# Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards



## Admiral Caine

Power Cards - Dugeons & Dragons 4th Edition | D&D 4e Powercards



> *4epowercards.com is going down*
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the people at Wizards of the Coast have served me with a Cease and Desist letter. While I respect Wizards, and love almost all of their products, I am still disappointed. We can only hope Wizards will offer a service simliar to that provided by 4epowercards.com.
> 
> In the near future, once I'm done clearing out all the offending copyrighted materials, I will provide the source code used to drive this site. I hope it can be of benefit to someone out there.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Ryan Paddock




*I'll refrain from editorial comment in this first post. My apologies to the Moderators if this has been covered in another post that I have overlooked, or in another sub-board. I did do a quick skim before posting.*


----------



## davethegame

A very interesting development for sure... since as far as I'm aware, that site did not charge anything for its use, unlike Ema's.


----------



## Byronic

Well, this poster gives WotC 2 thumbs down for that action.


----------



## avin

I saw that coming from miles.

Wotc is going to sell their own power cards.


----------



## Zaukrie

Any site that posts actual content from the game that WotC charges for should expect this to happen. If I sold a book, and people were extracting it's content and giving it away for free, I'd want them to stop.


----------



## Admiral Caine

I agree with Dave Chalker, it is interesting. Because there are a lot of Power Cards posted right here at EnWorld.

So while I don't expect an offical comment from WOTC, I am curious about the reasoning. So that I can understand what their perceived boundries are, if nothing else. What makes a "safe" power card and what constitutes a percieved infringement on their IP.

Without letting fire rush to my head, it strikes me as unreasonable to attack the concept of a 3rd party power card. People need to jot down how their abilities work in order to expedite play.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Zaukrie said:


> Any site that posts actual content from the game that WotC charges for should expect this to happen. If I sold a book, and people were extracting it's content and giving it away for free, I'd want them to stop.




This.  x2.


----------



## Scribble

What did the site do?

Did it simply have powercard templates? Or did it generate powercards based on the powers in the PHB? Or did it generate powercards with whatever you put on them?

Or something else?


----------



## Morrus

Admiral Caine said:


> I agree with Dave Chalker, it is interesting. Because there are a lot of Power Cards posted right here at EnWorld.




Could you report any posts where anyone's distributing chunks of WotC's IP on EN World?  I know it's _talked_ about a lot here, but I haven't personally seen any copyrighted material actually hosted here, although 'm the first to admit it could have skipped me by; but if it's here, it'd help us immensely if you'd point it out.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Zaukrie said:


> Any site that posts actual content from the game that WotC charges for should expect this to happen. If I sold a book, and people were extracting it's content and giving it away for free, I'd want them to stop.




This is not an attack on you Zaukrie, I merely want to draw this out for the purposes of discussion and to understand where you're coming from.

So, by extension of this position, you would agree that all Power Cards not made by WOTC (or made 100% entirely by the individual for their own sole personal use) is a violation WOTC's rights?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Its not suprising. WOTC has every right to demand that its copyrighted materials not be distributed free of charge. 

The genius part was letting the site operate for as long as it did. Why pay for market research when fans will do it for nothing? The site proved that there is a demand for such cards now WOTC can sell them.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Morrus said:


> Could you report any posts where anyone's distributing chunks of WotC's IP on EN World? I know it's _talked_ about a lot here, but I haven't personally seen any copyrighted material actually hosted here, although 'm the first to admit it could have skipped me by; but if it's here, it'd help us immensely if you'd point it out.




My apologies Morrus, I think I misspoke. Or rather.. I didn't think my words out carefully.

I have seen *links* to 4E power cards that people have posted. The actual hosting happened elsewhere. The poster merely offered a link to the hosted site.

That is a big distinction.

On the other hand, if you browse through the 4E creation forum looking for power cards and other materials, it almost starts to feel like that EnWorld is where these things come from, when that is not actually the case.

In any case, my apologies. In this Brand New World one must choose your words carefully.

EDIT: And for all I know..  those could have been templates. I'm a DDI subscriber, and mostly a GM, so my own use for Power Cards is/was limited.


----------



## hafrogman

Admiral Caine said:


> So, by extension of this position, you would agree that all Power Cards not made by WOTC (or made 100% entirely by the individual for their own sole personal use) is a violation WOTC's rights?



The creation of a copy by an individual, for personal use (probably) falls under fair use.  I say probably because fair use is not very clearly defined.

However, what is clearly defined is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to distribute the information.  As soon as those "for personal use" cards are posted on a public website, you are distributing that copywritten information.  That is a violation of the copyright.  And since 1997's NET act, such distribution can even be a criminal act if in sufficient quantities.

edit: This is, of course, assuming that the powers which the cards represent are from WotC's published and copywritten books, and not new powers written by the card creator.


----------



## Thasmodious

Power cards that copy wholesale the text from the PHB are indeed a violation of WOTCs rights, as things currently stand.  Whether or not I agree with the laws themselves is a different topic, but yes, copying another's text and supplying it to end users without being licensed to do so is a violation of their rights.  

I don't think Wizards has a leg to stand on if they went after templates and creators (like Magic Set Editor) that merely provide proper format and the end user can enter the text themselves.  I use MSE and some templates to do any power cards I need outside of the Character Builder.


----------



## Xyxox

Interesting, though I must say not surprising, development.

I wonder if a fan site policy is ever coming.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Scribble said:


> What did the site do?
> 
> Did it simply have powercard templates? Or did it generate powercards based on the powers in the PHB? Or did it generate powercards with whatever you put on them?
> 
> Or something else?




They were complete powercards based upon the PHB. It had a rather neat functionality: You could "build" a deck of power cards by selecting just the ones you needed. The site would then generate a document that would allow you to print out the power cards you had specifically selected.

I am neither approving or condemning, but as far as design, layout, and function, it was a pretty neat site.


----------



## malraux

Xyxox said:


> Interesting, though I must say not surprising, development.
> 
> I wonder if a fan site policy is ever coming.




This.  An official fan site policy would certainly reduce the surprise of this happening.


----------



## davethegame

Admiral Caine said:


> Because there are a lot of Power Cards posted right here at EnWorld.




I'm not worried about ENWorld, for a couple reasons.

I am wondering about two other sites (that I know of) that have printable power cards with the rules text in them... and don't have any ads or ways to make money whatsoever. I wonder if they'll be next.

It also starts to blur the line at that point on character sheets, a traditionally safe thing to make, despite the fact that WotC made their own.


----------



## Zaukrie

Admiral Caine said:


> This is not an attack on you Zaukrie, I merely want to draw this out for the purposes of discussion and to understand where you're coming from.
> 
> So, by extension of this position, you would agree that all Power Cards not made by WOTC (or made 100% entirely by the individual for their own sole personal use) is a violation WOTC's rights?




No offense taken, great question.

Yes, if someone distributes someone else's stuff, they are violating WotC's rights. Now, there are degrees to that. I think if I buy a book and let someone in my group use it to build an character, that WotC would be ok with that. However, if I start posting that content for anyone on the intertubes to use, then I think I've stepped over the line. 

Power cards containing material that is not owned by WotC are likely not a violation of their rights, but even that is a slippery slope.


----------



## frankthedm

Never mind


----------



## Obryn

Honestly, I saw this one coming a mile away...

-O


----------



## Admiral Caine

hafrogman said:


> The creation of a copy by an individual, for personal use (probably) falls under fair use. I say probably because fair use is not very clearly defined.
> 
> However, what is clearly defined is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to distribute the information. As soon as those "for personal use" cards are posted on a public website, you are distributing that copywritten information. That is a violation of the copyright. And since 1997's NET act, such distribution can even be a criminal act if in sufficient quantities.
> 
> edit: This is, of course, assuming that the powers which the cards represent are from WotC's published and copywritten books, and not new powers written by the card creator.




No contest sir. I was merely trying to draw the poster out in conversation. My players are disappointed, but I'm not prepared to argue on the site's behalf. Not from a legal point of view anyway. WOTC is within their rights.

From a Public Relations perspective, I think this is unfortunate. I understand that a company must defend its copyright, or risk losing it. However this sort of thing is often just interpreted as the Company trying to sell more product exclusively.


----------



## Varianor Abroad

While Wizards is perfectly within their rights to protect their copyrights and IP by doing all of this, it seems a disservice to the community. Many will shell out for the "official" card. IMO, this restricts gamers from playing the game more often by taking away a minor, handy tool that you need to play. Why force everyone to copy it onto their own index card themselves? Why not incent more playing of the game?


----------



## Urizen

Hmm,

I wonder if this might affect publishers who produce books with power cards based on new content.

One would think it's OK to do so, but if WOTC determines it's an infringement on their design... hmmm.

Maybe I should rethink publishing power cards with my first 4e supplement.

Time to talk to my lawyer.


----------



## Dire Bare

I'm on WotC's side on this one, hands down.  Sounds like Ryan's site was pretty neat and had some cool functionality, but also sounds like it pretty clearly violated WotC's IP rights.

If you want to put up a fansite for BLANK power cards, go ahead!

If you want to put up a fansite for power cards with prefilled into straight outta WotC's rulebooks . . . . you deserve a smackdown.

Why should WotC allow some fan who didn't do his homework to create a site (or product) that directly competes with their online offerings (Charcter Builder) and print offerings (this spring's power card decks) using their own IP?  Expecting them to allow that kind of crap for "public relations" or as a "fan service" is just ridiculous IMO.


----------



## Dire Bare

Urizen said:


> Hmm,
> 
> I wonder if this might affect publishers who produce books with power cards based on new content.
> 
> One would think it's OK to do so, but if WOTC determines it's an infringement on their design... hmmm.
> 
> Maybe I should rethink publishing power cards with my first 4e supplement.
> 
> Time to talk to my lawyer.




Yes, you should talk to your lawyer.

But I'm pretty sure printing blank power cards or power cards with non-WotC powers on them is okay.  It's offering power cards with WotC power info on them that is the problem and is also clearly an IP violation.


----------



## Nymrohd

WotC is losing a lot of money on different forms of pirated content. Would it be bad PR if they served a similar order at someone distributing PHB pdfs? Not likely, people are far more cautious on what side they take on the piracy debate. How is this occurance essentially different though? This site did distribute a rather large part of the PHB illegally. It seems that while it is easier to criticize the anonymous distribution of pirated IP through vast networks  we seem on the fence when the same action is taken by a member of the community. Vernacular morality (not a kosher term I guess but still, I feel, fitting) is irrational.


----------



## Urizen

Dire Bare said:


> Yes, you should talk to your lawyer.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure printing blank power cards or power cards with non-WotC powers on them is okay.  It's offering power cards with WotC power info on them that is the problem and is also clearly an IP violation.




I could be wrong (probably am, which is why I'm going to talk to my lawyer), but it seems to me that even selling the power card DESIGN is a violation of their trade dress, especially if they (WOTC) start selling them.

I mean, you can't do that with Magic: The Gathering cards.


----------



## Scribble

Admiral Caine said:


> They were complete powercards based upon the PHB. It had a rather neat functionality: You could "build" a deck of power cards by selecting just the ones you needed. The site would then generate a document that would allow you to print out the power cards you had specifically selected.
> 
> I am neither approving or condemning, but as far as design, layout, and function, it was a pretty neat site.




Not suprising then it got the smackdown though.

I mean I have a copy of counter collection digital from Fiery Dragon. (Awesome btw!) If I made a site where a DM could select the monsters in an encounter and have it generate a document that would populate with the monster pictures from that collection... Would anyone agree that's fair to FD?


----------



## Admiral Caine

Dire Bare said:


> Why should WotC allow some fan who didn't do his homework to create a site (or product) that directly competes with their online offerings (Charcter Builder) and print offerings (this spring's power card decks) using their own IP? Expecting them to allow that kind of crap for "public relations" or as a "fan service" is just ridiculous IMO.




I respect your right to feel differently. Particularly since the majority of posters concede that WOTC is in the right. Even those that are disappointed.

However, you attack people for the way they think. That's not necessary. Loaded words like "ridiculous" and "crap" are just designed to get an emotional response. They're not needed in a mature conversation.


----------



## malraux

Urizen said:


> I could be wrong (probably am, which is why I'm going to talk to my lawyer), but it seems to me that even selling the power card DESIGN is a violation of their trade dress, especially if they (WOTC) start selling them.
> 
> I mean, you can't do that with Magic: The Gathering cards.




My non-trained understanding is that forms are meant to be filled out, so it is harder to claim infringement on something like a power card with your own information filled in it.  And certainly you could get away with something that ended up being really close to the official power cards (but leaving off the DnD 4e logo on the bottom) for example.


----------



## Dire Bare

Urizen said:


> I could be wrong (probably am, which is why I'm going to talk to my lawyer), but it seems to me that even selling the power card DESIGN is a violation of their trade dress, especially if they (WOTC) start selling them.
> 
> I mean, you can't do that with Magic: The Gathering cards.




Well, if you use the exact same power card template that WotC uses, then yeah, that probably wouldn't fly.  Although various card magazines do mock up Magic cards all the time (although they may have done it with permission, I don't know).

But if you design your own power card template, even if it is strikingly similiar to the official cards, you should be okay.  I'm pretty sure you can't copyright or trademark a form.  But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it!


----------



## Urizen

malraux said:


> My non-trained understanding is that forms are meant to be filled out, so it is harder to claim infringement on something like a power card with your own information filled in it.  And certainly you could get away with something that ended up being really close to the official power cards (but leaving off the DnD 4e logo on the bottom) for example.




Good Points.

Thanks for the insights.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

The power card template is part of the GSL SRD and is ok to use as it is presented in the SRD.* 




*Note your product must be compliant with other aspects of the GSL


----------



## Scribble

malraux said:


> My non-trained understanding is that forms are meant to be filled out, so it is harder to claim infringement on something like a power card with your own information filled in it.  And certainly you could get away with something that ended up being really close to the official power cards (but leaving off the DnD 4e logo on the bottom) for example.




