn't use any other
terminology or images that indicate it is a TSR-drow (i.e., it is a
"generic" drow), then TSR has no complaint. It is only when it is obvious
that a copyright infringement of the characteristics of a TSR-drow is
occuring that TSR Legal has to get involved.
Lone_Wolf
[Much legal discussion snipped]
>
>> So a TSR customer can use Drow as long as their works are 95% original and
>> are of the specific nature that they bought their TSR books to create.
>
> If their adventure only says "Drow," and doesn't use any other
>terminology or images that indicate it is a TSR-drow (i.e., it is a
>"generic" drow), then TSR has no complaint. It is only when it is obvious
>that a copyright infringement of the characteristics of a TSR-drow is
>occuring that TSR Legal has to get involved.
>
So, if I understand this correctly, I could write a passage such as this:
12. Room carved out of black marble, veined with gold. Very poor
lighting. 13 Drow Elves are hiding in this room, covered by
an invisibility spell. They will attack as soon as the entire
party enters the room.
And it would be alright (TSR Legal wouldn't have to get involved).
However, if I write something like this:
12. Room carved out of black marble, veined with gold. Embossed
symbol of the Demon Queen of Spiders on the south wall. Very
poor lighting. 13 Drow Elves wielding tentacle rods are
hiding in this room, covered by an invisibility spell. They
will attack as soon as the entire party enters the room,
screaming, "For the glory of Lolth!"
Then TSR Legal would have to get involved because I'd be using several
elements that are rather similar to some TSR-developed ideas (Demon Queen of
Spiders, tentacle rods, Lolth).
Is this correct, or am I missing the point?
/ Don't bother to flame me. You'll just be wasting your time. All of /
/ the above is my own opinion. No insult is intended. Another new /
/ episode of Babylon 5 this Thursday on UPN! Yaaaay! /
croaker
> The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell it like it is
>>>
>>> 1ST EDITION IS GOD!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Yes, but 2nd Edition is Power. :)
>>
> Edition if you disagree. Apparently TSR thought that 12 hardcover books
> was too "unwieldy"! :)
>
> Ty
Oh so is that why they replaced those 12 with the umpteen jillion chb and
monster apendixes and addeniums and.....
;')
james vassilakos
>Then realize that when people complain to me about TSR claiming
>copyright on "hit points" and "strength" that I will tell them that your
>information is out of date, and that they should complain to _you_ about
>misleading them. Look forward to it.
Sean, I feel I have to jump in here, as I was involved in doing the
debate archive and have not updated it for quite a long time. I was
hoping that you folks would get out that new policy statement you
keep telling us about.
As for strength & hitpoints, I am still confused over which
terminology TSR is attempting to restrain the free, non-commercial
use of, and which terminology it is going to let us use. As you
know, I have been attempting to get this question answered for
some time now. Here, yet again, is a copy of the letter I sent
to TSR's lawyer at your request, to which I have still not
recieved any reply.
August 31, 1995
Connie Lindman
TSR, Inc.
201 Sheridan Springs Rd.
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Ms. Lindman:
It has come to my attention during the past year that TSR has
erected a policy on the Internet which forbids individual players
of the AD&D roleplaying game from freely distributing, without
charge, materials which they have written which are compatible
with and which make use of the terminology of the AD&D game
system, such as adventures, spell books, monster databases,
character sheets, and the like.
I have exchanged email with Sean Reynolds, TSR's Online
Representative, on this topic. He is apparently attempting to
gather a list of "generic" terminology (that is terminology
which is used by both TSR and at least one other game system)
which he purports is usable by individuals on the Internet.
I have two questions for you.
First, which of the following terms (if any) does TSR classify as
"generic" rather than as AD&D-specific, and can they be used in
net-publications with their AD&D meanings assumed: Strength,
Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma,
Comeliness, Frequency, # Appearing, Armor Class, Move, Hit Dice,
Hit Points, % in Lair, Treasure Type, # of Attacks,
Damage/Attack, Special Attacks, Special Defenses, Magic
Resistance, Alignment, Size, Psionic Ability, THAC0, Experience
Points, Level, Range, Duration, Area of Effect, Components,
Casting Time, Saving Throw, and Speed Factor?
In the event that TSR allows all or most of these terms to be
used freely on the Internet with their AD&D meanings assumed, I
think that most people will be satisfied enough to let the issue
drop. However, in the event that TSR does not allow the free use
of this terminology, I think that there are those of us who might
want to take the issue before a judge, depending, of course, on
how much it'll cost to get a judicial verdict on whether or not
this terminology is copyrightable in the first place, and if so,
to what extent it can still be used in a freely-distributed,
third-party game supplement or module.
My second question, then, is whether or not TSR would be willing
to take the terminology issue to court. I could write an
AD&D-compatible adventure which makes use of all of the
game-terms listed above. Would TSR be willing to seek injunction
against my free distribution of that module so that we could both
appear before a judge, make our arguments, and get a verdict as
to this issue?
Thank you for your time and consideration in answering these
questions. I will be sure to post your reply to the Internet for
others to see.
Sincerely,
Jim Vassilakos
The Dark Abyss
: > Power gone haywire, that is...Look at the original purpose for the 2nd
: > Edition if you disagree. Apparently TSR thought that 12 hardcover books
: > was too "unwieldy"! :)
: they've stuck by their original intent: There are not 12 _hardcover_
: books for 2nd Ed. There are plenty of softcovers, but apparently those
: aren't unwieldy. :)
Yeah, but each players doesn't need ALL of them.
I remember rolemaster,.. if you havent got ALL the compendiums, you're not
playing _real_ rolemaster.
w `o' luc...@infernal.demon.co.uk (The Dark Abyss)
|--O-' Compiler of "The FAQs about DMing" & "The Polymorph FAQ"
| / \____^ If you wish to recieve these FAQs simply EMail and ask.
Brett D Altschul
Peter Froehlich <p.fro...@amc.cube.net> wrote:
> Regarding Eclavdra (or whatever she was called). She _was_ cool when
>one stays close to Gary's story, where she was killed by her clone Leda. A
>little sad though...
Where'd you get this information? It sounds quite plausible, becuase Lyme can
clone her if she dies in G3, but I've never heard this before.
Dru A Smith
>I'm pretty sure the poster is referring to Gygax's novels.
>The first two were publishe by TSR. The later ones by New
>Infinities.
>
>Several characters from the GDQ series of modules figure
>prominently including Eclavdra, Obmi the dwarf, Keak the
>elf, and others. They are worth the read if you can find
>them. They should be probably considered an "alternate"
>timeline to the From the Ashes timeline.
It's been a while since I ran them, but I don't remember Obmi nor
Keak in the modules.
Also, from a personal standpoint, I believe that Gary's Greyhawk is
tie TRUE timeline (cripes, it's his world) and that "From the Ashes"
is the "alternate".
Dru Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** starting 10/1/95, new e-mail: d...@charybdis.ngs.noaa.gov ***
"...all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which
there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and
those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one
above the other"
-- H.P. Lovecraft, The Silver Key
Sean K Reynolds
> So why does TSR insist on speaking of drow in this way?
My guess is that because the word "drow" was used in the TSR Online
Policy ("drow are a creation of TSR"), and everyone jumped on the bandwagon
of pointing out that drow existed in folklore far longer than TSR has been
around. Thus, the clarification of TSR-drow or non-TSR-drow has become
necessary because if their presence in the original policy.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
"Chickenman, chickenman, chickenman, hold my hand."
'Chickenman,' - Indigo Girls
Sean K Reynolds
james vassilakos (ji...@corsa.ucr.edu) wrote:
: Sean, I feel I have to jump in here, as I was involved in doing the
: debate archive and have not updated it for quite a long time. I was
: hoping that you folks would get out that new policy statement you
: keep telling us about.
Jim and I will be presenting it to Connie to be chopped apart soon enough.
: As for strength & hitpoints, I am still confused over which
: terminology TSR is attempting to restrain the free, non-commercial
: use of, and which terminology it is going to let us use.
That's what the h
That's what the "generic terms" thread was about, and that will be
addressed when Connie meets with TSR's president about setting up
a web page & etc. Until then, all that is "official" is that we
don't consider "strength" and "hit points" to be ours; the others
we are waiting on.
Possibly Connie has not answered your letter because she was not
in a position to answer it - this upcoming meeting should bring some
clarity.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
"'Come to the edge,' he said. They said, 'We are afraid.'
'Come to the edge,' he said. They came. He pushed them...
And they flew." - Peter McWilliams
Bob Hibbert Jr.
>In article <DH4AG...@apollo.hp.com>, Eric Boyd <bo...@ch.apollo.hp.com> wrote:
>>I'm pretty sure the poster is referring to Gygax's novels.
>>The first two were publishe by TSR. The later ones by New
>>Infinities.
>>
>>Several characters from the GDQ series of modules figure
>>prominently including Eclavdra, Obmi the dwarf, Keak the
>>elf, and others. They are worth the read if you can find
>>them. They should be probably considered an "alternate"
>>timeline to the From the Ashes timeline.
> It's been a while since I ran them, but I don't remember Obmi nor
>Keak in the modules.
> Also, from a personal standpoint, I believe that Gary's Greyhawk is
>tie TRUE timeline (cripes, it's his world) and that "From the Ashes"
>is the "alternate".
That is to bad because in his book Tharizdun woke from his endless
sleep but was trapped on Oreth. So basicly Greyhawk is ruled by the
Ultimate Evil Tharizdun forever (in terms of mortals).
But I could see where this could be a cool setting for a campain. Has
anyone ever explored this posibility?
> Dru Smith
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>*** starting 10/1/95, new e-mail: d...@charybdis.ngs.noaa.gov ***
>"...all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which
>there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and
>those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one
>above the other"
>-- H.P. Lovecraft, The Silver Key
Robert L. Hibbert Jr.
rl...@psu.edu
"It's not my fault! It's not my fault!!" Han Solo and Lando Calrisian
Deanna Hatter
: Where'd you get this information? It sounds quite plausible, becuase Lyme can
: clone her if she dies in G3, but I've never heard this before.