I think this is relevant (if you have signed the GSL)



			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> Use the stat block templates identified and included in
> the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your
> own original content requiring such formatting. Since your
> content will resemble like content in the Core Rulebooks, it
> will be more readily usable. You may not reproduce the
> blank stat block templates included in the SRD in a
> Licensed Product.




If you haven't signed the SRD you might be in the clear... because it's just a form... But I don't know. I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Urizen

Dire Bare said:


> Well, if you use the exact same power card template that WotC uses, then yeah, that probably wouldn't fly.  Although various card magazines do mock up Magic cards all the time (although they may have done it with permission, I don't know).
> 
> But if you design your own power card template, even if it is strikingly similiar to the official cards, you should be okay.  I'm pretty sure you can't copyright or trademark a form.  But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it!




It's also something I've been noticing in 3pp supplements; graphic design/layouts that are strikingly similar to the 4e books. On one hand, I think the layouts are interesting and it's theoretically good for business to put out a product that has a *similar* feel to the core rules. But on the other hand, I know you can get into big trouble if you infringe on someone's trade dress.


----------



## Treebore

They copied/pasted, word for word, etc... straight from WOTC's books to create these power cards? If so, yes, they were clearly in violation of copyright law. Could they make power cards based on the 4E rules, written in their own words, done with their own layout design and art, etc....? I would think it would be worth asking a experienced IP lawyer about.


----------



## Urizen

Scott_Rouse said:


> The power card template is part of the GSL SRD and is ok to use as it is presented in the SRD.




Ahh!


Thanks, Scott, for clearing this up for me.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Scribble said:


> Not suprising then it got the smackdown though.
> 
> I mean I have a copy of counter collection digital from Fiery Dragon. (Awesome btw!) If I made a site where a DM could select the monsters in an encounter and have it generate a document that would populate with the monster pictures from that collection... Would anyone agree that's fair to FD?




Not me. 

I reported the event.
I said I was disappointed, but I understood the legalities and the reasons behind doing it.

And I maintain it's quite alright to feel that way. I won't apologize for it. I haven't sworn never to give WOTC my business again. I haven't called WOTC any names. I haven't spoken disrespectful to one single poster in this thread. I acknowledged the legitimacy of WOTC's action.

*You guys just want somebody to fight with, don't ya?*

I'm not your man. 

Feeling disappointed is just that, a feeling. I'm not a slave to my feeling, but I'm not going to apologize for it either. I like to think we all secretly hope for an easier world than the one we have. If that is irrational as one poster recently wrote, so be it.

So... I have reported some news. Make of it what you will. I'll kindly excuse myself from the rest of the thread.


----------



## El Mahdi

I wouldn't worry about character sheets, for the most part.  Blank character sheets are essentially a form, something that isn't protected material.  Anyone can pretty much make a form for anything, including for use with other peoples material, systems, mechanics, or products.  However, it can't contain copyrighted IP on it.  If your blank character sheet has pre-printed IP on it: such as feat descriptions; skill descriptions; powers, and lists of these items (except skills - I don't know of any skill that has a name that isn't a common use word) - in other words, verbatim text from WoTC products, then they could be targeted.  If they also have drop-downs containing that information, they may be targeted.  But, a basically blank character sheet, even one that has labels for things like: abilities, skills, hp's, etc. - should be okay since it's basically a blank form.  However, filled out character sheets may also be open to targeting, but I don't know about this one.  Maybe some of ENWorlds resident lawyer members could weigh in (paging *joethelawyer*).

Along the same lines, I would think (as some others have already said here) that blank power cards, and power cards with original fan-created material (not verbatim WoTC IP text) should be okay.  You probably don't even need to sign the GSL, as long as you don't specifically mention Dungeons & Dragons, WoTC, Fourth Edition, etc., or use any copyrighted material or terms.  Of course, everyone will know what they are for, but as long as you don't specifically say it, I _think_ you'd be okay.  Now if you start charging money for them, all bets may be off, but I'm not sure about that.

Of course though, as others have said before, even if you are legal, a cease and desist could be issued anyways.  In which case it's up to you to fight it or not.  If someone doesn't have the money to fight, even if they aren't doing something illegal, and shuts down because of it, I guess it doesn't really matter whether they were right or not.  However, in all fairness I've never heard of WoTC doing this.  (TSR did it as a matter of course, and it worked, except for the whole destroying the industry thing - but I've never heard of WoTC doing it.)


----------



## Emryys

Although it might compete with their own power card products...
This was the type of service Wizards should offer as part of DDI. Power card generator bonus tool. Some will want the fancy printed product, while others would want the convenience... similar to print or PDF.

I'd like them to finish the dungeon builder so I could premake maps and/or use my dungeon tiles... choice of convenience or fancy product.


----------



## El Mahdi

Scott_Rouse said:


> The power card template is part of the GSL SRD and is ok to use as it is presented in the SRD.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note your product must be compliant with other aspects of the GSL




Okay, so it's part of your SRD. But isn't a blank power card basically just a blank form? Whether you guys make it part of your SRD or not, can it really be considered protected material?

If a blank card contained copyrighted text or terms, then I could see it, but a blank template that doesn't contain these things is just a blank form. How can it be restricted?

Now if someone has signed the GSL, then they have agreed to those terms. But, I don't see how someone who hasn't signed the GSL could be restricted as long as they don't violate copyright?

edit: p.s.(that seems like a good reason not to sign the GSL, but that's just my opinion)


----------



## Scribble

Admiral Caine said:


> So... I have reported some news. Make of it what you will. I'll kindly excuse myself from the rest of the thread.




Hey my apologies if you felt I was attacking you in some way. I wasn't trying to in any way shape or form. 

I was just trying to make conversation, about what I saw as a similar concept, and how one seems clearly to be wrong, but the other seems to have more leway in people's minds for some reason. That's all. Nothing specifically against anything you said!


----------



## Scott_Rouse

El Mahdi said:


> Okay, so it's part of your SRD.  But isn't a blank power card basically just a blank form?  Whether you guys make it part of your SRD or not, can it really be considered protected material?
> 
> If a blank card contained copyrighted text or terms, then I could see it, but a blank template that doesn't contain these things is just a blank form.  How can it be restricted?
> 
> Now if someone has signed the GSL, then they have agreed to those terms.  But, I don't see how someone who hasn't signed the GSL could be restricted as long as they don't violate copyright?





IANAL so this is beyond my scope. 

I was simply pointing out that Urizen can use terms, tables, and templates  as part of the GSL to make original powers in a 3pp book and does not need to get another opinion.


----------



## Mark

Scott_Rouse said:


> The power card template is part of the GSL SRD and is ok to use as it is presented in the SRD.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note your product must be compliant with other aspects of the GSL






> 3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”).
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> 5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include *web sites*, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).





Without the fansite policy, the only way to not violate the license would seemingly be to create a pdf and allow it to be downloaded but not as a page on the website (though those portions seem potentially contradictory).


----------



## Azigoth

WotC's move isn't at all surprising to me, based on their similar behavior in the past.  It still makes me mad, though -- regardless of the "legalities" of it (which were all made into law by the urging of the lobbying businesses like Hasbro over the decades).  Anyway....

What's annoying is that unless someone has pirated copies of the rules and hasn't in any way compensated WotC for playing 4e, there just isn't any harm in using a site like 4E Powercards.  You need WotC's products to make use of it in the first place.  It only enhances something that WotC makes money off.  I bought and paid for the books (even though their business practices make that morally  harder and harder to do), and that site was useful to me.  As I think on it, I am not exaggerating when I say that 4E Powercards *added value* to the game for me.

I have to wonder if the perceived "value" WotC gets out of this "market research" is really worth it when stacked against their legal department's expenses and the cost in customer goodwill. Sigh.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie

Emryys said:


> Although it might compete with their own power card products...
> This was the type of service Wizards should offer as part of DDI. Power card generator bonus tool. Some will want the fancy printed product, while others would want the convenience... similar to print or PDF.




The Character Builder will print out sheets of power cards as part of the character sheet. All your powers and items with the math done for you.


----------



## carmachu

Xyxox said:


> Interesting, though I must say not surprising, development.
> 
> I wonder if a fan site policy is ever coming.





In a way, it already has.


----------



## El Mahdi

Scott_Rouse said:


> IANAL so this is beyond my scope.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that Urizen can use terms, tables, and templates as part of the GSL to make original powers in a 3pp book and does not need to get another opinion.




Roger that.  Not trying to start an argument.  If I came across that way I apologize.  I was just seeking clarification (from you and our resident legal "experts").  Thanks though, for your clarification.



Keep up the _"Good Fight"_, Scott.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Scribble said:


> Hey my apologies if you felt I was attacking you in some way. I wasn't trying to in any way shape or form.
> 
> I was just trying to make conversation, about what I saw as a similar concept, and how one seems clearly to be wrong, but the other seems to have more leway in people's minds for some reason. That's all. Nothing specifically against anything you said!




You're right Scribble. You didn't do any of that. I was seeing a trend in some of the other posts. No worries. We're cool.


----------



## carmachu

Nymrohd said:


> WotC is losing a lot of money on different forms of pirated content.





ANything to actually back it up with numbers, or is it going to be an hysterical throw away line?

Anything to quanitfy how much?


----------



## catsclaw227

Azigoth said:


> WotC's move isn't at all surprising to me, based on their similar behavior in the past.  It still makes me mad, though -- regardless of the "legalities" of it (which were all made into law by the urging of the lobbying businesses like Hasbro over the decades).  Anyway....




I wonder how Joe Goodman would feel if I took some of his books or adventures, cut out the encounters and then posted them online as "FREE 4E ENCOUNTER AREAS!" or as Delves.  Or taking his new monster book and posting his monsters online in my own 4e monster wiki.

I imagine he would be pretty angry, and interestingly, I am guessing that the community would rally around him in anger at me for doing it.

Sorta double-standard, dont'cha think?



Azigoth said:


> What's annoying is that unless someone has pirated copies of the rules and hasn't in any way compensated WotC for playing 4e, there just isn't any harm in using a site like 4E Powercards.  You need WotC's products to make use of it in the first place.  It only enhances something that WotC makes money off.  I bought and paid for the books (even though their business practices make that morally  harder and harder to do), and that site was useful to me.  As I think on it, I am not exaggerating when I say that 4E Powercards *added value* to the game for me.



Well, if I can just download the power cards from a fan-site, why do I need the PHB for power text and descriptions?

I wouldn't necessarily say that 4E Powercards added value for WOTC.  If anything, they made it easier for a group to share a PHB and then just download power cards for use during gameday. 



Azigoth said:


> I have to wonder if the perceived "value" WotC gets out of this "market research" is really worth it when stacked against their legal department's expenses and the cost in customer goodwill. Sigh.



It isn't "market research".  WOTC has talked about putting out power cards for a long time, well before 4epowercards came online. And the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Power-Card-Display/dp/0786952733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235080862&sr=8-1"]product is due to be released[/ame] in less than a month.  Heck, I imagine that the product was listed in a trade catalog months and months ago.


----------



## Phaezen

carmachu said:


> ANything to actually back it up with numbers, or is it going to be an hysterical throw away line?
> 
> Anything to quanitfy how much?




As baseline here, roughly 80-90% of pc game installs are pirated.  FOr backup to this claims, there are links off this page.  

So the short answer is if piracy rates amongst gamers is anywhere near as high as that, and my experience is that that is a distinct possibility, WOTC are loosing a bucketload of sales.

Even discounting those players who wouldn't buy the books anyway and only counting those who aren't buying the books/ddi subscriptions because it is easy enough to find pirated copies WOTC and other gaming companies must be taking a large hit in sales.

Phaezen


----------



## Tarrl

Bummer! Thanks for the great cards you put out for all of us to use. It made the game much easier to play and WOTC should thank you. BTW, I have bought all my books.


----------



## DimitriX

Well, regardless of legality or not, I can say that I'm enjoying 4e less and less with each gaming session.  And, I'm liking WotC less and less with each one of these news items I read.


----------



## Xyxox

Tarrl said:


> Bummer! Thanks for the great cards you put out for all of us to use. It made the game much easier to play and WOTC should thank you. BTW, I have bought all my books.




Yes, but will you buy the power cards when they are released?


----------



## jensun

Admiral Caine said:


> I understand that a company must defend its copyright, or risk losing it.



Copyright doesnt work that way.  Trademarks do, Copyright doesnt.


----------



## jensun

Azigoth said:


> WotC's move isn't at all surprising to me, based on their similar behavior in the past.  It still makes me mad, though -- regardless of the "legalities" of it (which were all made into law by the urging of the lobbying businesses like Hasbro over the decades).  Anyway....



Copyright laws have been around since before America existed as an independant nation never mind Hasbro.


----------



## Piratecat

Xyxox said:


> Yes, but will you buy the power cards when they are released?



I love the fact that the ddi character builder fills these out for you. You know, on that wotc survey, there were two questions near the end - "Do you trust WotC to deliver quality electronic products" and "do you trust WotC to deliver electronic products in a timely manner?" My answer on both of these was "No." The character builder is a notable exception that is doing almost everything right. 

I'll echo the folks who said that sites like the ones taken down, even excellent ones, _had_ to come down. Copy and pasting powers isn't okay.


----------



## DimitriX

Piratecat said:


> I love the fact that the ddi character builder fills these out for you. You know, on that wotc survey, there were two questions near the end - "Do you trust WotC to deliver quality electronic products" and "do you trust WotC to deliver electronic products in a timely manner?" My answer on both of these was "No." The character builder is a notable exception that is doing almost everything right.
> 
> I'll echo the folks who said that sites like the ones taken down, even excellent ones, _had_ to come down. Copy and pasting powers isn't okay.





Actually, you need to double check those.  One of the people in my gaming group built his character using the character builder and found that it didn't always include all of the bonuses from his magic items and some feats into his powers.  That's one of reasons why I clicked 'No' to both of those answers too.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Sometimes you lean too far out of the window. That site had fallen out of the window and was halfway on its way to the street. Sorry, but: giving people the means to create their own power cards: yes. Create some general powercards: yes. Fill up loads of cards with PHB content and allow people to download it? Hell, no. 

I wrote my players a mail a couple of weeks ago, linking to the site: "hey, grab a card if you lack one. That site is going to be closed down with a C&D." You really saw it coming.


----------



## Tarrl

Xyxox said:


> Yes, but will you buy the power cards when they are released?



Yes I will be buying the ones I need.


----------



## Shemeska

carmachu said:


> ANything to actually back it up with numbers, or is it going to be an hysterical throw away line?




It's probably accurate*, given how prevalent such pirated material is on file sharing networks. The question I would ask though, is if the people downloading such material would have purchased it in the first place, or if they're really using it to the same extent as someone who bought the book (pdf collecting and so on).

*But I think 4e induced market splintering is probably an order of magnitude more of a problem for WotC


----------



## carmachu

Phaezen said:


> As baseline here, roughly 80-90% of pc game installs are pirated. FOr backup to this claims, there are links off this page.
> 
> So the short answer is if piracy rates amongst gamers is anywhere near as high as that, and my experience is that that is a distinct possibility, WOTC are loosing a bucketload of sales.
> 
> Even discounting those players who wouldn't buy the books anyway and only counting those who aren't buying the books/ddi subscriptions because it is easy enough to find pirated copies WOTC and other gaming companies must be taking a large hit in sales.
> 
> Phaezen




The base line is meaningless. PC games are not paper and pencil games.

So, when asked if you have any numbers on WOTC piracy theft, I get PC thefts and told its similar? You dont actually HAVE any numbers, just retoric that its rampant?

So again, any numbers on actualy RPG piracy theft? 

Dont get me wrong, I have no doubts it happens, piracy. But if you going to throw around "lots of loss is happening!!!!*, numbers are going to have to come into play.


----------



## Sabathius42

Xyxox said:


> Yes, but will you buy the power cards when they are released?




Do my official WotC power cards have little boxes where I can write in my values?

And if they do, after I have erased a hole in that box because I have levelled up a few times, can I crank out another fresh blank power card?

DS


----------



## carmachu

Shemeska said:


> It's probably accurate*, given how prevalent such pirated material is on file sharing networks. The question I would ask though, is if the people downloading such material would have purchased it in the first place, or if they're really using it to the same extent as someone who bought the book (pdf collecting and so on).
> 
> *But I think 4e induced market splintering is probably an order of magnitude more of a problem for WotC





I think thats a much better headache for WOTC too, in teh long run. Good call.


----------



## Nymrohd

Not really. You admit it is an educated guess. Actually coming up with anything close to an accurate number for the effect of internet piracy is an exercise in futility; you could I guess show how many times the PHB and the like have been downloaded through the most popular sites but it is impossible to cross out people who bought and downloaded, or even people who bought after (and because) they downloaded and liked it. We still know for a fact that WotC considers pirated content a priority since the Rouse said at some point past that they were collecting information on this very issue so I guess their market research indicates so. And honestly, asking for hard numbers on a general discussion is a weak debate strategy 

As for the argument that bad PR causes the market splintering, that I think is just a frail trail of reasoning. Every single edition change has caused market splintering, and 3E was very popular, very public and with a massive number of sourcebooks. I am fairly certain noone skipped 4E primarily because of "bad PR" but rather because they felt a previous or alternate version was a better fit. Bad PR is more of a secondary argument to add to the heap of an edition war.


----------



## Festivus

Admiral Caine said:


> They were complete powercards based upon the PHB. It had a rather neat functionality: You could "build" a deck of power cards by selecting just the ones you needed. The site would then generate a document that would allow you to print out the power cards you had specifically selected.
> 
> I am neither approving or condemning, but as far as design, layout, and function, it was a pretty neat site.




Isn't that exactly what the character builder does?  I know I select my powers and print out power cards based on those selected, including the correct bonuses already precalculated.  Those cards as you describe are in direct competition of that feature and I believe WoTC did the right thing to protect it's IP here.


----------



## Jack99

carmachu said:


> The base line is meaningless. PC games are not paper and pencil games.
> 
> So, when asked if you have any numbers on WOTC piracy theft, I get PC thefts and told its similar? You dont actually HAVE any numbers, just retoric that its rampant?
> 
> So again, any numbers on actualy RPG piracy theft?
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I have no doubts it happens, piracy. But if you going to throw around "lots of loss is happening!!!!*, numbers are going to have to come into play.






carmachu said:


> I think thats a much better headache for WOTC too, in teh long run. Good call.




So Phaezen can't make a statement without providing proof, but it's okay when Shemeska does it? Seems like a double standard to me. Do you happen to have any proof of this alleged splintering?


----------



## Imaro

Well I think it's within WotC's rights to send a C&D but it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.  If the Insider tools had been ready when 4e was first released, like promised, then I probably wouldn't feel this way, but DDI wasn't.

  The funny thing is that one of the touted features of 4e by it's  proponents was how they never, or rarely, had to reference the rulebook because of power cards... did WotC facilitate this?  No, it was fans of the game.  

I find it a tad shady that WotC were more than willing to let these fans do the grunt work while they pulled their own stuff together, but now that there is profit to be made and, a year later, they've finally started to push their own stuff out it's time to push everyone else who promoted 4e through unpaid labor, but might cut into their possible profits, to the side.   Eh, I understand it from a business PoV but not sure I really like it personally. 

Hey, just another reason I like SWSE more...PDF printable force cards are free.


----------



## evilbob

Azigoth said:


> What's annoying is that unless someone has pirated copies of the rules and hasn't in any way compensated WotC for playing 4e, there just isn't any harm in using a site like 4E Powercards.  You need WotC's products to make use of it in the first place.  It only enhances something that WotC makes money off.  I bought and paid for the books (even though their business practices make that morally  harder and harder to do), and that site was useful to me.  As I think on it, I am not exaggerating when I say that 4E Powercards *added value* to the game for me.



I have to say I find wisdom in these words, and in the opinions both expressed and hinted at by Admiral Caine.  Was WotC within their legal rights to close down the site?  Absolutely.  Did they wait until they had a competing product coming to market / on the market to do it?  Yes.  Was this timing intentional?  I don't know.  Was this bad PR?  Maybe.  But most importantly:  did 4epowercards.com ultimately hurt WotC's business or help it?  Well, I have my opinion, and WotC clearly has theirs, and I doubt either one of us could prove anything either way.  At the end of the day, it's a shame, however obvious it might have been.

I'd even say it was a damn shame.


----------



## jonshaft

As far as the site receiving the letter that's too bad. I'm sure you worked very hard to get everything up and running smoothly and it was enjoyed by all of your users. I wished I would have checked it out myself. 

That being said, people shouldn't complain too loudly because anyone can buy a pack of 3 X 5's and make their own custom power cards. Arts and Crafts Rule.


----------



## Tarrl

Imaro said:


> Well I think it's within WotC's rights to send a C&D but it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.  If the Insider tools had been ready when 4e was first released, like promised, then I probably wouldn't feel this way, but DDI wasn't.
> 
> The funny thing is that one of the touted features of 4e by it's  proponents was how they never, or rarely, had to reference the rulebook because of power cards... did WotC facilitate this?  No, it was fans of the game.
> 
> I find it a tad shady that WotC were more than willing to let these fans do the grunt work while they pulled their own stuff together, but now that there is profit to be made and, a year later, they've finally started to push their own stuff out it's time to push everyone else who promoted 4e through unpaid labor, but might cut into their possible profits, to the side.   Eh, I understand it from a business PoV but not sure I really like it personally.
> 
> Hey, just another reason I like SWSE more...PDF printable force cards are free.



I agree with you 100%


----------



## carmachu

Jack99 said:


> So Phaezen can't make a statement without providing proof, but it's okay when Shemeska does it? Seems like a double standard to me. Do you happen to have any proof of this alleged splintering?





One could point out a variety of evidence, from a vocal outcry, to the crappy GSL, Paizo's salkes increase monthly from the announcement of 4e, to the sellout of Pathfinder as a strong indicator of alleged splintering.

How big? I could not oin down a actual percentage, and its probably small, but its there.

But since your pretty strong in your conviction, I dont suppose YOU have any numbers, now do you? Didnt think so.


----------



## Spatula

Admiral Caine said:


> This is not an attack on you Zaukrie, I merely want to draw this out for the purposes of discussion and to understand where you're coming from.
> 
> So, by extension of this position, you would agree that all Power Cards not made by WOTC (or made 100% entirely by the individual for their own sole personal use) is a violation WOTC's rights?



If you're copying the text from their books and distributing it, then yes, you are violating WotC's copyright.


----------



## mxyzplk

Morrus said:


> Could you report any posts where anyone's distributing chunks of WotC's IP on EN World?  I know it's _talked_ about a lot here, but I haven't personally seen any copyrighted material actually hosted here, although 'm the first to admit it could have skipped me by; but if it's here, it'd help us immensely if you'd point it out.




On the front page of ENWorld there's this Downloads succubus that promises "Free resources to download, from netbooks to power cards" apparently in exchange for my precious bodily fluids.  Under there, I see some Dark Pack Warlock power cards from the Forgotten Realms Player Guide.  http://www.enworld.org/forum/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=1&id=28

Just as an example.


----------



## frankthedm

there was a thread in the 4e forum with a PDF of full write ups of wotc's non core feats.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-all-feats-till-dragon-370-a.html#post4654738


sample of what is in the file
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/4787/25047218ka3.png
img179.imageshack.us/img179/4787/25047218ka3.png


----------



## Merkuri

I feel like we've been spoiled by the 3e SRD.  Why else would we think that copying big chunks out of a copyrighted book and making it available for free on the web is acceptable?

I don't care how nice the site was or how helpful their offerings were, they had to have seen this coming.  

It's only the good sites that get cease and desist letters.  If a site weren't helpful then it wouldn't be popular and WotC would probably never become aware of it.  Only when it starts to become dangerous to WotC does it become worthwhile for them to take action.  

It's really not surprising that they'd start going after sites that compete with one of their upcoming products.  It just makes good business sense.  You're coming out with product X.  There are a few popular free websites that give out product Y (very similar to product X) for free, and they are violating your copyright.  It takes them very little effort to send a cease and desist letter to the makers of Y, so why not send one?  Very little effort with potentially large gain (people X because Y is no longer available).  This is just good business sense.


----------



## El Mahdi

Nymrohd said:


> ... As for the argument that bad PR causes the market splintering, that I think is just a frail trail of reasoning. Every single edition change has caused market splintering, and 3E was very popular, very public and with a massive number of sourcebooks. I am fairly certain noone skipped 4E primarily because of "bad PR" but rather because they felt a previous or alternate version was a better fit. Bad PR is more of a secondary argument to add to the heap of an edition war.




You'd think that would be the case but it can't be completely ruled out. I feel it's as much an illogical reason for being anti-anything as you do. But, with as many people on here that have stated that very reason, and with some of which I've had very reasoned and logical discussions (in both directions), it can't be ruled out even though it doesn't make sense to you or I.


----------



## Nymrohd

El Mahdi said:


> You'd think that would be the case but it can't be completely ruled out.  I feel it's as much an illogical reason for being anti-anything as you do.  But, with as many people on here that have stated that very reason, and with some of which I've had very reasoned and logical discussions (in both directions), I can't rule it out even though it doesn't make sense to you or I.




I'm not discounting bad PR as a logical reason why one would avoid a certain company's product. As I said I just find the notion of that reason being the primary behind this decision a weak one. Certainly if someone decided not to proceed with 4E at a certain point in time, secondary reasons such as this can reinforce his argument and keep him from reconsidering, so bad PR will certainly detract from sales in the long run. I very much feel though that bad PR will never cost WotC as much as pirated content will.

The OGL spoiled as all big time. I may sound harsh in saying this, but consumers are nothing better than greedy brats; get them used to free ice cream and when you actually tell them they have to pay for your new cone they will throw a tantrum. It is an ugly generalization, but it holds more than a grain of truth.


----------



## El Mahdi

Nymrohd said:


> The OGL spoiled us all big time. I may sound harsh in saying this, but consumers are nothing better than greedy brats; get them used to free ice cream and when you actually tell them they have to pay for your new cone they will throw a tantrum. *It is an ugly generalization, but it holds more than a grain of truth.*




Nuh-uh!  Does Not!  Pthhhhhhhht!


----------



## Imaro

Nymrohd said:


> The OGL spoiled as all big time. I may sound harsh in saying this, but consumers are nothing better than greedy brats; get them used to free ice cream and when you actually tell them they have to pay for your new cone they will throw a tantrum. It is an ugly generalization, but it holds more than a grain of truth.






Merkuri said:


> I feel like we've been spoiled by the 3e SRD. Why else would we think that copying big chunks out of a copyrighted book and making it available for free on the web is acceptable?




I'm not going to address the rest of these two posts but I did want to talk about this whole "spoiled" by the SRD thing.  I think perhaps the draconian practices of TSR and the subsequent SRD may have put things in a slightly skewed light.

IME, most rpg's other than D&D that I play have tons of this type of stuff on the internet and aren't making the fans who created it take it down (hell, some of it is offered by the actual company for free.). Just a few off-hand I know about are... Exalted, it has charm cards out there...Star Wars SE has company made and fan made force cards on the internet... Contract Cards for Changeling and... you know what never mind.  I guess in the end either you support a companies practices because they are what you agree with or you don't.  But please this "spoiled brat" line of reasoning is insulting  when it really has nothing to do with the SRD and everything with the value particular companies offer those who choose to support their products.