In the novels, of course...
Jason
JAMES JOHNSTON
===========================================================================
Don't quote me, but I believe that drow was invented by R.A.
Salvatore, and that TSR does not own the copyrights. I might be wrong so
don't take me to court, but isn't Drizzt awesome. I love drow and
believe that they should take over Faerun.(If they could stand the sun)
A true drow fanatic, -James Johnston
---
* OLX 1.53 * "That's entertainment," - Vlad the Impaler.
ed taychert
>"drow." They do however own the copyright on a monster called Drow that
>have the stats and behaviors and rituals and descriptions given in the
>various TSR rulebooks and supplements.
While I think we're thinking along the same lines, I would point out
that TSR owns the copyright on the _text_ which describes their
drow. The concept and ideas behind their monster cannot be copyrighted.
They claim "intellectual property rights" to dark-skinned, white-haired
elves that cast "darkness", live in a matriarchy and worship a
spider god ... "intellectual property rights" is a bunch of hand waving
being used by people that realize that they don't have a copyright
leg to stand on. IPR is so vague a concent that there are megabytes
of essays about it on the web ... be afraid of people waving IPR
arguments. While copyright law is well defined, the interpretation of
IPR will be an sword dangling over our heads for years to come.
- Ed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Taychert | Visit Irony Games! PBEM's, Game openings, Worlds on the
e...@irony.com | web and online GM tools. All free! http://www.irony.com
Andrew william covert
What are these novels and how can I get one? or two?
Andrew Covert
ONYX
M.X.B
--
To err is human, but to really fuck things up you need a computer.
Anonymus
Aardy R. DeVarque
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.951029...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>
>> TSR does not own the copyright on an evil jet-black elf called a
>>"drow." They do however own the copyright on a monster called Drow that
>>have the stats and behaviors and rituals and descriptions given in the
>>various TSR rulebooks and supplements.
>While I think we're thinking along the same lines, I would point out
>that TSR owns the copyright on the _text_ which describes their
>drow. The concept and ideas behind their monster cannot be copyrighted.
>They claim "intellectual property rights" to dark-skinned, white-haired
>elves that cast "darkness", live in a matriarchy and worship a
>spider god ... "intellectual property rights" is a bunch of hand waving
>being used by people that realize that they don't have a copyright
>leg to stand on.
What they're claiming is apparently "character copyright", which would
indeed most likely (but not definitely) cover exactly what TSR claims it
covers in terms of the drow. However, character copyright is even more
nebulous than "normal" copyright, and there is some question as to whether
or not it would apply to an RPG in the first place. <shrug>
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Brett D Altschul
The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> creatures without his permission? Likewise with Roddenberry and
>> vulcans or klingons, etc.
> All the beasties you mentioned are original down to their names, and thus
The concept of a planet Vulcan (and therby the inhabitants thereof) is not due
to Roddenberry; it was a real, (albiet brief) episode of scientific history.
Somebody apparently got a spot of dust on his telescope confused with a planet
inside the orbit of Mercury; it was cleared up, but the concept of a planet
Vulcan will probably never die now.
The Amorphous Mass
> A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>
> ed taychert (tayc...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
> : Thanks for clearing that up. It seems to me that Drizzt is a
> : character ... I don't see how "drow" are a character, no matter
> : what god they worship. (Though perhaps their god is a character too.)
>
> Think of it this way: does Lucas have a copyright on wookies? Ewoks?
> Could Lucasfilm file suit against someone for using these sorts of
> creatures without his permission? Likewise with Roddenberry and
> vulcans or klingons, etc.
None of which, if my memory serves me, borrowed their name, appearance
_and_ general disposition from legend.
All the beasties you mentioned are original down to their names, and thus
ownership of them lock, stock and barrel is wholly unambiguous, at least
AFAIK. TSR's drow are not: They are, if you will, derivative works (do
not interpret that in the _strictest_ legal sense), derived in this case
from Norse mythology, and so it is IMO considerably less clear that TSR
has the same claims to them that Lucas has to Ewoks.
Brett D Altschul
Patrick Franke <fran...@bc.edu> wrote:
>In fact I decided that it would be Eclavdras best bet -after all her giant
>allies had been routed- to follow the rule if you can't beat them, join
>them.
>So she invited the party to a tense negotiation.
>Since her main goal is ruling Erelhei Cinlu she offered the players a
You've got the right idea; however, I think the city of Erelhei-Cinlu itself is
the portion of the Vault of the Drow that Eclavdra is *least* interested in
runling. There's nothing of value in that city. Eclavdra wanted to rule the
entire Vault.
>deal: stop your attack for two days, so I can withdraw my forces, then you
>can go to Erelhei Cinlu and fight the real enemy Lolth! (after all it was
>Lolth who was responsible for the attack on Sterich, the main rationale
>for my players).
The story makes no sense really, unless the only drow who had any contact with
the overworld are the Elservs. It always struck me as ironic that the drow you
begin fighting are later the ones who're on your side when you start battling
Lolth. (Well, they're not on your side, but you've got a common enemy.)
James Gardner Wheaton
> A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>
> ed taychert (tayc...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
> : Thanks for clearing that up. It seems to me that Drizzt is a
> : character ... I don't see how "drow" are a character, no matter
> : what god they worship. (Though perhaps their god is a character too.)
>
> Think of it this way: does Lucas have a copyright on wookies? Ewoks?
> Could Lucasfilm file suit against someone for using these sorts of
> creatures without his permission? Likewise with Roddenberry and
> vulcans or klingons, etc.
>
> - Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
>
>
Or, look at it this way- does Speilberg have a copyright on vicious
velicoraptor/ man sized dinsosaurs? Does(or more probably) did Gene
Roddenberry have an exclusive right on starships and warp-drive devices--
then Lucas films would have been in toruble.
Since TSR largely deals with classical archetypes, it gets damned
tricky. In my eyes TSR more or less ripped off tolkein-is that fair?
Graaceful ageless nearly immortyal elfs, and surly Dwarves appear in
lots of literature. Wookies, klingons, (and, for that matter) beholders,
and Dragon kings of Tyr, do not.
james "i'm just making a distinction here, and besdies, anyone
who says they're drow ranger is based on Norse mythology
is full of hooie" wheaton
Terry Austin
>Would you prefer I pull some date out of my hat and have it
>be wrong? Face facts, man - whether or not "Hit dice" is
>a TSR-exclusive term or not is hardly the most important
>issue to a 200+ employee company. Jim and I are doing what
>we can to speed things along, but as this is a family-owned
>company, the president sets her own schedule, and some guy
>who has only worked here for four months isn't going to
>be able to order her around. I am doing as much as I can.
>If that's not good enough for you, why don't you set up
>an appointment with Lorraine Williams, TSR Inc?
CYA, Sean. If TSR's honchos are acting that way, they are setting you
up to take the fall. I honestly believe you are doing everything you
possible can to help resolve this issue. But you are being prevented
by your bosses from doing so. Someone needs to make it absolutely
clear to them that this is NOT going to go away. And eventually, TSR
is going to mess with someone with the money to make a moral and legal
stand.
When that happens, there will be two consequences:
1. TSR will spend a lot of money defending a questionable legal
position. Maybe then will win. Maybe they will lose. Most likely,
it will be a compromise.
2. You will get the blame for everything. "What good is an
online rep if he can't keep people from infringing on our intellectual
property in the Internet." Never mind that they have taken action
directly responsible for you not being able to resolve this issue.
The owner of a company is NEVER at fault.
The president DOES set her own schedule. She has chosen to ignore an
issue that will cost her company hundreds of thousands of dollars in
court costs if TSR wins. More if it loses.
You're too nice a guy to take the fall for her mistakes, Sean. Cover
Your Ass. She's setting you up.
>>In short, your entire "net-presence" has resulted in nothing more
>>than a long series of attempts to stall discussion in the hopes
>>that we might miraculously just loes interest and disappear,
>What color is the sky in your world, Jim? Not everything is a
>conspiracy against you, your family, and your hobby.
>And this most certainly is not.
I agree with Sean here. Don't blame him for his bosses and lawyers
mistakes. Or calculated risks. Whatever their motives, Sean has been
taken out of the loop (as if he was ever in it). He's doing the best
he can, and I think he's beginning to realize that his primary
function is to take the blame.
I hope he goes down kicking and screaming.
Good luck Sean.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Larry Smith
In article <47468s$8...@cyber1.servtech.com>, tayc...@cyber1.servtech.com (ed taychert) writes:
>In article <473b3t$e...@news1.mcs.net>,
>Aardy R. DeVarque <jh...@nslsilus.org> wrote:
>>What they're claiming is apparently "character copyright",
>Thanks for clearing that up. It seems to me that Drizzt is a
>character ... I don't see how "drow" are a character, no matter
>what god they worship. (Though perhaps their god is a character too.)
>I know they unmasked "that guy" that played the Lone Ranger (appologies
>for forgetting his name) but I've seen other cowboys shooting silver
>bullets ...
The Lone Ranger did _not_ qualify for a "character copyright" -
his publishers lost in court and he's public domain now. The
courts have been fairly capricious about character copyrights,
and it is impossible to predict whether one is valid or not.
This is one of the _legitimate_ gray areas in the TSR copyright
debate.
So far as I know, however, character copyrights have not been
applied to worlds or backgrounds at all, just characters. How-
ever, common worlds and backgrounds may be earmarks of a "de-
rived" work, and this again, is a legitimate gray area.
'course there's lots of black and white areas, so we don't need
to go into them again.
--
Larry Smith - My opinions only. Killfile slac...@ix.netcom.com, tau...@ni.net
The attempt to justify an evil deed has perhaps more pernicious consequences
than the evil deed itself. The justification of a past crime is the planting
and cultivation of future crimes. -- Eric Hoffer Digital Unix: 64 bit _now_.