Here's a link where WW has all of it's Solar Exalted charm cards for download...free.

White Wolf Downloads

And here's a fan's blog who created and posted links to contract cards for Changeling the Lost... he even posted their location on White Wolf's forum...

Seeming Contracts and Goblin Contracts « Relborn’s Fantasy Blog

Hey, even WotC get's in on the action when its not D&D...

Force Power Cards

and fans have filled in the new ones from the released sourcebooks without C&D letters going out.

Also there's Mongoose Publishing that has gone the OGL route...with it's own SRD...

Main Page - MRQWiki

Perhaps it's not so much being spoiled as the fact that the value expected when one supports a game has changed both in the view of the consumer as well as in the view of many companies... and perhaps WotC needs to realize this.  I'm not saying eveything should be free, but there are certain expectations (you know like a decent character sheet) that help facilitate gameplay and are not charged for by many game companies or C&D letters sent out, though most fan sheets I've seen use the D&D logo, name, etc.).  I don't think it's being "spoiled" to expect this from the industry leader when everyone around them appears to be doing it.


----------



## billd91

Imaro said:


> Perhaps it's not so much being spoiled as the fact that the value expected when one supports a game has changed both in the view of the consumer as well as in the view of many companies... and perhaps WotC needs to realize this.  I'm not saying eveything should be free, but there are certain expectations (you know like a decent character sheet) that help facilitate gameplay and are not charged for by many game companies or C&D letters sent out, though most fan sheets I've seen use the D&D logo, name, etc.).  I don't think it's being "spoiled" to expect this from the industry leader when everyone around them appears to be doing it.




I think it's worth pointing out that these other game companies are swimming in different waters, as far as markets and market power, than WotC. I think a lot of smaller companies are willing to invest the effort in these offerings and risk the loss of potential revenue because it (or at least forego a likely paltry revenue stream) saves them in marketing expenses. I suspect it serves as efficient and cheap marketing on their part. They need that community service to keep or expand their niche among niches market.

WotC, with the biggest game titles in market and media share and as part of the Hasbro conglomerate, has the resources to run broader marketing and actually has the a ghost of a chance to turn something like character sheets or power cards into a revenue-generating product. So they do.


----------



## joethelawyer

Let me preface this by saying that I am not an Intellectual Property lawyer, and most of my IP knowledge is from back in '94 when I was in lawschool, ranting and raving against TSR on Usenet.  So don't anyone take this as legal advice, please. 

Also, I barely know 4e, I don't know what Powers and Power Cards are, and most importantly, I never saw the site in question.  

Now that it's been established that I have absolutely no basis for a legal opinion of any kind on the matter, here's my personal non-lawyerish opinion.  

It sounds like the guy had copyrighted material on the site, and WOTC had a right to take it down.  

It seems like, according to Scott R., someone could put up a power card with fan designed material in it on a website.  Since a Power seems to be a new part of 4e, able to be licensed under the GSL, then under the current GSL, as I understand it, that right to publish it can be taken away on a whim.  It also seems that in the absence of a fansite policy, in order to protect your ass when it comes to publishing a Power Card on your webpage using the template, you may need to sign the GSL.  That seems to be the cautionary implication I get from Scott R.'s posts in this thread.

Since there is no fansite policy in place, I would suggest everyone take the recent C&D letters as a warning.  Though the material in question in these last couple enforcement actions seems to have been wrongfully published, in that copyrighted material was published, in one case for money and in one case for free, it is an indication that WOTC is not messing around when it comes to perceived copyright violations.

Can a person put up something vaguely in the shape of a Power Card and call it something else, and post what are essentially powers on the card?  Yes.  Will WOTC try to do something about it?  Who knows.  You can be fairly certain that if they do, they'll threaten the hosting company, and the company will shut the site down if the owner of the site doesn't.

That's just the way it works.  I have found that the law is usually less about what is legal, and more about those with power doing what they like through the law against those without power.

No one wants the hassle and expense of a lawsuit. I've done stuff like what WOTC is doing myself.  A client of mine had a book published which had what could be considered defamatory comments on a website about the book and author, beyond just your typical "this book sucked."  So I sent them a "I JoetheLawyer will sue your ass in Federal Court unless you take down all bad comments about this book" letter, and within a week the offending comments were removed.  The website was Amazon.com.  They had the power and money to fight i if they so choset. Most small website hosting companies don't.  What do you think the small companies will do? The same thing they did in the early 90's when TSR started their clampdown.  

My opinion, as I have been stating for months now, is that one of the motivations for such a radical change from 3.x to 4e in terms of terminology was so that WOTC could do just this:  Clamp down on anything which in their opinion may cut into their sales.  They wanted to undo the 
OGL as much as they possibly could.  Hence Powers, Bloodied, and all the other new terminology and changes which seem to be changes mostly for the sake of the change.  They want to take back more of the market. 

Call me cynical, but I don't think the ridiculous delay of the revised GSL was unintentional either.  It's just good business to do so.  Bad PR, but they may be of the opinion that they can spin that bad PR away.  

I do remember Scott R. saying recently in a post that he was investigating websites for IP violations. I thnk that post was in response to a "Where's the new GSL?" post. I think that's a fairly good indication of where WOTC's priorities are these days, and perhaps a glimpse into the future.  We'll see in a few years where we're at.  

I don't blame Necro Games and others for taking a cautionary approach to publishing for 4e. Who knows, the revised GSL may adress their concerns. Judging by how long it is taking to get revised GSL though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a fansite policy.

Anyhow, I'm typed out on the matter.  All I have to say is thank god for Pathfinder and all the other OGL-based games out there.  Because of the OGL we will never be in a situation many of us remember from the early 90's with TSR.  

Since I don't like 4e anyhow, call me self-centered, but I don't give a damn what WOTC does these days.  As far as I see it, these sorts of aggressive enforcement tactics, delays in licenses, and bad PR moves all push gamers away from 4e and into systems that I play, increasing the relative power and marketshare of those game systems and their players.


----------



## mxyzplk

Imaro said:


> Perhaps it's not so much being spoiled as the fact that the value expected when one supports a game has changed both in the view of the consumer as well as in the view of many companies... and perhaps WotC needs to realize this.  I'm not saying eveything should be free, but there are certain expectations (you know like a decent character sheet) that help facilitate gameplay and are not charged for by many game companies or C&D letters sent out, though most fan sheets I've seen use the D&D logo, name, etc.).  I don't think it's being "spoiled" to expect this from the industry leader when everyone around them appears to be doing it.




This is my problem with it.  Wizards wants fansites to exist and spread D&D.  "Oh, we love ENWorld and these other fansites," they say.  It's pretty hard to do that without running afoul of IP law; between copyright and trademark there's a lot to "violate."  Put up a writeup of your spiffy new fighter and actually include a power description, and you're "just cutting and pasting Wizards IP."  Especially on community sites like this, there's a lot of opportunity for random folks to post stuff that has Wizards IP (see the ENWorld Downloads section for evidence).

They want to close sites they don't like, though.  The fair thing to do for the community would be to actually publish these fabled fansite guidelines.  Rouse keeps saying that they're just not high priority.  So treating your customers fairly isn't high priority?  Especially your lead customers who put time and effort into promoting and developing your game?   I find it entertaining seeing so many people excuse and celebrate Wizards' contempt for them.


----------



## Imaro

billd91 said:


> I think it's worth pointing out that these other game companies are swimming in different waters, as far as markets and market power, than WotC. I think a lot of smaller companies are willing to invest the effort in these offerings and risk the loss of potential revenue because it (or at least forego a likely paltry revenue stream) saves them in marketing expenses. I suspect it serves as efficient and cheap marketing on their part. They need that community service to keep or expand their niche among niches market.
> 
> WotC, with the biggest game titles in market and media share and as part of the Hasbro conglomerate, has the resources to run broader marketing and actually has the a ghost of a chance to turn something like character sheets or power cards into a revenue-generating product. So they do.




Oh, I understand that... I was just making the point that it's a little more complex than being "spoiled" by the SRD.


----------



## Glyfair

Imaro said:


> IME, most rpg's other than D&D that I play have tons of this type of stuff on the internet and aren't making the fans who created it take it down (hell, some of it is offered by the actual company for free.).




So does WotC.  There are tons of D&D sites with fan made bits up that they aren't making them take down.



> Just a few off-hand I know about are... Exalted, it has charm cards out there...Star Wars SE has company made and fan made force cards on the internet... Contract Cards for Changeling and... you know what never mind.



I am not as aware of the general RPG field out there as I used to be (just not enough time at my age).  How many of these are duplicates of products the company either has released or are about to release?

Because if none of them are then it is sort of comparing apples to oranges.  It's hard to hold a company up for allowing fans to create tools they have no intention of marketing and then reviling a company for not allowing that when the tools steps on the tools of a product the company is releasing.


----------



## I'm A Banana

This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing the GSL is made to prevent. It's well within WotC's rights to stop this.

It just makes me miss the OGL, personally.


----------



## Azgulor

ExploderWizard said:


> Its not suprising. WOTC has every right to demand that its copyrighted materials not be distributed free of charge.
> 
> The genius part was letting the site operate for as long as it did. Why pay for market research when fans will do it for nothing? The site proved that there is a demand for such cards now WOTC can sell them.




Although my immediate reaction was "Power cards are copyrighted material?  THAT'S worthy of a cease-and-desist letter?", WotC is within their rights to protect their IP/copyrighted materials.  Petty, IMO, but within their rights.

If you are correct, however, that they took advantage of "free market research" as you've suggested, however, the word that comes to mind starts with "P" and ends with "icks".

I'd prefer to think they just got around to deciding whether or not it was worth bothering with.  If that's me with my head in the sand, oh well.  But if the GSL is any indication, their legal department ain't exactly speedy, quick, or nimble...


----------



## DaveMage

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing the GSL is made to prevent. It's well within WotC's rights to stop this.
> 
> It just makes me miss the OGL, personally.




Every time I see a thread like this, I invoke a silent "thank you" to Ryan Dancey.


----------



## the Jester

Tarrl said:


> Yes I will be buying the ones I need.




Ahh, but if you can get them for free online, you don't really need to buy them, do you?


----------



## the Jester

joethelawyer said:


> I do remember Scott R. saying recently in a post that he was investigating websites for IP violations. I thnk that post was in response to a "Where's the new GSL?" post.




Actually, I suspect that post had more to do with a certain FREAKIN' CRAZY dude who thought he was "suing" WotC by putting the three core 3e books, and hmm, the Greyhawk Gazeteer or something, up for free download on his website.


----------



## Tarrl

the Jester said:


> Ahh, but if you can get them for free online, you don't really need to buy them, do you?



Well if they would have had the char generator working from the beginning, there would have been no need for anyone to create cards or char generators that helped you do the math. And I am a goof, I still would have bought the cards for characters I play a lot.


----------



## Imaro

Glyfair said:


> So does WotC.  There are tons of D&D sites with fan made bits up that they aren't making them take down.




Yet...




Glyfair said:


> I am not as aware of the general RPG field out there as I used to be (just not enough time at my age).  How many of these are duplicates of products the company either has released or are about to release?
> 
> Because if none of them are then it is sort of comparing apples to oranges.  It's hard to hold a company up for allowing fans to create tools they have no intention of marketing and then reviling a company for not allowing that when the tools steps on the tools of a product the company is releasing.




You know I could *almost* get behind this... if WotC hadn't first bumbled the DDI which was supposed to be released at the same time as 4e... then produced, by most accounts a piss poor character sheet with misleading advertisement for sale.  I actually can even relate to a site like Ema's where money is being charged being taken down... but this guy, Ryan, probably helped more than hindered anything with 4e up to this point.  IMO this is more a case of allowing something to be created because you messed up and you need some time to get your act together and then crushing it now that you're finally doing something.

 I guess I especially feel this because it was a great tool that I actually found and used the second time my group tried 4e...WotC sure wasn't offering us anything to use at the time (not even PDF files of power cards) and I don't think there's any way we would have played 4e without some easier way (than using the books) to reference powers.  I mean what use are the powers without the rulebooks anyway.  No... WotC saw a popular (almost necessary) accessory and is trying to commercialize it, I have no problem with this but honestly let the quality of your product get me to buy it... not your destruction of potentially useful sites.  

Honestly this makes me wonder how well WotC's products and DDI are doing... you'd think if they were doing extraordinary they wouldn't be sweating little things like this.  But that's neither here nor there and admittedly I could be totally off base with that.

I also wonder what's next to be outlawed, character sheets?  There are still tons of sites with power cards are they all going to be shut down as well and all their content (not just the PC's) lost?  Guess I better start downloading just in case I do want to play 4e.


----------



## the Jester

Imaro said:


> IMO this is more a case of allowing something to be created because you messed up and you need some time to get your act together and then crushing it now that you're finally doing something.




Or maybe WotC _didn't know about the site_ until recently. _I_ certainly didn't. How many people in this thread didn't either? Tons, I bet. Why are you assuming that the folks in legal at WotC are omniscient?


----------



## Azgulor

Dire Bare said:


> I'm on WotC's side on this one, hands down.  Sounds like Ryan's site was pretty neat and had some cool functionality, but also sounds like it pretty clearly violated WotC's IP rights.
> 
> If you want to put up a fansite for BLANK power cards, go ahead!
> 
> If you want to put up a fansite for power cards with prefilled into straight outta WotC's rulebooks . . . . you deserve a smackdown.
> 
> Why should WotC allow some fan who didn't do his homework to create a site (or product) that directly competes with their online offerings (Charcter Builder) and print offerings (this spring's power card decks) using their own IP?  Expecting them to allow that kind of crap for "public relations" or as a "fan service" is just ridiculous IMO.




In order for me to agree with the above, I would need to understand the timing involved -- and I'll state up front I don't.

If WotC announced/advertised their own purchasable power card decks, whathave you before the site went live then the following paragraph is null and void:

If the site in question has been in operation for some time preceeding WotC's announcement of purchasable power cards, then WotC when debating about making such a product, would have to know that "unofficial" versions would be on the web, just as there are with character sheets.  At that point, it's a CHOICE whether to ignore or take legal action to remove the free stuff.


Which leads me to what  is probably my biggest gripe against some of the more, shall we say, emphatic WotC defenders: the "Might makes right" argument.  

Just because WotC _can_ charge for something doesn't mean it _should_.  I'm a sales engineer, so I've seen where a "value-add" given for free engenders customer loyalty and where charging for a value-add pisses a happy customer off.  I mean, are the potential revenues for power cards really that great?  If they are, then WotC made the right move - _for WotC_.

One of the greatest, yet most highly sought, intangibles of any business is _customer loyalty_.  Often, competition forces a business to provide value-adds for discounted prices or for free where they would otherwise charge for them.  This is good - _for the customer_ because they're paying less money.

Now as I said, I don't know the timing involved, nor do I know the market demand for power cards, or what price point that market will bear - so I'm not blaming WotC or accusing them of anything.  It is what it is.

But one of the most perplexing things about 4e, the edition wars, etc. is the 
seemingly slavish loyalty whereby some people appear to applaud WotC's choices that arguably only benefit WotC.  WotC took back the Dungeon/Dragon/DragonLance license --> "Why not, it's within their right to do so!"  
No OGL or d20 system license equivalents for 4e, only the GSL --> "Why would WotC want competing products" (although this one is almost immediately followed by how insignificant 3PPs are to WotC's revenues...), etc.  
BTW, these are examples of arguments I've seen and/or participated in, I'm not looking to rehash them.

Now all of the above may be the best possible move *for WotC*.  Business is business and if I were on their side of the table, maybe I'd make the same decisions.  But as a gamer, a GM, and a customer, some of these moves decrease choices and add expense (if I choose to purchase, of course).  That's just an objective fact - whether it's good or bad is left to each person to decide.  WotC doing something just because they can due to their size, market share, or brand recognition seems like poor reasons for a customer to justify such actions, IMO.

If Power Card revenues will rival that of a rulebook, then maybe it's worth it.  But if they didn't come up with the idea until after fans posted homemade ones on websites...well just because they can doesn't necessarily mean they should.

BTW, none of the "Might makes right" discussion is directed at Dire Bear, only my comments about the timing.  The whole situation reminded me of the "might makes right" phenomena I'm referencing.


----------



## Krensky

carmachu said:


> So again, any numbers on actualy RPG piracy theft?




I'd be willing to bet it's so close to zero only an insurance company would notice. I have a hard time seeing someone jumping a container ship to steal RPG books.

Copyright violation, while wrong and, sadly, a crime (it should be a civil matter) is neither theft or piracy, despite what people want to think. Piracy is warlike action (typically a violent crime) on an ocean, lake, or river by a non-state actor and theft or larceny (two subtly different things) require tangible property (ie, intellectual property does not count). If, by means of force, you take a case of D&D book from a ship, that is piracy theft of Wizard's property (assuming it's stil theirs and not the recipients at that point, but that's not important.)


----------



## Azgulor

DaveMage said:


> Every time I see a thread like this, I invoke a silent "thank you" to Ryan Dancey.




QFT, brother.


----------



## Imaro

the Jester said:


> Or maybe WotC _didn't know about the site_ until recently. _I_ certainly didn't. How many people in this thread didn't either? Tons, I bet. Why are you assuming that the folks in legal at WotC are omniscient?




I'm going to assume they knew about it if they did the most modest of investigation into 4e powercards... put it into google and it's the first or second site that pops up.  I find it harder to believe that WotC (or at least WotC's marketing department) doesn't keep track of what pops up (at least the top 3 or 4 sites) on search terms related to their products.

EDIT: In fact I would say there are so many fan created sets of 4e power cards with information that we will be seeing this happen quite a bit in the coming days.


----------



## joethelawyer

DaveMage said:


> Every time I see a thread like this, I invoke a silent "thank you" to Ryan Dancey.




i friended him on facebook and sent him a msg saying just that, thank you for the ogl.


----------



## Voadam

billd91 said:


> I think it's worth pointing out that these other game companies are swimming in different waters, as far as markets and market power, than WotC. I think a lot of smaller companies are willing to invest the effort in these offerings and risk the loss of potential revenue because it (or at least forego a likely paltry revenue stream) saves them in marketing expenses. I suspect it serves as efficient and cheap marketing on their part. They need that community service to keep or expand their niche among niches market.
> 
> WotC, with the biggest game titles in market and media share and as part of the Hasbro conglomerate, has the resources to run broader marketing and actually has the a ghost of a chance to turn something like character sheets or power cards into a revenue-generating product. So they do.




WotC itself does Star Wars SE doesn't it?

White Wolf is number 2 for RPG companies in size isn't it?

I think Mongoose is currently the biggest producer of current OGL stuff. I think it is in the top 5 for RPG company sizes.

White wolf does sell character sheets. In print and even in pdf form. RPGNow.com


----------



## Voadam

Nymrohd said:


> WotC is losing a lot of money on different forms of pirated content. Would it be bad PR if they served a similar order at someone distributing PHB pdfs? Not likely, people are far more cautious on what side they take on the piracy debate. How is this occurance essentially different though? This site did distribute a rather large part of the PHB illegally. It seems that while it is easier to criticize the anonymous distribution of pirated IP through vast networks  we seem on the fence when the same action is taken by a member of the community. Vernacular morality (not a kosher term I guess but still, I feel, fitting) is irrational.




Essential differences between providing a full copy of a game book versus an accessory to help those playing the game?

I can learn how to play 4e D&D from a PH. Though power cards can be used to learn D&D class powers, their primary use and function comes in when I am already playing 4e D&D and want to create tools for use during a specific game.


----------



## Azgulor

Nymrohd said:


> The OGL spoiled as all big time. I may sound harsh in saying this, but consumers are nothing better than greedy brats; get them used to free ice cream and when you actually tell them they have to pay for your new cone they will throw a tantrum. It is an ugly generalization, but it holds more than a grain of truth.




As does the statement "without those greedy brats, the greedy corporate shareholders, employees, and suppliers wouldn't earn jack".

As an extreme example: electricity, running water, air conditioning, etc. have spoiled us all big time also.  If a utility or government tried to take it away, are we "greedy brats" for being upset?  That's the funny thing about products and services - once you've set the bar, customers expect it to always go higher.  Sometimes you just can't raise it, sometimes you lower it to cust costs, sometimes someone sets a new bar on a different field.  In any case, it's tough to get the genie back into the bottle.

The OGL was a revolutionary step in the industry.  It has its good and bad points.  In my experience, it is overwhelmingly a good thing.  I wouldn't have bought 3e D&D products if there hadn't been an OGL.  It may not have worked out exactly the way WotC wanted it to but things in business (or life) seldom do.  If the OGL wasn't a big plus for you, you don't feel the restriction of the GSL.  For OGL fans, the GSL is a big step in the wrong direction.

I can appreciate some of the arguments people have raised for why the OGL fell out of favor at WotC.  I fail to see how the OGL was a bad thing for customers or how the restricting GSL is a blessing for RPG customers.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Nymrohd said:


> The OGL spoiled us all big time.



No.  We hated TSR for doing the same kind of thing before the OGL was even a gleam in Ryan Dancey's eye.


----------



## Obryn

Vegepygmy said:


> No.  We hated TSR for doing the same kind of thing before the OGL was even a gleam in Ryan Dancey's eye.



I think making parallels between this and TSR's approach to netbooks and fansites is an intellectually dishonest stretch.

There's a difference between taking down some guy's homebrew because he dared to use the term Dungeon Master, and taking down a site which reprinted large sections of the PHB on-demand.  If you can't acknowledge the difference, I can't see a productive conversation here.

-O


----------



## Mercutio01

> I can appreciate some of the arguments people have raised for why the OGL fell out of favor at WotC. I fail to see how the OGL was a bad thing for customers or how the restricting GSL is a blessing for RPG customers.



The issue is not what's good for customers, but what's good for the publisher.  The OGL was great for customers and for smaller publishers to get in on the whole market, but my guess is it was awful (or perceived to be so) by WotC.


----------



## Shemeska

Krensky said:


> I'd be willing to bet it's so close to zero only an insurance company would notice. I have a hard time seeing someone jumping a container ship to steal RPG books.




And now I'm just getting the image in my head of some Somali pirate hoping to be the next Somali pirate that scores a Saudi oil tanker or a ship full of Ukranian T-72 tanks bound for an undisclosed east African client state... who finds himself in proud possession of a cargo container of 4e D&D books.

I'm sorry, crime and all, sorry for those taking a loss on the high seas and all, yadda yadda yadda, but that would be EPIC.


----------



## tomBitonti

I've seen it before, but don't have the numbers onhand, but, won't the power cards be a bit pricy?  Something like $10 or $12 for the power cards for one class (plus some blank cards), something like 60-80 cards?

That would seem to be a major source of additional revenue.  If a player buys a PHB for $30 and a set of cards for $10 (and that is for just one class) that is a 33% increase in revenue.

If one player buys a PHB and another, and his three friends who were used to just borrowing his book, then the sales go from $30 to $70.  (But, the other friends may buy their own PHB, so the % is back to 33% again.)

On the other hand, if just one buys a PHB and the other buy one card deck each, that would reduce the sales from $120 to $60.

These are all fuzzy numbers, but this is with just one set of cards, and there are lots of classes to account for.  I'd say that the cards are expected to be a major revenue source.

To address two earlier comments in the discussion, my understanding is that lending a book is perfectly alright (and that there is a specific legal principle involved), so the idea of your friends borrowing your book is 100% legitimate.

Also, I am wondering, too, if I made my own power cards with a rephrasing of the rules of the powers, that is, not using the design of the WotC cards, and not using the WotC exact text, but using text that conveys the rules sense of the powers, that that is allowed as a transformative work.  I posted on this before, but haven't seen any direct replies.

I do imagine that the WotC cards will be well crafted, and easy to use.  On that basis, I can find some support for the WotC product.  But, I have a hard time with it because of the difference in the cost, and ease in making ones own cards, and the price charged.  I did post on this once before (and got a direct response from Mr. Rouse, who disagreed that the cards were expensive), but i still am a bit uneasy with the price being listed.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Azgulor

Mercutio01 said:


> The issue is not what's good for customers, but what's good for the publisher.  The OGL was great for customers and for smaller publishers to get in on the whole market, but my guess is it was awful (or perceived to be so) by WotC.




And here we are at the impasse.  While the action taken may be right and proper for WotC, it is of zero benefit to the customer - and that is an issue for some people.  Usually it's an issue for 100% of the customers.

For example, I have cable companies that are MY customers.  I've sat in meetings where they've explained why they offer channel packages versus a la carte channel subscription and I understand that as their operating costs rise, they must raise prices to cover those costs.

However, as a cable customer, I also get ticked off when a rate hike is announced or when the ads for new customers promises a lower rate not available for existing customers - until I call and request it _and they give it to me_.  They want to make as much margin off me as they can.  I want them to make as little margin off me as possible while providing the services & products I want.

See, I get where WotC is coming from in terms of business objectives.  I'm a capitalist - I applaud the pursuit of making as much money as they can _while satisfying their customers_.  However, as a customer, I want the most I can get for the least amount of money.  The more choices I have the better.  It's the nature of the supplier:customer relationship.  Most of the time it's mutually beneficial but there are instances where they are at odds with one another.  It's not good nor bad.  It's the nature of the beast.

What I don't get is the mentality of certain customers of always viewing the world through the business-oriented lens of the supplier (WotC in this case).  I may understand and appreciate their point of view, but to blindly support it even where it may cost me more money, give me fewer choices, etc. makes no sense to me from a customer's point of view.  And except for those on the WotC payroll, at the end of the day we're all customers.


----------



## El Mahdi

DaveMage said:


> Every time I see a thread like this, I invoke a silent "thank you" to Ryan Dancey.




Absolutely!  I hope his name will always be listed with the pillars of this hobby.  His contribution is as great as any of the creators of the hobby.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Azgulor said:


> What I don't get is the mentality of certain customers of always viewing the world through the business-oriented lens of the supplier (WotC in this case).  I may understand and appreciate their point of view, but to blindly support it even where it may cost me more money, give me fewer choices, etc. makes no sense to me from a customer's point of view.  And except for those on the WotC payroll, at the end of the day we're all customers.




let me tell you why I side with WotC...3 reasons from least important to most...

1) I feel that they need defending, I hate all the mud being slung there way
2) I dislike illigal activaty being glorfied...I hate when people say prostitution is a victomless crime...or that Pot isn't real drugs, or that power cards are not IP theift and piracy...
3) 12 years ago I watched as the big dog in the RPG companies was delt some bad blows...almost fatal (TSR), and that would have ment no new D&D items...at the time I didn't think there would be a 3rd edtion, but was worried about my fav two magazines... When that happened I realized if D&D went down the next big company was (and still is ) White Wolf, and I can not see them filling TSRs shoes (not then not now)...When WotC bought TSR in 99 I was the only of my friends relived...they all thought they would turn D&D into magic the gathering...But I saw something...my fav game living and getting a second chance...I was a big supporter, and still am becuse I NEED WotC to do well...


    You see when WotC does what is in there best intrest they do what is in my best intrest...becuse it helps keep D&D alive and well.