Sean K Reynolds
Brett D Altschul (balt...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
>Changes in the law work in this way; changes in company policy do not. When
>slavery was abolished, it became illegal, whether you knew about it or not. If
>a company changes its stance on the use of its IP, then that stance is only ef-
>fective once it's been "reasonably publicized." (However, TSR's poilcy has
>definitely been sufficiently aired to solve that problem.)
Except that this has been TSR's policy for many years. This didn't start
last year when Rob Repp starting posting.
Sean K Reynolds
james vassilakos (ji...@cs.ucr.edu) wrote:
>First of all, the courts have ruled that characters which are not
>sufficiently detailed (i.e. fleshed-out) do not qualify for copyright
>protection. The Long Ranger is one example. Now, the Drow write-up
>takes about a page or two in the Fiend Folio. Does this page or two
>describe them (flesh them out) sufficiently for them to qualify for
>copyright protection (in the sense of a character copyright)? It can
>be argued either way, and I'd be interested in hearing what the
>judge would have to say.
How about when you add in the 9+ novels about Drow Elves? That
adds up to substantially more than two pages.
>PS: Sean, how long until you folks make a decision on whether or
>not to overturn this aspect of TSR's policy? I'm beginning to
>doubt that this so-called process is even in effect.
Jim, if I had an exact answer for you, I would have gladly
given it long ago. Jim and I have been pushing to get this
all cleared up because we two are the ones that have to deal
with it. Those that make the decisions aren't out here on
"the front," and so have less of a sense of urgency.
Sean K Reynolds
Lone_Wolf (Guar...@voyager.cris.com) wrote:
>So, if I understand this correctly, I could write a passage such as this:
> 12. Room carved out of black marble, veined with gold. Very poor
> lighting. 13 Drow Elves are hiding in this room, covered by
> an invisibility spell. They will attack as soon as the entire
> party enters the room.
>And it would be alright (TSR Legal wouldn't have to get involved).
Yes.
>However, if I write something like this:
> 12. Room carved out of black marble, veined with gold. Embossed
> symbol of the Demon Queen of Spiders on the south wall. Very
> poor lighting. 13 Drow Elves wielding tentacle rods are
> hiding in this room, covered by an invisibility spell. They
> will attack as soon as the entire party enters the room,
> screaming, "For the glory of Lolth!"
>Then TSR Legal would have to get involved because I'd be using several
>elements that are rather similar to some TSR-developed ideas (Demon Queen of
>Spiders, tentacle rods, Lolth).
>Is this correct, or am I missing the point?
You are correct, you are not missing the point. :)
The Livewire
>Jim, if I had an exact answer for you, I would have gladly
>given it long ago. Jim and I have been pushing to get this
>all cleared up because we two are the ones that have to deal
>with it. Those that make the decisions aren't out here on
>"the front," and so have less of a sense of urgency.
Well you could always set the reply to to connies address:)
>- Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
The Livewire
morri...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu
"I looked down at my notes, realized that there were two naked women
fighting the bad guys, and sighed. This is beginning to look like an Ed
Greenwood Novel."
james vassilakos
: james vassilakos (ji...@cs.ucr.edu) wrote:
: >First of all, the courts have ruled that characters which are not
: >sufficiently detailed (i.e. fleshed-out) do not qualify for copyright
: >protection. The Long Ranger is one example. Now, the Drow write-up
: >takes about a page or two in the Fiend Folio. Does this page or two
: >describe them (flesh them out) sufficiently for them to qualify for
: >copyright protection (in the sense of a character copyright)? It can
: >be argued either way, and I'd be interested in hearing what the
: >judge would have to say.
:
: How about when you add in the 9+ novels about Drow Elves? That
: adds up to substantially more than two pages.
I've never read these novels. Hence, if I included a drow elf in a
module I write, you can be assured that I wouldn't be taking any of
this "fleshing-out" and assuming it as my own. My sole source would
be the 1-2 pages of the Fiend Folio, as that is the source of the
Drow as a monster write-up for RPG purposes.
Add to this the following points brought up in this discussion:
1. The Drow are themselves a derived from legend which is public domain.
2. The Drow are a mythical race, not a character per se, and hence might
not be given the same level of protection as true characters but only
the lesser protection of an element of setting.
Piling together all these points, you have a situation where Drow Elves
along with many of the other monsters in the books might not have, in
the context of an RPG, any character protection whatsoever. I'm not
saying that this is necessarily the case, or that I'd even want to
bet money on it. Only that a judge could conceivably rule this way.
In any case, my main quibble with TSR isn't even about this issue. If
you want to control the use of Drow, it's not worth it to me to fight
you about it. It's your intention to control the use of all AD&D
terminology that I find much more appaling. Without the ability to
use this terminology or some mutually agreed-upon set of equivalent
terminology, AD&D players on the net don't have a common "language"
with which to share their own creations for the game. Your comeback
has always been, "create all your want, just don't share," or "use
generic terms". The former "solution" is flat-out unacceptable. The
latter won't work until some mutually agreed upon terms which are
equivalent to and have the same meaning as the "forbidden" terms
arise.
However, aside from "Strength" and "Hitpoints", TSR won't even
tell us which of its terms it holds to be "forbidden". You tell
us you're working on it, but you refuse to give us any timetable
as to when you expect to make these decisions. You tell us to
write your lawyer, but we never receive any response when we do.
In short, your entire "net-presence" has resulted in nothing more
than a long series of attempts to stall discussion in the hopes
that we might miraculously just loes interest and disappear, and
for the majority of people on this newsgroup, your tactic may have
worked, but there are some of us, a minority to be certain, who are
not going away. You are going to have to deal with us sooner or
later, Sean, and the longer you stall, the more everyone sees
exactly what kind of company TSR is.
Renita Peeler
Renita Peeler
mape...@uncc.edu
Re : Repost: TSR Online Policy N (Drow Copyright)
While TSR has copyright on the drow characters, their religion worlds,
and, to a certain extent, the society they live in, they do not have sole
rights to the Drow as a race. The white hair and black skin of the drow,
and the fact that they live underground are taken from Snorri
Sturlenson's Prose Edda. The word "Drow" itself is English in origin, and
once meant a sea-troll (sea-trow) or hill-troll (hill trow). This defini-
tion was later expanded to mean a malevolent faerie spirit, and evolved
into what we call the Drow Elf or Dark Elf today. It must be said also
that the Drow, at least the way they appear are like the Nordic
Dockalfar. They should not be confused with the dvergar, because,
according to Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie, these were two different
creatures.
Another interesting point is that the fact that the drow worship
a goddess is not under copyright, either. If this is changed to say that
the goddess is Lolth, then that IS under TSR's copyright. However, it is
also known that some Dockalfar served Hel in Nifelheim.
The Drow Matriarchy. It is also a common theme in many European
mythologies that elves or elvish creatures tend to be ruled by Queens
(though there are quite a few references to elvenkings also). That TSR's
Drow are ruled by women is not necessarily a copyrighted convention, but
the WAY in which these women rule i.e., the constant chaos, the snake-
headed whips, etc., is.
Spiders. Drow and the worship of spiders is a characteristic of TSR's
drow and falls under their copyright. There is no record in
Norse/Teutonic mythology that mentions the worship of spiders by elves,
either light or dark.
The Amorphous Mass
> A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>
> The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
> > None of which, if my memory serves me, borrowed their name, appearance
> >_and_ general disposition from legend.
>
> Name = "drow"; OK, that's from legend
> Appearance: "dark skinned elves"; that much is legendary, but I don't
> recall any legends about them having ebon skin, flowing white hair,
> and being cruelly beautiful
[much stuff snipped]
I'm not saying TSR hasn't done _any_ fleshing out of their concept of
the Drow. That would be an absurd statement -- as you have said 9
some-odd books, several modules and a supplement or two have fleshed them
out richly into a unique and recognizable creation. My point is that you
have still _fleshed_out_ a _pre-existing_ legend: This post proving their
uniqueness is three screenfuls long; if you had to sum up a Drow in one
sentence it would be obviously derivative of the legend. That's all I'm
saying. You will recall that my original post _affirmed_ your official
position on what is and what is not a "generic" reference to a "drow."
We have no argument here, as far as I can tell.
Sean K Reynolds
james vassilakos (ji...@cs.ucr.edu) wrote:
>I've never read these novels. Hence, if I included a drow elf in a
>module I write, you can be assured that I wouldn't be taking any of
>this "fleshing-out" and assuming it as my own. My sole source would
>be the 1-2 pages of the Fiend Folio, as that is the source of the
>Drow as a monster write-up for RPG purposes.
But that other material still exists. If you watch 10 minutes of
the middle of Star Wars and then write a story with a wookie in
it, the rest of that movie (and the 2 sequels, plus the novels
and games) _still_exists_. Ignorance or oughtright avoidance
of using other related materials doesn't change the nature of
what you have written about.
>In any case, my main quibble with TSR isn't even about this issue. If
>you want to control the use of Drow, it's not worth it to me to fight
>you about it. It's your intention to control the use of all AD&D
>terminology that I find much more appaling.
Yes, that's obviously why you bring it up in every single thread
you post on. This is a _different_topic_. Don't muddle the issue
by changing the subject. We're talking about copyrights on
characters and types of characters, here, and the evidence for
and against it.
>However, aside from "Strength" and "Hitpoints", TSR won't even
>tell us which of its terms it holds to be "forbidden". You tell
>us you're working on it, but you refuse to give us any timetable
>as to when you expect to make these decisions.
Would you prefer I pull some date out of my hat and have it
be wrong? Face facts, man - whether or not "Hit dice" is
a TSR-exclusive term or not is hardly the most important
issue to a 200+ employee company. Jim and I are doing what
we can to speed things along, but as this is a family-owned
company, the president sets her own schedule, and some guy
who has only worked here for four months isn't going to
be able to order her around. I am doing as much as I can.
If that's not good enough for you, why don't you set up
an appointment with Lorraine Williams, TSR Inc?
>In short, your entire "net-presence" has resulted in nothing more
>than a long series of attempts to stall discussion in the hopes
>that we might miraculously just loes interest and disappear,
What color is the sky in your world, Jim? Not everything is a
conspiracy against you, your family, and your hobby.