    If my Cable company goes out of buisness I will not have no cable, someone will buy it and keep charging us for cable, so I don't care if Comcast stays in buisness or not...same with Dell Computers if they drop someone will make computers still...

       If WotC fails, or if they drop 4e(lets be honnest magic is still going strong) then I lose...I lose my new source books and magazines and settings. And I feel (with no real evidance just a feeling) that the whole RPG comunity would take a hit...maybe a fatal one.

      The other companies I like: Mongoose, Green Roninin, Palladium, Goodman, Necromancer... I don't think any of them can fill a void that Wotc would create...

   you see it as:


Azgulor said:


> What I don't get is the mentality of certain customers of always viewing the world through the business-oriented lens of the supplier (WotC in this case).  I may understand and appreciate their point of view, but to blindly support it even where it may cost me more money, give me fewer choices, etc. makes no sense to me from a customer's point of view.  And except for those on the WotC payroll, at the end of the day we're all customers.




      but I don't see there best and our best as exclusive...I want Mike Mearls and Scott Rouse, and Bill Saversek(I can't spell his name) to still have jobs next year...I want them to work on PHBIII, and IV, and V and VI...and I want to see 5e and 6e...I hope in 2028 to be enjoying D&D 7e, and to be on these boards (yes morris I want to still be on enworld with my holo vid projector interface thingies) having this discussion again...


----------



## SteveC

I'm wondering, and I must admit to not having read the entire thread because of how angry it's likely to make me, if the first contact the website owner had from WotC was the Cease and Desist letter. Did they attempt to get them to take the content down by simply asking first? That would say a lot to me about the nature of this situation.

As it stands, I'd say this smacks of...well it smacks of something that I can't say here without violating the Eric's Grandma rule.

I will say that much if not all of this problem could have been eliminated with an *actual written policy on fan websites*. Seriously: in the time it took to draft the Cease and Desist an actual policy could have been drafted and posted which would eliminate the vast number of cases where it is an issue. As it stands now, this really sounds like the beginnings of an adversarial relationship with the fans that is not in WotC's best interest.

I have used a number of these sites to generate cards for my use, based on books I've purchased. Even with that, I had planned to purchase the official cards when they came out because they're a fantastic idea that makes gaming better for me. Will I do that anymore? No. I'll just make my own homebrew cards and call it a day. And I'm not the only person who will do this. WotC needs some major damage control on this issue: I don't envy Scott's job in the next few weeks! 

--Steve


----------



## Murad

wizards of the coast is very bad. they no care for customer. they like imperialist to conquer the world.


----------



## Sir Brennen

SteveC said:


> I'm wondering, and I must admit to not having read the entire thread because of how angry it's likely to make me,



Then I'd suggest you read more of the thread. It's a pretty cut-n-dried case, and I don't think it's shaping up to be a PR issue of any kind. It's not even something that needs a fan site policy to cover in this instance.

I mean, if an author publishes a book of short stories, does he need a fan site policy to let people know not to put all, or even half, the stories up on their sites for free download?

I'm fairly certain the fan site policy, when it does get completed, will be pretty liberal, mainly with the caveat "Don't put big chunks of our published material up!"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SteveC said:


> I'm wondering, and I must admit to not having read the entire thread because of how angry it's likely to make me, if the first contact the website owner had from WotC was the Cease and Desist letter. Did they attempt to get them to take the content down by simply asking first? That would say a lot to me about the nature of this situation.




  you do realize all they did was send a form letter telling him to take it down...or in your own words



> attempt to get them to take the content down by simply asking first?



what do you think a C&D letter is???




> As it stands, I'd say this smacks of...well it smacks of something that I can't say here without violating the Eric's Grandma rule.



   right...becuse they launched a law suit...oh wait they sent a darn letter




> I will say that much if not all of this problem could have been eliminated with an *actual written policy on fan websites*. Seriously: in the time it took to draft the Cease and Desist an actual policy could have been drafted and posted which would eliminate the vast number of cases where it is an issue. As it stands now, this really sounds like the beginnings of an adversarial relationship with the fans that is not in WotC's best interest.




first I want a fan site set of rules...BUT that is not needed I know already that if I break the law and reproduce whole parts of books there is no company in the world that will not ask me to stop...seriesly do you need a polocy from the US goverment to know not to cheat on your taxes...




> I have used a number of these sites to generate cards for my use, based on books I've purchased. Even with that, I had planned to purchase the official cards when they came out because they're a fantastic idea that makes gaming better for me.



we are in the same boat then...I do the same...and still plan to buy the offical ones (as long as they are good)...




> Will I do that anymore? No.



  how perfect is that...they saved you money



> I'll just make my own homebrew cards and call it a day. And I'm not the only person who will do this. WotC needs some major damage control on this issue: I don't envy Scott's job in the next few weeks!





I really hope scott gets a good laugh at the histaria before he reminds you they did what you just asked... again to quite you 



> attempt to get them to take the content down by simply asking first?


----------



## malraux

SteveC said:


> I'm wondering, and I must admit to not having read the entire thread because of how angry it's likely to make me, if the first contact the website owner had from WotC was the Cease and Desist letter. Did they attempt to get them to take the content down by simply asking first?




If only there were some standardized legal letter that asked someone to stop and refrain from doing something that could be sent out before actually engaging in a lawsuit.  We could even refer to it simply by it nature of asking to stop and refrain (or other legalese synonyms).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sir Brennen said:


> I don't think it's shaping up to be a PR issue of any kind.



the funny part is that it is..people are making moutains out of...(what is smaller then a mole hill?)




> It's not even something that needs a fan site policy to cover in this instance.
> 
> I mean, if an author publishes a book of short stories, does he need a fan site policy to let people know not to put all, or even half, the stories up on their sites for free download?




  darn you...that is like 500% better analogy them my tax thing...but since we are on the same page I will thank you for saying what I could not...


----------



## Scott_Rouse

The fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good. These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law.  The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.


The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use. FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th. 

As I said in the Ema's post this is not a war on fansites. We appreciate fansites that respect our IP and support our business, ENWorld is a fine example of this type of websites. WotC has a great relationship with Russ and we sincerely value this community's support and patronage.


----------



## Murad

Scott_Rouse said:


> The fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good. These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law. The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.
> 
> 
> The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use. FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th.
> 
> As I said in the Ema's post this is not a war on fansites. We appreciate fansites that respect our IP and support our business, ENWorld is a fine example of this type of websites. WotC has a great relationship with Russ and we sincerely value this community's support and patronage.




Yeah, you know what? Personal insults aren't permitted here. Don't do so again.  ~ Piratecat

I no buy your product no more.


----------



## DimitriX

One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to 'blindly' agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.  How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?

I think some of the posts above have put their finger on the issue:  this is DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.  If we were talking about Conan 2e or True20 or Mutants and Masterminds, then I don't think people would really be as bothered either way.  But, this is the game that many of us grew up playing.  for most of us, this was our first rpg.  This is also THE rpg in pop culture.  Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD.  So, when we see DnD go through some changes it becomes much more personal because we have much more invested in it.

I think one of the issues is that some people are associating DnD with WotC and some are not.  I think those that associate DnD with WotC (whether consciously or not) are the ones that defend WotC the most adamantly even when WotC actions negatively affect them (albeit perhaps in minor ways).  However, the folks who do not associate WotC with DnD (and I'm one of them) believe that the game or something like it would exist if WotC disappeared tomorrow.  This belief may or may not be true, but I think it is what some people believe.

So, I think many of these discussions related to WotC corporate decisions and edition wars are just people talking past each other.  If you love DnD and you believe that DnD can't exist without WotC, then of course you have to love WotC too.  However, if you love DnD and you believe that it is YOUR game and not theirs, then WotC is merely a custodian of a legacy.  And, if you believe that the custodian is no longer acting in the best interest of DnD, then it must be time for a new custodian.

This might seem like nothing more than mental masturbation, but I feel that it is important to understand someone's perspective when getting in these kinds of discussions which can sometimes get heated.  And, my guess this is why some people will never be convinced one way or another.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scott_Rouse said:


> The fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good.



  that is great news...



> These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law.  The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.




     that is bad news...I mean if sense were common more people would have it right???



> The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use.



  The sad part scott is there will still be people calling for WotC blood...and crying foul...but thank you for those of us trying to be the voices of reason to have you guys be so forthright is a BIG load off atleast my mind...


----------



## Jack99

Krensky said:


> I'd be willing to bet it's so close to zero only an insurance company would notice.




Scott mentioned a site with all the D&D books available for downloads, and that there had been 9,000 downloads. Now, I have no idea how many books were in that bundle, but since he also mentioned that the site was just one of many (50?) he was looking into, well.. That's very quickly quite a few books.


----------



## SteveC

Sir Brennen said:


> Then I'd suggest you read more of the thread. It's a pretty cut-n-dried case, and I don't think it's shaping up to be a PR issue of any kind. It's not even something that needs a fan site policy to cover in this instance.



So could you tell me if, as far as we know, the first contact the site had from WotC was the Cease and Desist? That is a very large issue for me, and one that I think has a huge degree of relevance here. Back before 4E launched, WotC *asked *ENWorld to stop people from posting large excerpts of their online content to the page, and they complied. There's a stickied note to that effect on the top of the page. They could have sent out a Cease and Desist, but they didn't, and everything goes on. There's a huge difference in how you approach a situation like this from the very beginning, so it's important *to me* to know how it went down. So if anyone could be so kind as to let me know the scoop (or if we simply don't know it) I'll move on to another thread (I promise!)

--Steve


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SteveC said:


> So could you tell me if, as far as we know, the first contact the site had from WotC was the Cease and Desist? That is a very large issue for me, and one that I think has a huge degree of relevance here.




steve...did you read any of the last page were I was trying to explain that is what a C&D is...a friendly letter asking you to stop something...

  If I were a company, and my game was an industry, and my players other company's then a C&D would be the same as when I look at my friend Kurt and say "Please...just let it go so we can get on with game..."


----------



## Murad

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I were a company, and my game was an industry, and my players other company's then a C&D would be the same as when I look at my friend Kurt and say "Please...just let it go so we can get on with game..."





???? I no think so. I not give give legal paper to friend, for the game.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Jack99 said:


> Scott mentioned a site with all the D&D books available for downloads, and that there had been 9,000 downloads. Now, I have no idea how many books were in that bundle, but since he also mentioned that the site was just one of many (50?) he was looking into, well.. That's very quickly quite a few books.




Kind of right. It was 9,000 separate document entries. Do the math.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Murad said:


> ???? I no think so. I not give give legal paper to friend, for the game.




ok I have may have said it wrong...it is an analogy...

 it is just a way to ask someone you do not know to stop doing something...


----------



## malraux

Murad said:


> ???? I no think so. I not give give legal paper to friend, for the game.




A Cease and Desist letter is not a legal (as in a judge sent it and if you don't follow it the police will arrest you) letter.  It will typically mention that legal action is a possibility, but that's better than threatening to break kneecaps or something.


----------



## Sir Brennen

DimitriX said:


> One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to 'blindly' agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.  How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers.



There's nothing 'blind' about agreeing that the situation was a clear violation of copyright law. There is no basis for a huge uprising - the MMORPG examples you give are in no way parallel to the situation.

In fact, it has nothing to do with 'loving' WotC, but more with whether or not you agree with copyright law itself.

For the most part, people in this thread seem to understand that - _even if they're disappointed with the decision_. Being able to hold and express both those opinions I think is a sign of a more mature, reasonable group of people than you'll find on some MMORPG boards.

Thanks ENWorld!


----------



## Murad

malraux said:


> A Cease and Desist letter is not a legal (as in a judge sent it and if you don't follow it the police will arrest you) letter. It will typically mention that legal action is a possibility, but that's better than threatening to break kneecaps or something.




do they break knee cap for the game? I not understand what man did wrong. He love game, and give it on his website for the people to see. They must be happy for this one.


----------



## Jack99

carmachu said:


> One could point out a variety of evidence, from a vocal outcry, to the crappy GSL, Paizo's salkes increase monthly from the announcement of 4e, to the sellout of Pathfinder as a strong indicator of alleged splintering.
> 
> How big? I could not oin down a actual percentage, and its probably small, but its there.
> 
> But since your pretty strong in your conviction, I dont suppose YOU have any numbers, now do you? Didnt think so.




I might not have any hard numbers, but let's compare them to yours.

You have a "vocal" outcry (on Enworld) where a whole 600 out of 70.000 were so displeased with 4e that they chose to vote (in a poll that could be could be cheated with) about the fact that they aren't playing no more. 

A crappy GSL? What on earth does that have to do with proving there is a splintering?

Paizo's increased sales? Last I checked, the only thing we know about that is a comment by Mona. Again, assuming you take what Mona says at face value (since no numbers have been released), I find it funny that you do not take Scott's or Mearls' or Slavicecks word at equal face value. But I guess this explains by the comments in my first post. Also, we have no idea about how much the increased sales are, it could be 1% or it could be 5000%.

Compared to that, we have 4e books selling more than the previous edition, according to places like US Today top 150, making it to the yearly amazon top 100 sales list. Every statement we have seen from WotC indicates that 4e outsold 3.x by quite a bit.

Does that sound like a splintered marked?

Not to me. Then again, I guess it depends on the word splintered. If you mean that they lost the usual 5-15% in an edition change, then sure, the marked is splintered. But if you are talking about 50% or something equally silly, then no, I do not believe we have anything that even ressembles a splintered marked.

I will also note that neither you nor I have any solid proof. Mine is just better by miles.