And this most certainly is not.
The Livewire
>The Livewire (morri...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: Well you could always set the reply to to connies address:)
>Only problem is, IIRC, Connie doesn't HAVE an 'net addy..8)
Smart Woman :)
>Jason
The Amorphous Mass
> It must be said also that the Drow, at least the way they appear are
> like the Nordic Dockalfar. They should not be confused with the
> dvergar, because, according to Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie,
> these were two different creatures.
My, my. Can you tell us how much the dvergar resemble TSR's Duergar? :)
Did you find any comments about suirfneblin? (OK that's pushing it).
Excellent post.
Deanna Hatter
: Well you could always set the reply to to connies address:)
Only problem is, IIRC, Connie doesn't HAVE an 'net addy..8)
Jason
Terry Austin
>I don't know about the courts in _your_ world, but in _our_
>world, points of difference that are gauranteed to be created
>in this manner _do_ count towards the minimal standard for
>"creative". If I write about 7-ft wookiees that grunt only
>while excited, speak idiomatic English, and wear yellow kilts
>on high holy days, it is very _un_likely that a) Lucas would
>bother to sue and b) that he would win. Art Buchwald notwith-
>standing, a few chance similarities are not going to buy you
>the whole wad. It wouldn't have bought a wad for Buchwald if
>he hadn't had a contract as well as his copyrights.
Ready to bet your livelihood on it, Larry? Didn't think so. If
you're so sure you're right, start writing AD&D modules for
publication. With your superior intellect, that should be pretty
easy. When TSR sues you, you countersue for harrasment and fasle
prosecution (or whatever they call it in your dimension) and get rich
real quick while teaching Satan's minions a real lesson.
On the other hand, mayber you don't really know what you're talking
about.
Terry "I finally made it into Larry Smith's killfile" Austin
Sean K Reynolds
The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
>saying. You will recall that my original post _affirmed_ your official
>position on what is and what is not a "generic" reference to a "drow."
>We have no argument here, as far as I can tell.
::sigh:: Sorry about that. I guess I've become used to being battered
from all sides, and expect it. :P
james vassilakos
: >I've never read these novels. Hence, if I included a drow elf in a
: >module I write, you can be assured that I wouldn't be taking any of
: >this "fleshing-out" and assuming it as my own. My sole source would
: >be the 1-2 pages of the Fiend Folio, as that is the source of the
: >Drow as a monster write-up for RPG purposes.
:
: But that other material still exists. If you watch 10 minutes of
: the middle of Star Wars and then write a story with a wookie in
: it, the rest of that movie (and the 2 sequels, plus the novels
: and games) _still_exists_. Ignorance or oughtright avoidance
: of using other related materials doesn't change the nature of
: what you have written about.
I agree that a writer's ignorance (whether intentional or otherwise)
about a pre-existing work does not change the status of that work,
however, I still think that it is possible that the TSR-version of
the Drow Elf may have stronger protection as an element of a novel
than it has as an element of an RPG. The courts may even decide
that the RPG-version and the Novel-version are two separate entities
for purposes of copyright law and treat them completely separately.
Even if the court lumps them together, however, you still face the
charge that AD&D Drow are derivative of public domain legend, and
that in itself is a can of worms. My main point here is that we
don't really know what will happen about Drow Elves and other AD&D
monster races until such a case actually comes to trial. I will admit,
however, that I would not want to be involved in such litigation, as
I wouldn't feel certain enough about the outcome to be putting myself
through it.
: >In any case, my main quibble with TSR isn't even about this issue. If
: >you want to control the use of Drow, it's not worth it to me to fight
: >you about it. It's your intention to control the use of all AD&D
: >terminology that I find much more appaling.
:
: Yes, that's obviously why you bring it up in every single thread
: you post on. This is a _different_topic_. Don't muddle the issue
: by changing the subject. We're talking about copyrights on
: characters and types of characters, here, and the evidence for
: and against it.
I see... well, then please accept my apology for posting off-topic.
I just didn't want newbies to think that the whole copyright debate
has been about Drow Elves. There is a much larger issue which needs
to be resolved (the issue concerning terminology use). To stretch
out on a limb, I think that most of us would be willing to conceed
the Drow-issue along with all AD&D-monsters and so forth if TSR
would conceed the terminology issue so that we could generate and
pass around our own AD&D-compatible works on the net. In short, we
leave your stuff alone if you leave our stuff alone. Unfortunately,
I just don't see TSR as being willing to do that, or your lawyer
would have responded to that letter I sent back in August.
: >However, aside from "Strength" and "Hitpoints", TSR won't even
: >tell us which of its terms it holds to be "forbidden". You tell
: >us you're working on it, but you refuse to give us any timetable
: >as to when you expect to make these decisions.
:
: Would you prefer I pull some date out of my hat and have it
: be wrong?
Yes, I would. Because then, at least, you might have an incentive
to meet it. As it stands, you make these vague meaningless promises,
telling us about all this "work" you're doing, and nothing ever changes.
: Face facts, man - whether or not "Hit dice" is
: a TSR-exclusive term or not is hardly the most important
: issue to a 200+ employee company.
If it's not important to TSR, then why does TSR insist on dragging
its feet? Simply make a decision and be done with it. You did
this with respect to Hitpoints. On 19-Aug-1995 you write:
Hit points is not an AD&D-exclusive term
There are only about 30-40 terms total which we need answers to:
Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma,
Comeliness, Frequency, # Appearing, Armor Class, Move, Hit Dice,
Hit Points, % in Lair, Treasure Type, # of Attacks, Damage/Attack,
Special Attacks, Special Defenses, Magic Resistance, Alignment,
Size, Psionic Ability, THAC0, Experience Points, Level, Range,
Duration, Area of Effect, Components, Casting Time, Saving Throw,
and Speed Factor
Why is this such a big deal?
: Jim and I are doing what
: we can to speed things along, but as this is a family-owned
: company, the president sets her own schedule, and some guy
: who has only worked here for four months isn't going to
: be able to order her around. I am doing as much as I can.
Agreed, you're stalling as much as you can.
: If that's not good enough for you, why don't you set up
: an appointment with Lorraine Williams, TSR Inc?
Now there's an idea. Somebody on the net told me he was thinking of
doing a documentary on this issue, since it is sort of history-
making and AD&D has had such a media draw in the past. You think
she would mind answering some questions on-camera?
: >In short, your entire "net-presence" has resulted in nothing more
: >than a long series of attempts to stall discussion in the hopes
: >that we might miraculously just loes interest and disappear,
:
: What color is the sky in your world, Jim?
Sort of a greyish-brown, last time I checked. But you used to live
out here in Riverslime, so you pretty much know the situation. :-)
: Not everything is a
: conspiracy against you, your family, and your hobby.
: And this most certainly is not.
Who ever said conspiracy? All I said was that you're stalling?
This is exactly what I predicted back in August when I wrote that
letter. Terry was chewing me out as I recall, about not sending
that letter right away.
Terry wrote:
If you had bothered to send the letter as you were told, and they
had still refused to answer (as they well might), that would be
another story.
My response:
Again, they're not going to refuse to answer. They just won't answer.
This is all IMHO, of course. They may decide to answer after six-months
with some form letter that doesn't even address the questions. Most
likely, they'll send me a copy of their official policy, as if I
haven't already seen it twenty times. In short, I would be very
surprised if they actually addressed my questions in a timely manner.
And lo and behold, here we are in November, and guess what... you still
haven't answered it. Do I think there's a conspiracy? Not at all. I think
you're stalling. If you want to prove me wrong, and I sincerely wish that
you would, then come out with a definitive statement stating which terms
we are allowed to use in our freely-distributed, fan-authored works, and
which ones we aren't. But which ever way you cast the die, be prepared to
defend your response in court, because it may just come to that.
Terry Austin
>One or two of the best-known experts, however, persist in
>using "velociraptor" as a generic for _all_ small scythe-
>clawed dromeosaurs, of which deinonychus and v-raptor were
>but two, and Crichton follows this usage, despite the fact
>that very few "real" dinosaur experts do. He explicitly
Actually, he probably used velociraptor because it sounds neater. How
many people out there can ever pronounce dienonychus or drmeosaur?
As for the rest, they ARE just entertainers. Since most people don't
know or care about the difference, they are entertained. There is
little entertainment left in the US for the educated.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Graeme Adamson
:>James Gardner Wheaton (jwhe...@elaine36.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
:>: Or, look at it this way- does Speilberg have a copyright on vicious
:>: velicoraptor/ man sized dinsosaurs? Does(or more probably) did Gene
:> No, but I bet Michael Criton (sp?) does. The are HIS creation,
:>after all.
:>
Then he must be God, because they had a number of fossils before he wrote
the book, and a month or two after the release of the movie they found
partial fossils of large-size veliciraptors. Even the term "velociraptor" is
a pre-existing nickname for the saurials (I unfortunately can't remember the
correct name).
Graeme
Graeme Adamson of the Clan Mackintosh
clay...@solo.pipex.co.za, gra...@spl.co.za
- di omnes amant fenestras novae artis officinarum
Deanna Hatter
: Then he must be God, because they had a number of fossils before he wrote
: the book, and a month or two after the release of the movie they found
: partial fossils of large-size veliciraptors. Even the term "velociraptor" is
: a pre-existing nickname for the saurials (I unfortunately can't remember the
: correct name).
Well, I've heard people claim he is...8)
Actually, tho, they found bones that are similar to his vision. So?
Do/did said dinosaurs spit acid/venom/whatever it was? Were the
creatures formed by the bones named after the V.raptors of Criton's
novel, or did he name/develop his off of them? From what you say, the
bones were found after the movie was released, which was years after the
book was written. So, basically, Criton invented a dinosaur which later
on turns out to have a real-lief counterpart. Gaia works in mysterious
ways, etc, etc. Doesn't invalidate the fact that he first created a
dinosaur with those particular, uhm, designs...(sorry, only word that
comes to my mind....)
Jason
Aardy R. DeVarque
>Sean (TSR...@aol.com) writes:
>: Would you prefer I pull some date out of my hat and have it
>: be wrong?
>Yes, I would. Because then, at least, you might have an incentive
>to meet it. As it stands, you make these vague meaningless promises,
>telling us about all this "work" you're doing, and nothing ever changes.
And then, when he missed the "deadline", you'd raise a larger stink about
his "stalling" and "missing deadlines" and "breaking promises of when he
said it'd be done by". I don't think Sean is silly enough to set himself up
for that.
>: Face facts, man - whether or not "Hit dice" is
>: a TSR-exclusive term or not is hardly the most important
>: issue to a 200+ employee company.
>If it's not important to TSR, then why does TSR insist on dragging
>its feet?
Most likely because there are more important, more immediate decisions for
the company to make right now; or, at least, the people whose job it is to
make such decisions feel that way.
>Simply make a decision and be done with it. You did
>this with respect to Hitpoints. On 19-Aug-1995 you write:
> Hit points is not an AD&D-exclusive term
>There are only about 30-40 terms total which we need answers to:
>Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma,
These have already been answered. The rest are on a nice long list which
Sean is definitely in possession of, including which other games they appear
in. The problem is in getting the prez & the lawyer together to go through
item by item and ok or reject each one in turn; or to revamp the entire
policy in such a way as to make the list unneccessary. The coming opening
of www.tsrinc.com, and all the legal and logistical questions that might go
with that might have something to do with it as well.
>: Jim and I are doing what
>: we can to speed things along, but as this is a family-owned
>: company, the president sets her own schedule, and some guy
>: who has only worked here for four months isn't going to
>: be able to order her around. I am doing as much as I can.
>Agreed, you're stalling as much as you can.
Question, Jim: what choice would he have, if the people who make those
decisions aren't making them, for whatever reason? Quit, and have someone
else do the stalling? Complain to TPTB, get let go and be unemployed, and
have someone else do the stalling? Complain to TPTB, and be convinced it's
in his best interest to stall? Or just stall until the decision finally
gets made? And "stalling" seems to imply a hidden agenda going on behind
the stalling, thus the thoughts of "conspiracy".
>: If that's not good enough for you, why don't you set up
>: an appointment with Lorraine Williams, TSR Inc?
>Now there's an idea.
Try writing a letter a week to Ms. Williams requesting that she look into
the situation. Especially if there's more than one person doing this, she
might eventually get curious to know what her customers are clamoring
about... (Can you tell I just saw Shawshank Redemption?)
> But which ever way you cast the die, be prepared to
>defend your response in court, because it may just come to that.
And you wonder why they're hesitant to rush into making a decision? Gee.
ARD
Aardy R. DeVarque
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>Brett D Altschul (balt...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
>>Changes in the law work in this way; changes in company policy do not. When
>>slavery was abolished, it became illegal, whether you knew about it or not. If
>>a company changes its stance on the use of its IP, then that stance is only ef-
>>fective once it's been "reasonably publicized." (However, TSR's poilcy has
>>definitely been sufficiently aired to solve that problem.)
>Except that this has been TSR's policy for many years. This didn't start
>last year when Rob Repp starting posting.
Not to knock you or anything, Sean; but how was anyone to know this was
TSR's policy if they a) didn't tell anyone (*I* certainly never heard about
it, not even in the years I was on the net before Rob posted the policy; nor
had anyone I knew, though TSR was most definitely on-line at that point),
and b) actually *encouraged* the creating and trading of home-made material
for many years (back when AD&D was young)?
Terry Austin
>> Jim Butler <sun...@wisenet.net> writes:
>> I talked with Connie Lindman regarding your letter again this week; she told me
>>that she sees it sitting in her mailbox each and every day, calling her name.
>>Unfortunately, as often happens in the workplace, emergencies, sudden meetings, and
>>other activities has sapped her time. She told me that she would _try_ to get to it
>>this week, but she can't make any promises. We thank you in advance for your
>>kindness, compassion, and understanding during these delays...
> I sat for A FULL 2 MINUTES to ponder this response and see if it's a joke or
>not. I really think you're serious. She has been looking at the envelope for months,
>and she can't spare one single minute...60 seconds...to open it up? Are we really
>that _insignificant_ to you guys at T$R? Granted, the internet T$R crowd is small,
>but I think we are at least worthy of your consideration for ONE MINUTE IN 4 MONTHS TO
>READ A GODDAMN LETTER! I really don't know what else to say. I'm still in shock.
>I've never been at such a loss for words in my life.
I have to agree with Joe on this. TSR obviously isn't interested in
answering the letter. The company I work for would certainly have
addressed and issue that could drag it into a multi million dollar
lawsuit in less than 4 months. Jim is right, it does take a lot of
time and a lot of different people to come up with an answer to a
letter like James's. But not 4 months, unless at least one of the top
people who must be involved just doesn't want to answer the letter, or
just doesn't care about the potential lawsuit.
God, it's scary to agree with Macros.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Larry Smith
>But that other material still exists. If you watch 10 minutes of
>the middle of Star Wars and then write a story with a wookie in
>it, the rest of that movie (and the 2 sequels, plus the novels
>and games) _still_exists_. Ignorance or oughtright avoidance
>of using other related materials doesn't change the nature of
>what you have written about.
I don't know about the courts in _your_ world, but in _our_
world, points of difference that are gauranteed to be created
in this manner _do_ count towards the minimal standard for
"creative". If I write about 7-ft wookiees that grunt only
while excited, speak idiomatic English, and wear yellow kilts
on high holy days, it is very _un_likely that a) Lucas would
bother to sue and b) that he would win. Art Buchwald notwith-
standing, a few chance similarities are not going to buy you
the whole wad. It wouldn't have bought a wad for Buchwald if
he hadn't had a contract as well as his copyrights.
Cisco Lopez-Fresquet
DH> Actually, tho, they found bones that are similar to his vision. So?
DH> Do/did said dinosaurs spit acid/venom/whatever it was? Were the
DH> creatures formed by the bones named after the V.raptors of Criton's
DH> novel, or did he name/develop his off of them? From what you say, the
DH> bones were found after the movie was released, which was years after the
DH> book was written. So, basically, Criton invented a dinosaur which later
DH> on turns out to have a real-lief counterpart. Gaia works in mysterious
DH> ways, etc, etc. Doesn't invalidate the fact that he first created a
DH> dinosaur with those particular, uhm, designs...(sorry, only word that
DH> comes to my mind....)
DH> Jason
Velociraptors have been so-named for quite some time, certainly long before
Crichton (sp?) used them.
- cisco
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ci...@src.honeywell.com lope...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employer? Oh yeah - I do have one of those. I guess that
means I have to use this space for a disclaimer. *sigh*
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Aardy R. DeVarque
>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>Lone_Wolf (Guar...@voyager.cris.com) wrote:
>>So, if I understand this correctly, I could write a passage such as this:
>> 12. Room carved out of black marble, veined with gold. Very poor
>> lighting. 13 Drow Elves are hiding in this room, covered by
>> an invisibility spell. They will attack as soon as the entire
>> party enters the room.
>>And it would be alright (TSR Legal wouldn't have to get involved).
>Yes.
Well that's nice to know. :p
Now if you can just convince TSR Legal to make a nice blanket statement that
(monster/spell/character) *names*alone* aren't actually covered by the
policy, unless they are TM'd, (which is what the law says, ya know) so that
they can always be used as above, then the "generic terms" thing will end
when the decisions are made re: the game stats and not have to go on to
spells and monsters, etc, and many people will be happy.
One could also argue that"4 Drow elves (hp: 8, 8, 6, 5; INT 13)" [and any
other "generic" stats, such as HD, MR, AC, & THAC0, if they ever get decided
<grumble>, but no "non-generic" stats] is also allowable. What does TSR say
to this one, Sean?
>>However, if I write something like this: [...]
>> symbol of the Demon Queen of Spiders on the south wall. Very
>> poor lighting. 13 Drow Elves wielding tentacle rods [...]
>> will attack as soon as the entire party enters the room,
>> screaming, "For the glory of Lolth!"
>>Then TSR Legal would have to get involved because I'd be using several
>>elements that are rather similar to some TSR-developed ideas (Demon Queen of
>>Spiders, tentacle rods, Lolth).
>>Is this correct, or am I missing the point?
>You are correct, you are not missing the point. :)
Yup. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's *definitely* infringement
(character copyright is a nebulous thing at *best*), but it would
*certainly* warrant TSR Legal looking into the situation.
Aardy R. DeVarque
> >>>>> "DH" == Deanna Hatter <Towo...@cris.com> writes:
> DH> Actually, tho, they found bones that are similar to his vision. So?
> DH> Do/did said dinosaurs spit acid/venom/whatever it was? Were the
> DH> creatures formed by the bones named after the V.raptors of Criton's
> DH> novel, or did he name/develop his off of them?
> Velociraptors have been so-named for quite some time, certainly long before
> Crichton (sp?) used them.
The Velociraptor is a sub-type of Deinonychus that was somewhat larger
and had a larger braincase than the general group. That is the critter
Crichton (correct spelling, BTW) named the beastie in his book after. In
the movie (I'm not sure if it was also stated in the book; it's been a
few years since I read it), they made the 'raptors about 6' tall, which
was somewhat larger than the largest 'raptor specimen found to that
time (between 5' & 5-1/2', IIRC). Part way through filming, a 6' tall (not
long--tall) specimen was discovered.
Of course, most of the dinos in the book and movie differed some from
what is known about them; this was intentional artistic license by
Crichton based on the "using non-dinosaur DNA to fill in the holes"
sub-plot.
Yes, I got paid to see JP 60 times, why do you ask?
Guy Robinson
>skr...@netcom.com (Sean K Reynolds) wrote:
>>A post from the TSR Online Coordinator....
>>Brett D Altschul (balt...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
>>>Changes in the law work in this way; changes in company policy do not. When
>>>slavery was abolished, it became illegal, whether you knew about it or not. If
>>>a company changes its stance on the use of its IP, then that stance is only ef-
>>>fective once it's been "reasonably publicized." (However, TSR's poilcy has
>>>definitely been sufficiently aired to solve that problem.)