Cheers


----------



## Murad

Jack99 said:


> I might not have any hard numbers, but let's compare them to yours.
> 
> You have a "vocal" outcry (on Enworld) where a whole 600 out of 70.000 were so displeased with 4e that they chose to vote (in a poll that could be could be cheated with) about the fact that they aren't playing no more.
> 
> A crappy GSL? What on earth does that have to do with proving there is a splintering?
> 
> Paizo's increased sales? Last I checked, the only thing we know about that is a comment by Mona. Again, assuming you take what Mona says at face value (since no numbers have been released), I find it funny that you do not take Scott's or Mearls' or Slavicecks word at equal face value. But I guess this explains by the comments in my first post. Also, we have no idea about how much the increased sales are, it could be 1% or it could be 5000%.
> 
> Compared to that, we have 4e books selling more than the previous edition, according to places like US Today top 150, making it to the yearly amazon top 100 sales list. Every statement we have seen from WotC indicates that 4e outsold 3.x by quite a bit.
> 
> Does that sound like a splintered marked?
> 
> Not to me. Then again, I guess it depends on the word splintered. If you mean that they lost the usual 5-15% in an edition change, then sure, the marked is splintered. But if you are talking about 50% or something equally silly, then no, I do not believe we have anything that even ressembles a splintered marked.
> 
> I will also note that neither you nor I have any solid proof. Mine is just better by miles.
> 
> Cheers




4E is worst edition ever. Is for children.


----------



## the Jester

Jack99 said:


> Scott mentioned a site with all the D&D books available for downloads, and that there had been 9,000 downloads. Now, I have no idea how many books were in that bundle, but since he also mentioned that the site was just one of many (50?) he was looking into, well.. That's very quickly quite a few books.




Damn, time to step out of the books on this one.


----------



## malraux

Murad said:


> do they break knee cap for the game? I not understand what man did wrong. He love game, and give it on his website for the people to see. They must be happy for this one.




Yes, he took the majority of the content of the PHB and posted it on his website.  That violates copyright law, the law that give WotC the exclusive right to publish the PHB content.  WotC sent him a letter stating that they felt he was violating their copyright and that they wanted him to take the website down.  They probably listed the relevant laws that they felt were on their side.  They likely said to do this within some timeframe (say three weeks) or they would consider actually starting a lawsuit.


----------



## DimitriX

Sir Brennen said:


> There's nothing 'blind' about agreeing that the situation was a clear violation of copyright law. There is no basis for a huge uprising - the MMORPG examples you give are in no way parallel to the situation.
> 
> In fact, it has nothing to do with 'loving' WotC, but more with whether or not you agree with copyright law itself.
> 
> For the most part, people in this thread seem to understand that - _even if they're disappointed with the decision_. Being able to hold and express both those opinions I think is a sign of a more mature, reasonable group of people than you'll find on some MMORPG boards.
> 
> Thanks ENWorld!




Your posts weren't one of the ones I was referring to.  That's why I decided to move my post to a new thread.  I think my idea really is separate from the specific case we're discussing here.


----------



## Jack99

Scott_Rouse said:


> Kind of right. It was 9,000 separate document entries. Do the math.




Thanks for the correction, I couldn't find your old post (weak search-fu before 7 AM). And I agree. It is potentially quite a few dollars.


----------



## Murad

malraux said:


> Yes, he took the majority of the content of the PHB and posted it on his website. That violates copyright law, the law that give WotC the exclusive right to publish the PHB content. WotC sent him a letter stating that they felt he was violating their copyright and that they wanted him to take the website down. They probably listed the relevant laws that they felt were on their side. They likely said to do this within some timeframe (say three weeks) or they would consider actually starting a lawsuit.




Is not fair use?


----------



## Piratecat

Murad said:


> 4E is worst edition ever. Is for children.



Murad, I don't care if you love D&D or hate it. If you're going to participate here, though, please stop with the insults. They aren't going to be tolerated.


----------



## Murad

Piratecat said:


> Murad, I don't care if you love D&D or hate it. If you're going to participate here, though, please stop with the insults. They aren't going to be tolerated.




Is not insult. is opinion on game. I see many, many insult to the 3rd edition here.


----------



## malraux

Murad said:


> Is not fair use?




Fair use covers relatively small amounts of copying.  The website in question was copying upwards of 50 to 60 % of the entire book.  Fair use is typically understood to be a paragraph or two.


----------



## Jack99

Murad said:


> 4E is worst edition ever. Is for children.




Then I am damn happy to be a child of 34. 'Cause for me, 4e has been the best edition ever.


----------



## Murad

Jack99 said:


> Then I am damn happy to be a child of 34. 'Cause for me, 4e has been the best edition ever.




For me, no. Very dissapoint.


----------



## the Jester

Red text = moderator voice, any further discussion should go to email.  Publically disputing moderator decisions is one of the very few things that the powers that be on ENWorld have zero tolerance for.


----------



## Piratecat

Murad said:


> Is not insult. is opinion on game. I see many, many insult to the 3rd edition here.



1. don't publicly discuss moderation here. Feel free to email me if you have questions.

2. You've personally insulted other members, as well as making blanket statement comparing people who like 4e to children. 

Stop now, please. And feel free to email me (by clicking on my user name) if this is somehow not clear.


----------



## Murad

the Jester said:


> Red text = moderator voice, any further discussion should go to email.  Publically disputing moderator decisions is one of the very few things that the powers that be on ENWorld have zero tolerance for.




moderator can be wrong too.


----------



## Piratecat

Murad said:


> moderator can be wrong too.



That may not have been the best way to proceed.

Please review the rules before posting further on EN World. Thanks.

EDIT: And hey, everybody! Please greet the member "ProfessorPain," who apparently thinks he can hide behind a second account so that he can troll. Yeah... not so much.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So again, any numbers on actualy RPG piracy theft?




The thing with piracy (which isn't theft, btw) is that the numbers don't even tell half the story. They don't even BEGIN to tell the story. The story isn't ultimately about the numbers. It's something much bigger than that.

But piracy also isn't here or there -- this site wasn't engaged in piracy, really. Heck, it wasn't doing anything Shepard Fairey isn't getting sued over.  WotC was (perhaps debatably) within their rights to ask someone who was taking the rules they wrote and publishing them to stop doing that. 

The reason it sucks biggest in my own opinion is because it shows a remarkable lack of foresight from WotC. They're going with the old model of tight control and protection, rather than a new model of encouraging end-user innovation, such as by offering this website a special license to continue to do what they do under WotC's watchful eye, rather than off by themselves. I can't really blame them for going with the wisdom of the ages rather than adapting here, but it's a little disappointing -- kind of like a "war on drugs," a fight against this kind of remixing is ultimately sound and fury signifying nothing (I can get marajuana if I want, and I can still get 4e rules for free if I want, and no policy or rule or barrier is ever going to be able to completely stop it, as far as anyone can see). 

I expected it, I don't blame them, and they're totally fair in this. I kind of wish they would choose something a little bolder and more pro-active, but I'm not going to burn them for not fulfilling my little fantasies, here.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I kind of wish they would choose something a little bolder and more pro-active, but I'm not going to burn them for not fulfilling my little fantasies, here.




I agree...it would be awsome if WotC was more bold and inavative...I just don't want them to shot themselves in the foot...like I said pages ago I want to see WotC still be makeing mony off D&D 20 years from now...


----------



## Shemeska

Jack99 said:


> ICompared to that, we have 4e books selling more than the previous edition, according to places like US Today top 150, making it to the yearly amazon top 100 sales list. Every statement we have seen from WotC indicates that 4e outsold 3.x by quite a bit.




The only thing we have regarding sales are some relative numbers for the original core trio of books regarding initial print runs. There has been a deafening silence on sales of books released after that point.

We're all going to read into that void as we see fit, and without numbers that neither of us have access to, neither my skepticism nor others fanboyism is going to bend much. I swear, some folks seem to take personal offense at the very suggestion that the 4e might not be the most financially successful edition of all time by any metric possible.


----------



## Korgoth

A couple of points. As an staunch grognard, I need WOTC products like Haifa needs bacon cheeseburgers.  And the one great boon of the 3E era was the OGL... the OGL was a brilliant stroke which is of benefit to gamers everywhere and helps ensure the life of this hobby in the future, come what may. Sadly WOTC has turned their back on the OGL and decided to go in a different, less fortunate direction.

Now. All of that has no particular bearing on this question. Because whatever anyone thinks of WOTC's products or the direction they've decided to go, WOTC owns those products and gets to choose their direction. So WOTC has decided that the complete power card text for all the powers isn't free... whether that's a good or bad decision doesn't even factor into this. It's their product and it's their decision. So if someone decides to give away that text, WOTC has every right to ask them to stop doing it.


----------



## El Mahdi

GMforPowergamers said:


> let me tell you why I side with WotC...3 reasons from least important to most...
> 
> 1) I feel that they need defending, I hate all the mud being slung the*i*r way




If there's anything I don't understand more than people who feel a need to attack WoTC (not just expressing opinions but actual verbal attacks) is those people who feel it's theie self appointed task to be WoTC's _"Defenders of the Faith"_. Absolutely boggles my mind. It seems as if there are fans who are more concerned with protecting WoTC's PR image than even WoTC is willing to do.



GMforPowergamers said:


> 2) I dislike ill*e*gal activ*i*ty being glor*i*fied...I hate when people say prostitution is a vict*i*mless crime...or that Pot isn't real drugs, or that power cards are not IP th*e*ft and piracy...




Then you've found good company on this thread, since I don't recall anyone on here _"glorifying"_ illegal activity. The almost unanimous opinion seems to be that WoTC was completely within their rights, and that the site, albeit useable and popular, was violating copyright. If opinions such as that are _"glorifying"_ illegal activity, then I'd posit that WoTC's tacit approval during the months where they didn't have there own like product on line, was passively doing the very same thing.

While nobody is denying WoTC right to defend there IP, how they do it is definitely a matter for debate. There's a way to do this, and not alienate your fans/customers, and there's a way that won't. People are watching very closely to see which path WoTC takes.



GMforPowergamers said:


> 3) 12 years ago I watched as the big dog in the RPG companies was de*a*lt some bad blows...almost fatal (TSR), and that would have me*a*nt no new D&D items...at the time I didn't think there would be a 3rd edtion, but was worried about my fav*e* two magazines... When that happened I realized if D&D went down the next big company was (and still is ) White Wolf, and I can not see them filling TSR*'*s shoes (not then not now)...When WotC bought TSR in 99 I was the only *one* of my friends reli*e*ved...they all thought they would turn D&D into magic the gathering...But I saw something...my fav*e* game living and getting a second chance...I was a big supporter, and still am bec*a*use I NEED WotC to do well...




Bad blows that were almost entirely self-inflicted. You'll find no sympathy for this one. TSR engaged in predatory practices aimed at eliminating even legal competition through borderline (and not so borderline) unethical, and possibly illegal, actions. There was an adversarial philosophy towards fans/customers that those who ran the company felt were immature imbeciles. TSR at the time had a leader who's goal was simply to gouge these stupid RPG fans for as much money as possible, all the while enacting guidance to attack and denigrate those same fans/customers. Because of that, some fans/customers get very touchy about things that appear to be going in that direction again. (Not saying they are, but there do seem to be things happening, and perceived attitudes, that seem to be paralleling those past occurances.)

However, the company failed because of gross mismanagement from the top, despite the fact that sales of D&D products were bigger than any other RPG company in the business. The history of this is pretty well documented.

If someone wanted to truly defend their favorite company, so said company could stick around and make their favorite products in perpetuity, a much more effective tactic would be to make sure that their favorite company was keeping their customers happy. It seems like oversight and criticism of the company, rather than criticism of other fans/customers would be much more beneficial.



GMforPowergamers said:


> You see*,* when WotC does what is in the*i*r best intrest*,* they do what is in my best int*e*rest...bec*a*use it helps keep D&D alive and well.




Seems to me, that when a company does what their _customers_ want (_the customers best interest_), then said customers buy the companies products making the company lots and lots of money. Win-Win. Thus the guidance: _"The customer is always right!"_. When a company decides that they are right, despite an uproar from their fans/customers, then said company doesn't remain in business very long. (Again, not saying that this is currently happening, but there do seem to be indicators that could be interpreted as a shift towards that direction.)

Another applicable quote: _"Pride goeth before the Fall!"_.

Hubris and Arrogance are very close cousins of Pride.



GMforPowergamers said:


> If WotC fails, or if they drop 4e, (let*'*s be ho*n*est magic is still going strong) then I lose...I lose my new source books and magazines and settings. And I feel (with no real evidance, just a feeling) that the whole RPG comunity would take a hit...maybe a fatal one.




No argument from me, and probably no argument from most everyone here. But, not providing your favorite company with feedback of what you as a customer want, including constructive criticism, could hasten that very failure which you seem to endeavor to prevent.



GMforPowergamers said:


> but I don't see the*i*r best and our best as exclusive...I want Mike Mearls and Scott Rouse, and Bill Slavicsek(I can't spell his name) to still have jobs next year...I want them to work on PHBIII, and IV, and V and VI...and I want to see 5e and 6e...I hope in 2028 to be enjoying D&D 7e, and to be on these boards (yes, morrus I want to still be on enworld with my holo vid projector interface thingies) having this discussion again...




Agreed 100%, as probably everyone else on this thread hopes for also. I would be very surprised if you found anyone on this thread that wants those guys to lose their jobs, or for WoTC to fail. I don't recall anyone on this thread expressing, or even implying, they would want that to happen. Criticism isn't always malevolent, just as blind devotion isn't always beneficial.


----------



## Piratecat

Kamikaze Midget said:


> They're going with the old model of tight control and protection, rather than a new model of encouraging end-user innovation, such as by offering this website a special license to continue to do what they do under WotC's watchful eye, rather than off by themselves.



That would have been really cool.


----------



## El Mahdi

GMforPowergamers said:


> ...what do you think a C&D letter is??? ...