>>Except that this has been TSR's policy for many years. This didn't start
>>last year when Rob Repp starting posting.
>Not to knock you or anything, Sean; but how was anyone to know this was
>TSR's policy if they a) didn't tell anyone (*I* certainly never heard about
>it, not even in the years I was on the net before Rob posted the policy; nor
>had anyone I knew, though TSR was most definitely on-line at that point),
>and b) actually *encouraged* the creating and trading of home-made material
>for many years (back when AD&D was young)?
Sean is probably just confused about TSR history again. Sigh.
We all knew that TSR would seek down and destroy their compeditors when
they acted against Judges Guild and Mayfair Games but they did not act
against fan work that was carried within fanzines and on FTP sites.
TSR even went as far as to encourage fanzines in the official UK magazine,
Imagine, with a regular column. This is far cry from the post-August 1994
world where *D&D fanzines and uncensored FTP sites are not permitted
August 1994 was the first time that TSR's draconian anti-competition
polices where deployed against their own customers.
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
Oh for the wings of any bird, Other than a battery hen.
Hawkwind, "Spirit of the Age"
Creature from the Deep
>Sean K Reynolds (skr...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: james vassilakos (ji...@cs.ucr.edu) wrote:
>: >I've never read these novels. Hence, if I included a drow elf in a
>: >module I write, you can be assured that I wouldn't be taking any of
>: >this "fleshing-out" and assuming it as my own. My sole source would
>: >be the 1-2 pages of the Fiend Folio, as that is the source of the
>: >Drow as a monster write-up for RPG purposes.
I've not been following this thread, but this point about ownership
of the term 'drow' got the old brainium ticking over. In the Lord of the
Rings, there is a quick mention of the 'Dark Elves' (no details about
these creatures were really given, but the quote's in there somewhere).
Surely if TSR were banned by court to use the term 'Hobbit' in any of
their products then this should also be true of the term 'Dark Elf'. Of
course, the word 'Drow' and the D&D culture that goes with it does belong
to the 'scaley corporate god' we all know and love, but there's nothing
to stop anybody else using it anywhere they bloody well like. Dark elf
dark elf dark elf .....
Saint Michael of the Pleased Wimmin
(aka CFTD)
Trevor Peter Peterson
Actually, according to Paleoworld on TLC, the Deinonychus was much larger
than the Velociraptor (which was anywhere from 4 to 4 1/2 feet tall). I
cannot remember the exact name of the raptor you are thinking about (the
ones averaging 5-51/2 feet with the largest being 6 feet), but they also
talked about that one on the episode and it was not a Velociraptor (but
it was from the raptor family). Anyway, according to Paleoworld, the
Deinonychus was the largest of the small raptors (the largest raptor was
the Albertoraptor which was some 20' long and approximately 10'+ tall-
not sure of the tall figure as I just remember the length), being some 7
feet tall on average.
Trevor Peterson
lucifer
To what extent can a company claim control?
OK say TSR have the (c) on drow, blackskin, worship a spider god.. can I
bring out drow, whiteskin, worship a lightning god? And then another book,
and another, each using drow, with varying shades of skin etc. Are they all
protected? And if someone uses drow like mine, what can I do about it? What
if it's just similar? What happens if every permutation and combination
possible has been covered?
w `o' luc...@infernal.demon.co.uk -= Lucifer =-
|--O-' "And they rode of into the sunset, and lived happily ever
| / \____^ after. Well, they got shot 4 minutes later..."
SL Nyveen
DeVarque) wrote:
> > >>>>> "DH" == Deanna Hatter <Towo...@cris.com> writes:
>
> > DH> Actually, tho, they found bones that are similar to his vision. So?
> > DH> Do/did said dinosaurs spit acid/venom/whatever it was? Were the
> > DH> creatures formed by the bones named after the V.raptors of Criton's
> > DH> novel, or did he name/develop his off of them?
[snip]
> The Velociraptor is a sub-type of Deinonychus that was somewhat larger
> and had a larger braincase than the general group. That is the critter
> Crichton (correct spelling, BTW) named the beastie in his book after. In
> the movie (I'm not sure if it was also stated in the book; it's been a
> few years since I read it), they made the 'raptors about 6' tall, which
> was somewhat larger than the largest 'raptor specimen found to that
> time (between 5' & 5-1/2', IIRC). Part way through filming, a 6' tall (not
> long--tall) specimen was discovered.
>
> Of course, most of the dinos in the book and movie differed some from
> what is known about them; this was intentional artistic license by
> Crichton based on the "using non-dinosaur DNA to fill in the holes"
> sub-plot.
OK, credentials first: I once was a geology grad student studying
dinosuars under John Ostrom, discoverer of Deinonychus.
1) Dilophosaurus - the "spitter" - This crested dino was in reality much
larger than man-sized. There is no evidence it had a neck frill. It did
have an odd notched upper jaw, which some paleontologists used to claim
weakened its bite. Thus the presumption that it had to poison prey.
However, the teeth are not indicative of a poison-using creature (such
teeth are usually specialized), and the jaw is now known to be strong
enough to bite hard.
2) dromaeosaurids - "raptors" - Velociraptor (from Mongolia) and
Deinonychus (from western US) are two related genera, and both fall into
the group called dromaeosaurids. Although one artist places both species
in one genus, this is not generally accepted. Velociraptor is actually
the _smaller_ of the two. A big difference is in the shape of the head.
Velociraptor has a head that very much resembles a crocodile's.
Deinonychus (roughly 5' tall and 10' long) has the teardrop-shaped head
familiar to JP watchers. During filming, Jim Kirkland discovered
Utahraptor (guess where?), which was even a bit bigger than the movie
dromaeosaurids.
While I can't dispute braincase arguments, I haven't heard that any
dromaeosaur had a bigger relative brain size than any other, though they
and other theropods had larger brains than other dinos, but that's
expected, since they're hunters.
I recommend Jim's Star Trek novel, btw. It's called "First Frontier" and
it has an intelligent race of raptors in it.
Laurie Nyveen lawr...@netuser.com
________________________________________________________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest - http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html
DNRC Minister of Adding "ue" to Words That End in "log"
Terry Austin
>Stop going ballistic on the TSR netreps, and the people who do legal work
>for the company. They have no control over what the upper management
>does. Businesses are *NOT* democracies, and if the little dictator of
>Lake Geneva wants to think that she "owns" words, who are we to tell her
>otherwise? Just don't use those words, and leave it at that.
There is a practical reason to go ballistic on the netreps. The upper
management isn't on the 'Net, and won't be because then people could
go ballistic on THEM. The only way to communicate anger to them is
through their netreps. It's part of Sean's and Steve's and Jim's job
description to pass along these communications.
There are a lot of unwarrented personal attacks. Which are pointless.
Instead of flaming Sean, Flame the upper management (names escape me
at the moment, but they have been around), and ask Sean to pass it
along.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Terry Austin
>I haven't tried very hard, but a scratch at the surface has not yeilded
>any information about a court judgement in which the owners of Tolkien's
>material said, "TSR can't use 'hobbit,' but everyone else can."
If memory serves me correctly (and I do have first hand memories of
the news stories), there never was a judgement. I'm not ever sure
there was actually a court action files. TSR had jumped on someone
for copyright infringement, I don't remember on what, but it seems it
was a LOTR term, and the Tolkein family reminded them just where those
copyrights came from. There was supposed to be an out of court
settlement. If there was, confidentiality was certainly a part of it,
so we will never know.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Terry Austin
>Sometime you just don't have to wonder why some people make it into
>other people's killfiles.
>Prehaps Terry is trying to fill the abusive void that Rob Repp and those
>currently silent TSR lawyers would have otherwise filled.
Or mayber I just really, really, really dislike Larry Smith.
Somebody's gotta point out how out of sync with reality he gets
sometimes.
Terry "Does Guy Robinson have a killfile too?" Austin
tau...@ni.net
Terry Austin
>When you think about it, it's kind of silly for TSR to have
>an online policy when they aren't even on line ... when they
>get online, I'm afraid, is when the real terror will begin.
They are online, just on online on the Internet. They have sites on
Americal Online and either Prodigy or Compuserve (I don't know, I
prefer a real provider). That's what started all this----TSR
employees started to get out on the 'Net and saw all this stuff, some
of which really does infringe, and their legal staff freaked out.
They're finally starting to learn the reality, but it's still TSR, the
masters of bad PR for 20 years.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Terry Austin
>Well, perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Connie _has_ read your letter, and
>if she could have sat down and spent just 60 seconds sending you a response, you
>already would have heard from her. It's sitting in her "incoming" box because of a
>variety of issues (which I've already explained) and because of the simple fact that
>there are no "nice, clean solutions" that she can simply cite and then send off to you.
>Joe, are you _really_ seeking an answer to your questions, or are you just here to try
>and over-react to every single piece of information that Sean and I provide? If you're
>interested in a conspiracy, go and watch Nowhere Man...
Um. . . wake up and read the from line Jim. The letter is from James
Vass(something or another----I'm really sorry James, but it's almost
1:00 in the morning and I'm a little awake). The post that offended
you so much is from our old "let's break the law as a bargaining tool"
macros. I almost made the same mistake, too. macros is a sneaky
little bas***d, isn't he? He was simply astounded that TSR does not
revolve around James' letter. Given that it HAS been four months, he
almost has a point.
Just how seriously does TSR's upper management take this whole issue
anyway?
Terry "I always have to get the last word" Austin
(Thank you, TSRJim for that one. I love it!)
Sean K Reynolds
Aardy R. DeVarque (jh...@nslsilus.org) wrote:
>One could also argue that"4 Drow elves (hp: 8, 8, 6, 5; INT 13)" [and any
>other "generic" stats, such as HD, MR, AC, & THAC0, if they ever get decided
><grumble>, but no "non-generic" stats] is also allowable. What does TSR say
>to this one, Sean?
As Jim so eloquently stated in another post just recently, this is being
considered as part of the new online policy, which hopfully cover all of
these topics without the need of six different addenda for "special"
situations; each of these changes involves several people, which takes time.
Hmmm, I think he summed it up better than I did. I guess that's why he's
an editor and I'm not.
Sean K Reynolds
James Wenzel (jg...@virginia.edu) wrote:
>Think of it this way: I have NOT seen a SINGLE CONCEPT in ANY of the
>xD&D systems that was not Derivative from either mythology or history.
::sigh:: If you take it far back enough, _everything_ is based on
something else, or some tiny aspect of something else.
[Comment: Writers have a maxim: "There are only two stories - someone
goes somewhere, and a stranger comes to town. And they're just the same
story from two different points of view."]
This includes books, netbooks, programs, movies, hamburgers, and
cheese. However, I think if you went and looked through the monster books,
you'd be hard pressed to find an obvious historical or legendary source for
every creature you saw. The CIFAL, from the original Fiend Folio? What
about the Githyanki? Can you claim that these ideas are not new because the
idea of insects, or colonies, or humanoids, or psionics had already been
thought up? These things are more than the sum of their parts, and that
is what makes them unique, and thus, original.
Cynthia Higginbotham
>James Gardner Wheaton (jwhe...@elaine36.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Or, look at it this way- does Speilberg have a copyright on vicious
>: velicoraptor/ man sized dinsosaurs? Does(or more probably) did Gene
> No, but I bet Michael Criton (sp?) does. The are HIS creation,
>after all.
Well, actually, I think God created them about 65+ million years
before Michael Crichton was ever heard of... They're not
copyrightable because of prior art. ;-)
>: Roddenberry have an exclusive right on starships and warp-drive devices--
>: then Lucas films would have been in toruble.
> Nope, since Star Trek dealt with warp drives, and Star Wars deals
>with hyper drives...
Especially since both concepts have been around in SciFi
since the 1940's.... And IDEAS aren't COPYRIGHTABLE!
>True. However, TSR is not claiming copyright on elves and dwarves.
>They're claiming copyright on drow elves, which have dark skin, lots of
>infravision, are highly resistant to magica, and primarily worship a
>spider goddess/demon. 8)
So my dark-skinned elves who live in the Faerie half-world
and worship Lovecraftian nightmares and The Severed God
are okay? Great!
-- dragoness
----------------------------------------------------------------
I've just passed the I-10/610 split, the road is empty in front
of me, I've a 54-mile commute, 4000 pounds of Detroit steel at
my command, Judas Priest's "Freewheel Burning" is in the
stereo... DRIVE OFFENSIVELY! -- CyHi...@AOL.com
Terry Austin
>Well, I think AOL is making good progress at putting their net
>on the internet and I've even seen a few webpages ... right now
>those services are mostly "take from the net" and not "give".
>TSR is on `a' net (or two) but not `the' net.
Agreed, but Sean's title is "Online Rep." Not "Internet Rep," or "THE
Online Rep."
>People have asked me how I can run my site for free ... well, I've
>been on the net and `used' the net for some time. Now I'm in a
>position where I can give some back. If I can do it, so can TSR ...
Unquestionably. They can write it off on their marketing budget. The
costs are trivial compared to most forms of advertisment. But that
would require them to in some way cater to the market that would see
those ads. So far, they have bee unwilling to do so.
>>prefer a real provider). That's what started all this----TSR
>>employees started to get out on the 'Net and saw all this stuff, some
>>of which really does infringe, and their legal staff freaked out.
>>They're finally starting to learn the reality, but it's still TSR, the
>>masters of bad PR for 20 years.
>I think there are two reasons why TSR freaked out:
>1) The net has a bigger and more pervasive publishing/distibution
>mechanism then they have ... since that's their business and, as
>you point out they have seen it in action, they got caught with
>their pants (and apprently skirts) down.
I also think than Connie is more specialized is contract law than IP
law. I think that the last year or so has been a real education for
her. TSR's earliest position was patently ridiculous, and has since
changed as Connie and staff learned IP law and how it seems (to them)
to apply to the 'Net.
>2) The copyright issue of existing material _is_ very important.
>As Sean has said, just because you didn't know something was
>published, doesn't mean that you didn't violate its copyright.
>Now there is lots of material on the net and perhaps some of _TSR's_
>material is suspect ... the issue of what's a derived work of what
>is something that they want decided in their favor and then buried
>down deep ...
Note: I do not in any way agree with TSR's online policy or the way
they enforce it. But since they are a business, they are around to
make money. They believe this is the way to do that in the most
effictive way possible. My experience in retail hardware tells me
they are wrong. Publishing is a different business, and game
publishing is different yet again. But PR is PR, and bad PR is BAD.
TSR has pissed off their customers for as long as they have been
around. The reason they survive is because their market (customers)
inherently changes 100% every 4 years. They are interested in the
12-16 year old market. In four years, today's 12 years olds will be
discovering girls, and most of them will no longer be gamers. Those
that are will be looking at other games for something "different."
There is a logic to TSR's unwillingness to cater to people who are
likely already outisde their target market.
Of course, with Windows 96 (not a typo) and it's built in access to
the 'Net, things may change. TSR may change. Maybe.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
Macros
> I talked with Connie Lindman regarding your letter again this week; she told me
>that she sees it sitting in her mailbox each and every day, calling her name.
>Unfortunately, as often happens in the workplace, emergencies, sudden meetings, and
>other activities has sapped her time. She told me that she would _try_ to get to it
>this week, but she can't make any promises. We thank you in advance for your
>kindness, compassion, and understanding during these delays...
I sat for A FULL 2 MINUTES to ponder this response and see if it's a joke or
not. I really think you're serious. She has been looking at the envelope for months,
and she can't spare one single minute...60 seconds...to open it up? Are we really
that _insignificant_ to you guys at T$R? Granted, the internet T$R crowd is small,
but I think we are at least worthy of your consideration for ONE MINUTE IN 4 MONTHS TO
READ A GODDAMN LETTER! I really don't know what else to say. I'm still in shock.
I've never been at such a loss for words in my life.
Joe Dimech
TSR Steve
"First of all, I don't know the exact statistics of this Tolkien case,
and it doesn't really matter. However, assuming that a legal official
said
"TSR cannot use "hobbit" in their products, how does that imply that they
can't use "dark elf" as well? If A, then B. Therefore A implies ... X?
Strange logic there."
I haven't tried very hard, but a scratch at the surface has not yeilded
any information about a court judgement in which the owners of Tolkien's
material said, "TSR can't use 'hobbit,' but everyone else can."
In fact, the only place I've seen reference to such a judgement is here on
the net... and apparently the suit in which this judgement was rendered
was brought was leveled by a certain "Tolkien Foundation" [also from the
post where I saw the claim about hobbits], and a gentleman who is without
question an expert on Tolkien and his works told me that there was no such
foundation.
So... I think the "TSR was banned from using hobbits, but everyone else
can!" is just another bit of bogus net.garbage. While TSR *did* get in hot
water early on, the net-lore about a "judgement" appears to be false. (Or
maybe they've got that node up and running over in the alternative
dimension where TSR trademarked NAZI up and running again.)
Steve Miller, TSR Ravenloft Editor TSRS...@aol.com
NOVEMBER, n. The eleventh twelfth of a weariness.
--Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
James Joseph Cook
involved in others like it. The question of who owns what is kind of
silly. How many people are out there selling thier AD&D creations? how
many are writing modules, having them published, and making money from
them? If you aren't amking money from them, why should TSR sue you?
They *CAN* but would they?
If I post the stats for some NPCs or monsters of my own creation, based
on TSRs rules to a newsgroup like this one, is TSR *REALLY* going to come
down on me? Probably not, becuas while they are busy spending hundreds
of $K to get me, all I'd have to do is go to the local ACLU chapter, and
tell them that a rather large corporation with a lot of media coverage is
trying to take away my rights to freedom of expression, and that they are
purposefully trying to bash my ability to create. ACLU would probably
have an orgasm if they could get into a highly winnable case like that,
with lots of press, and a huge (judging by threads like these) audience.
Why would TSR waste money going after someone like me? They wouldn't.
Of course, the simple answer to all of this is not to use the terms that
TSR has copyrighted, or you could search through every published
historical and literary reference to each of the creatures, beings,
words, religions, numbers, abbreviations, etc., and prove that TSR
doesn't "own" any of them, as they are common usage words (like asprin,
which used to be a trademarked and compyrighted name, but was ruled to be
a public domain word).
Stop going ballistic on the TSR netreps, and the people who do legal work
for the company. They have no control over what the upper management
does. Businesses are *NOT* democracies, and if the little dictator of
Lake Geneva wants to think that she "owns" words, who are we to tell her
otherwise? Just don't use those words, and leave it at that.
JiM <go ahead, flame me, I'm wearing my asbestos underpants>
The Amorphous Mass
> Sean Reynolds said:
>
> "First of all, I don't know the exact statistics of this Tolkien case,
> and it doesn't really matter. However, assuming that a legal official
> said
> "TSR cannot use "hobbit" in their products, how does that imply that they
> can't use "dark elf" as well? If A, then B. Therefore A implies ... X?
> Strange logic there."
>
> I haven't tried very hard, but a scratch at the surface has not yeilded
> any information about a court judgement in which the owners of Tolkien's
> material said, "TSR can't use 'hobbit,' but everyone else can."
>
> In fact, the only place I've seen reference to such a judgement is here on
> the net... and apparently the suit in which this judgement was rendered
> was brought was leveled by a certain "Tolkien Foundation" [also from the
> post where I saw the claim about hobbits], and a gentleman who is without
> question an expert on Tolkien and his works told me that there was no such
> foundation.
I have only scratched the surface, but this much is clear sofar:
There was no "Tolkein Foundation" involved. The Tolkein _Estate_ was
involved.
There was no court judgement. The Estate called TSR and said "we don't
want you using hobbits and treants," and TSR renamed them. Period.
There is no indication that the Estate would not do that to any other
company or individual that used Tolkein's work in a commercial product
without their permission.
All this is gleaned from the 'net.
----------------
The Amorphous Mass (james-f-...@uiowa.edu)
aka Hyacinth, elven ambassador to the Human Islands
"Black as the night, swift as the wind, subtle as a summer sunset,
lovely as moonlight on the sea, and generally pretty wierd"
The Amorphous Mass
>
> If I post the stats for some NPCs or monsters of my own creation, based
> on TSRs rules to a newsgroup like this one, is TSR *REALLY* going to come
> down on me?
No. This newsgroup is fair territory, as long as it doesn't become a
de facto ftp site -- posting NPCs, monsters and even literal excerpts
from TSR publications is fine here because TSR regards posting derived
works here as "sharing" which is what they claim they have _always_
encouraged, and because of fair use (for commentary) in the case of
quoting passages from TSR's books. The issue is ftp sites, which are
"permanent repositories" and for which uploading constitutes
"publishing," at least as far as TSR is concerned. Given this choice of
terminology, TSR don't want people "publishing" works derived from their
own. The issue raging on is that nearly every significant word in the
previous sentence is not well-defined, and certainly not defined to the
satisfaction of many of this newsgroup's residents.
The Amorphous Mass
> I have only scratched the surface, but this much is clear sofar:
>
> There was no "Tolkein Foundation" involved. The Tolkein _Estate_ was
> involved.
Absolutely false. The TolkIEn Estate was involved. :)
> There was no court judgement. The Estate called TSR and said "we don't
> want you using hobbits and treants," and TSR renamed them. Period.
More bull. They said "we don't want you using halflings and ents" --
er, no. Forget it. :) They said something very much like that. :)
> There is no indication that the Estate would not do that to any other
> company or individual that used Tolkein's work in a commercial product
> without their permission.
>
> All this is gleaned from the 'net.
And all misspellings and terminology screwups are gleaned from my not
paying very close attention to what my fingers were doing. :)
james vassilakos
sitting in Ms. Lindman's in-basket for the past couple months...
Jim Butler (sun...@wisenet.net) wrote in response to Joe's comments:
: Well, perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Connie _has_ read
: your letter, and if she could have sat down and spent just 60 seconds
: sending you a response, you already would have heard from her. It's
: sitting in her "incoming" box because of a variety of issues (which
: I've already explained) and because of the simple fact that there are
: no "nice, clean solutions" that she can simply cite and then send off
: to you.
What I'm getting from this is that when it comes to the issue regarding
AD&D terminology (hitpoints, thaco, armor class, etc), TSR hasn't yet
decided which terms it intends to prohibit the use of in freely-distributed
fan-authored works.
Is this correct, and if so, then how soon until TSR decides?
: Joe, are you _really_ seeking an answer to your questions, or are you
: just here to try and over-react to every single piece of information
: that Sean and I provide?
Joe's just trying to keep you and Sean cognizant of the fact that it
is taking you people an awful long time to answer the question: "Which
terms can we use and which ones can't we use?" There are only about
30-40 terms we are asking about, at this point in time, none of which
have been trademarked, to the best of my knowledge.
Why is it taking so long to answer this question?
: If you're interested in a conspiracy, go and watch Nowhere Man...
Oh... this is cute. More of the professionalism we've all come to
expect from TSR. Jim, please try and remember that you are speaking
for a company, and every time you let something like this escape,
you're behavior is reflecting on that company.
As for this "conspiracy" charge you and Sean seem to be leveling
against myself and now Joe, let me just explain to you my take on
what is going on, and if you want to call it a "conspiracy", be
my guest.
I think TSR is looking long-term at this "Internet-thing". In 10-20
years, the net will in all likelihood change quite a bit from what
it is today. It will probably be much more heavily commercialized, and
people will be shopping online for everything from plane tickets to
compact discs (or whatever new media surfaces by then), to roleplaying
products, to whatever. Electronic cash won't totally replace the
green stuff, but it'll be there, and TSR will want a piece of it.
Now, if TSR succeeds in setting itself up now as the sole distributor
of all AD&D compatible works (works which are truly compatible
must almost certainly talk the AD&D "lingo", i.e. use the terminology),
then they will be able to charge players a "nominal" fee for
providing these archives. Now, there are probably only a couple
thousand AD&D players online today, however, in 10-20 years,
that number will, in all probability, seriously explode. In the
year 2015, there may be thousands of fan-authored works accessed
every day. Not just a few thousand, but many thousand. If TSR
charges $1 everytime somebody downloads 100K, then we are looking
at a potential revenue source which is worth exploiting.
Unlike TSR, I would like fan-authored AD&D-compatible works to be
freely available. I see no reason why I should have to pay money
for some monster or spell description which some player in South
Africa wrote up and wants to distribute for free to everyone who
wants a copy. Likewise, when I write a monster or spell description
or an adventure, I would like everyone to be able to have free
access to my work. The last thing I want is for the distribution
to be arbitrarily restricted or for TSR to make money off it,
which, in all likelihood, is what will eventually happen if
TSR's policy is allowed to persist unopposed.
This is what the entire TSR/Copyright debate has been about, and
all TSR has to do at this point in time is preserve the status quo
which they erected with Rob Repp in the Summer of 1994. That is
why I think TSR is intentionally dragging its feet. The slower
TSR moves, the firmer this status quo which they've established
will become.
Is that a conspiracy? I guess it depends on your definition.
Terry would call it business as usual. Larry would call it...
I can't even begin to imagine what Larry would call it.
Me? I'm not sure what to call it, but I do know that it has
to stop.
Now, if you guys at TSR are so sure that you're in the right and
that myself and Larry and Joel and Guy and a whole mess of other
people here on the net are wrong, then let's work out some
arrangement where we can go to court and get this resolved as
honestly and openly and (above all else) as inexpensively as
possible. We could come up with a test case where all the facts
are already pre-agreed, and all the judge has to do is review
them, listen to our respective arguments and case citations,
and then make a ruling of law. It could be done with minimal
expense if both sides are willing to pursue it in this manner.
Believe it or not, I do not believe that a single one of us netizens
actually enjoys bickering with you day after day and month after
month. All we want is to get this resolved as fairly and reasonably
and quickly (and inexpensively) as possible. But, from our point
of view, all TSR wants to do is drag its feet and try to wait us out.
There are already a lot of folks who have gotten so sick of the
whole ordeal that they've just given up, so maybe your strategy
will work in the end. That's too bad, because if TSR gets away
with this, things will really suck for AD&D players on the net,
and they'll suck for a very long time.
ed taychert
>Macros wrote:
>[chomp]
>I have to agree with Joe on this. TSR obviously isn't interested in
>answering the letter. The company I work for would certainly have
>addressed and issue that could drag it into a multi million dollar
>lawsuit in less than 4 months. Jim is right, it does take a lot of
>time and a lot of different people to come up with an answer to a
>letter like James's. But not 4 months, unless at least one of the top
>people who must be involved just doesn't want to answer the letter, or
>just doesn't care about the potential lawsuit.
>
>God, it's scary to agree with Macros.
When you think about it, it's kind of silly for TSR to have
an online policy when they aren't even on line ... when they
get online, I'm afraid, is when the real terror will begin.
Sean says we should see a TSR web site launched in time to hype
their Chrismas sales. (Okay, he didn't exactly say it that way,
but you get the picture.) Suddently, every FRPG website in
the world will be in "competion" with them ... my guess is that
TSR legal will start having the time this winter ...
See Taychert's Simulation Resouces at http://www.irony.com/webdice.html!
- TSREd. ;-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Taychert | Visit Irony Games! PBEM's, Game openings, Worlds on the
e...@irony.com | web and online GM tools. All free! http://www.irony.com
lucifer
: If I post the stats for some NPCs or monsters of my own creation, based
: on TSRs rules to a newsgroup like this one, is TSR *REALLY* going to come
: tell them that a rather large corporation with a lot of media coverage is
: trying to take away my rights to freedom of expression, and that they are
: purposefully trying to bash my ability to create. ACLU would probably
I don't think they could sue you if you post, only if you archive stuff. The
reason being that it is _easy_ to forge mail/post, or another user didn't
log out, or.. etc. They couldn't prove they where suing the right person.
w `o' luc...@infernal.demon.co.uk -= Lucifer =-
|--O-' "To hold the terrible power, To whom only gods are blessed
| / \____^ - But me, I am just a man." - Just a Man, Faith No More
ed taychert
>tayc...@cyber1.servtech.com (ed taychert) wrote:
>
>>When you think about it, it's kind of silly for TSR to have
>>an online policy when they aren't even on line ... when they
>>get online, I'm afraid, is when the real terror will begin.
>
>Americal Online and either Prodigy or Compuserve (I don't know, I
Well, I think AOL is making good progress at putting their net
on the internet and I've even seen a few webpages ... right now
those services are mostly "take from the net" and not "give".
TSR is on `a' net (or two) but not `the' net.
People have asked me how I can run my site for free ... well, I've
been on the net and `used' the net for some time. Now I'm in a
position where I can give some back. If I can do it, so can TSR ...
>prefer a real provider). That's what started all this----TSR
>employees started to get out on the 'Net and saw all this stuff, some
>of which really does infringe, and their legal staff freaked out.
>They're finally starting to learn the reality, but it's still TSR, the
>masters of bad PR for 20 years.
I think there are two reasons why TSR freaked out:
1) The net has a bigger and more pervasive publishing/distibution
mechanism then they have ... since that's their business and, as
you point out they have seen it in action, they got caught with
their pants (and apprently skirts) down.
2) The copyright issue of existing material _is_ very important.
As Sean has said, just because you didn't know something was
published, doesn't mean that you didn't violate its copyright.
Now there is lots of material on the net and perhaps some of _TSR's_
material is suspect ... the issue of what's a derived work of what
is something that they want decided in their favor and then buried
down deep ...
- Ed.
Random quote from the Online Oracle:
"The first I had heard of it was when Jim posted it."
Sean Reynolds.