One is a request, even when they don't need to request anything. Such behavior proves intent of goodwill.

The other says _"Do this or Else!"_. Which is a very formal demand with a threat of legal action.

The first tact proves intent of Goodwill. The second doesn't disprove intent of Goodwill, but also doesn't promote Goodwill.

There is a significant difference in the two possible approaches. That's the reason why people are interested to know if there was friendly contact first, or was it just the C&D.



GMforPowergamers said:


> right...becuse they launched a law suit...oh wait they sent a darn letter




Right, _"a darn letter"_ *threatening a law* *suit!*


----------



## GMforPowergamers

El Mahdi said:


> One is a request, even when they don't need to request anything. Such behavior proves intent of goodwill.
> 
> The other says _"Do this or Else!"_. Which is a very formal demand with a threat of legal action.
> 
> The first tact proves intent of Goodwill. The second doesn't disprove intent of Goodwill, but also doesn't promote Goodwill.
> 
> There is a significant difference in the two possible approaches. That's the reason why people are interested to know if there was friendly contact first, or was it just the C&D.




ok I am going to try this anology thing again (I have 2 strikes so far)...

      If my friend I have known for hte last 6 months hits my car I can call him at home, I know him...If a stranger in a parkeing lot hits my car I have to call the police...the diffrence is not me being unwilling to work with the person...the diffrence is that I need to make sure....

        a C&D is not anything to be upset about...if you recive one your first thought should be "Did I break the law" if your answer is no...you have nothing to worry about...if the answer is YES...then you best do what it says...of cource there is always the "I am nut sure" answer  witch is more complacated...


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor

El Mahdi said:


> Right, _"a darn letter"_ *threatening a law* *suit!*




So they should have sent a letter threatening a letter threatening a lawsuit?

"Cease and desist" is pretty strongly-worded stuff, but it's worth noting that "Please stop doing this, we'd hate to have to resort to legal action" is just as much a C&D as "IF YOU DON'T STOP RIGHT NOW WE'LL SUE YOU SO HARD..."


As far as D&D piracy goes, there aren't any numbers on it, because it's almost completely impossible to get any kind of reliable numbers on any kind of piracy, for what I would imagine are obvious reasons. Just about the only reliable numbers I'm aware of are from World of Goo, which had no DRM and an internet high scores database, so the developers could see that the number of people playing the game was ten times the number of people who had bought it.

Whatever the piracy rate is of D&D products, it's not likely to be low, because it would be so _easy_ to pirate D&D books, because as appealing as the image is, piracy of D&D isn't going to involve physical books. Scanners mean that books can become data easily, and depending on how PDF watermarks work, it could be even easier than that to get your D&D books into an untraceable data form. Plausible-denial direct-download sites like Rapidshare mean that there's no serious difficulty in distributing said untraceable data.

This, I think, is one of the secret goals of the D&D Compendium. I'm not buying Open Grave, but I'm also not pirating it, because as a DDI subscriber I have ready access to all the stuff in it.


----------



## xechnao

Phaezen said:


> As baseline here, roughly 80-90% of pc game installs are pirated.  FOr backup to this claims, there are links off this page.
> 
> So the short answer is if piracy rates amongst gamers is anywhere near as high as that, and my experience is that that is a distinct possibility, WOTC are loosing a bucketload of sales.
> 
> Even discounting those players who wouldn't buy the books anyway and only counting those who aren't buying the books/ddi subscriptions because it is easy enough to find pirated copies WOTC and other gaming companies must be taking a large hit in sales.
> 
> Phaezen




That page you are talking about is sourcing info from this page:
http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
What is its conclusion? Read for yourself:

 "one thing that really jumped out at me was his estimate that *preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale*.  this supports our intuitive assessment that people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying. in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases.  either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and *there seems to be no difference in the outcomes*.  we can’t draw any conclusions based on two data points"


----------



## malraux

El Mahdi said:


> One is a request, even when they don't need to request anything. Such behavior proves intent of goodwill.
> 
> The other says _"Do this or Else!"_. Which is a very formal demand with a threat of legal action.
> 
> The first tact proves intent of Goodwill. The second doesn't disprove intent of Goodwill, but also doesn't promote Goodwill.
> 
> There is a significant difference in the two possible approaches. That's the reason why people are interested to know if there was friendly contact first, or was it just the C&D.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, _"a darn letter"_ *threatening a law* *suit!*




Wouldn't the friendly letter also threaten legal action?  I would assume it lists why they want the site taken down and if not what they will do next.


----------



## El Mahdi

Scott_Rouse said:


> The fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good. These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law. The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.
> 
> 
> The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use. FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th.
> 
> As I said in the Ema's post this is not a war on fansites. We appreciate fansites that respect our IP and support our business, ENWorld is a fine example of this type of websites. WotC has a great relationship with Russ and we sincerely value this community's support and patronage.




Thanks for the update on the fansite policy, Scott.  Much appreciated.

Also, thank you for the stats for what was on the site, although, that probably wasn't entirely necessary.  I doubt there are very many people here that think you didn't have a right to do what you did.  More importantly than the GSL not allowing such things, Copyright law doesn't allow such things without permission.  I think it's more that people here are watching very closely *how* WoTC does these things and what *tone* WoTC takes in these dealings (and wondering where WoTC's future intentions may lead).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

El Mahdi said:


> If there's anything I don't understand more than people who feel a need to attack WoTC (not just expressing opinions but actual verbal attacks) is those people who feel it's there self appointed task to be WoTC's _"Defenders of the Faith"_. Absolutely boggles my mind. It seems as if there are fans who are more concerned with protecting WoTC's PR image than even WoTC is willing to do.



  I don't consider myself a "defender of the faith" 





> Then you've found good company on this thread, since I don't recall anyone on here _"glorifying"_ illegal activity.



     I was being pretty general there...but I have gotten what I call the 'robin hood' argument thrown at me on other boards



> While nobody is denying WoTC right to defend there IP, how they do it is definitely a matter for debate.



   I agree I only jumped in when people got nuts and started talking about a 'war on fansites'



> Bad blows that were almost entirely self-inflicted. You'll find no sympathy for this one. TSR engaged in predatory practices aimed at eliminating even legal competition through borderline (and not so borderline) unethical, and possibly illegal, actions. There was an adversarial philosophy towards fans/customers that those who ran the company felt were immature imbeciles. TSR at the time had a leader who's goal was simply to gouge these stupid RPG fans for as much money as possible, all the while enacting guidance to attack and denigrate those same fans/customers.




   I agree...infact there is on the WotC site a guy who when he was 13 got a C&D becuse he had a website talking about his 2 e campaing...



> Because of that, some fans/customers get very touchy about things that appear to be going in that direction again. (Not saying they are, but there do seem to be things happening, and perceived attitudes, that seem to be paralleling those past occurances.)




   I remember those dark days...I am trying to fight to make sure people realize the diffrence




> If someone wanted to truly defend their favorite company, so said company could stick around and make their favorite products in perpetuity, a much more effective tactic would be to make sure that their favorite company was keeping their customers happy. It seems like oversight and criticism of the company, rather than criticism of other fans/customers would be much more beneficial.



   Maybe but when people spread false info or start lobbing crazy 'evil corprate' things about WotC I want to set the record straight...




> Seems to me, that when a company does what their _customers_ want (_the customers best interest_), then said customers buy the companies products making the company lots and lots of money. Win-Win.



  I also feel that a company that forgets it's bottom line and focuses on pleasing over damanding cutomers will soon find they are not makeing enough moey...




> Thus the guidance: _"The customer is always right!"_. When a company decides that they are right, despite an uproar from their fans/customers, then said company doesn't remain in business very long. (Again, not saying that this is currently happening, but there do seem to be indicators that could be interpreted as a shift towards that direction.)




    That is another reason for my posts...To show there is a group of us that are NOT against this trend of defending there IP...I want them to realize I want them to keep this up...



> No argument from me, and probably no argument from most everyone here. But, not providing your favorite company with feedback of what you as a customer want, including constructive criticism, could hasten that very failure which you seem to endeavor to prevent.



yes and as I said I agree with this trend... 




> Agreed 100%, as probably everyone else on this thread hopes for also. I would be very surprised if you found anyone on this thread that wants those guys to lose their jobs, or for WoTC to fail. I don't recall anyone on this thread expressing, or even implying, they would want that to happen. Criticism isn't always malevolent, just as blind devotion isn't always beneficial.



some people here ARE anti WotC...although they are few and far between


----------



## El Mahdi

malraux said:


> A Cease and Desist letter is not a legal (as in a judge sent it and if you don't follow it the police will arrest you) letter. It will typically mention that legal action is a possibility, but that's better than threatening to break kneecaps or something.




However, also not as cordial as "We've noticed you have copyrighted material on your website.  Can you please remove it?".  Without the added *"or we'll sue you!"*.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

El Mahdi said:


> However, also not as cordial as "We've noticed you have copyrighted material on your website.  Can you please remove it?".  Without the added *"or we'll sue you!"*.




did you see a copy of a letter that said eaither????


          maybe it said one. or the other...or maybe somewhere inbetween


I knw a company I use to work for use to have a form letter for C&D that included:
 please remove X, we would like to resolve this just between us, and in a mutal way

      with no menton of sueing...bbut the next step was to sue anyway...


----------



## malraux

El Mahdi said:


> However, also not as cordial as "We've noticed you have copyrighted material on your website.  Can you please remove it?".  Without the added *"or we'll sue you!"*.




But without mentioning the possible actions wotc might take if the site were still up, isn't the letter pretty pointless?  Was the site owner unclear on the whole copyright thing?


----------



## El Mahdi

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok I am going to try this anology thing again (I have 2 strikes so far)...




Nah, no strikes (just a couple of foul balls - just teasing).

I understand your analogy.  I just don't think that most people outside of the legal or business world, see formal legal letters implying future legal action as _"friendly"_.  (I know I wouldn't.)  However, those in business and the legal profession may see things differently.


----------



## El Mahdi

malraux said:


> Wouldn't the friendly letter also threaten legal action? I would assume it lists why they want the site taken down and if not what they will do next.




Yes, but in a silent implication.  I know that sounds silly, but to people outside of the business and legal world, it makes a big difference (at least it would to me).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

El Mahdi said:


> Nah, no strikes (just a couple of foul balls - just teasing).




   the funny part is I am a salesman that prides myself on getting my point across...and it works well in person...only ok in letters and alm ost not at all on boards...I don't know what type of mental block it is..





> I just don't think that most people outside of the legal or business world, see formal legal letters implying future legal action as _"friendly"_.  (I know I wouldn't.)  However, those in business and the legal profession may see things differently.



I guess becuse I have been in the postion to work hand in hand with legal for a couple of companies in the past my view is ...lets say odd


----------



## El Mahdi

GMforPowergamers said:


> I also feel that a company that forgets it's bottom line and focuses on pleasing over damanding cutomers will soon find they are not makeing enough money...




Too true.  I guess people are watching to see how balanced WoTC is going to be in this regard.


----------



## xechnao

joethelawyer said:


> I have found that the law is usually less about what is legal, and more about those with power doing what they like through the law against those without power.




oh yes


----------



## xechnao

DaveMage said:


> Every time I see a thread like this, I invoke a silent "thank you" to Ryan Dancey.




If it wasn't for Ryan Dancey and the OGL and its effect on the market I highly doubt you would be seeing a thread like this in the first place.

This post explains the reason:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4675080-post83.html


----------



## jensun

Shemeska said:


> The only thing we have regarding sales are some relative numbers for the original core trio of books regarding initial print runs. There has been a *deafening silence *on sales of books released after that point.



You say this as if there is some sort of conspiracy of silence at WotC to conceal the position and yet I dont recall seeing them publish sale figures at any point in their history.

In fact, I dont recall seeing TSR publish such information nor any other company in the industry.

Its hard to call that a deafening silence, more like business as usual.


----------



## xechnao

Azgulor said:


> I can appreciate some of the arguments people have raised for why the OGL fell out of favor at WotC.  I fail to see how the OGL was a bad thing for customers or how the restricting GSL is a blessing for RPG customers.




I am a customer and I feel that the OGL was a bad thing for me as a customer due to the value I lost on non D20 systems.
But even if I disagree with you on this I want to praise you on your excellent analysis about market behaviors in your post 
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4675181-post96.html


----------



## jensun

> I fail to see how the OGL was a bad thing for customers



While there has certainly been some excellent material produced under the OGL my impression is that it was outweighed by large quantities of low quality, poorly written rubbish which glutted the market.  It made picking out the useful from the dross pretty damn difficult.


----------



## xechnao

GMforPowergamers said:


> lWhen that happened I realized if D&D went down the next big company was (and still is ) White Wolf, and I can not see them filling TSRs shoes (not then not now)...



Paizo is even smaller than White Wolf and it seems it is doing just fine.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jensun said:


> While there has certainly been some excellent material produced under the OGL my impression is that it was outweighed by large quantities of low quality, poorly written rubbish which glutted the market.  It made picking out the useful from the dross pretty damn difficult.




see that was the big bad side of OGL...dozens of books that looked compattable that were not...ones that were broken, or just didn't fit...




xechnao said:


> Paizo is even smaller than White Wolf and it seems it is doing just fine.




please tell me that is a joke...I would rather D&D die then let piazo hold the reigns...


----------



## xechnao

DimitriX said:


> This is also THE rpg in pop culture.  Most people don't know anything about roleplaying games, but they know DnD.




I am not sure this is true today. I would think that final fantasy for example may be more in pop culture than dnd.


----------



## Jack99

Shemeska said:


> The only thing we have regarding sales are some relative numbers for the original core trio of books regarding initial print runs. There has been a deafening silence on sales of books released after that point.
> 
> We're all going to read into that void as we see fit, and without numbers that neither of us have access to, neither my skepticism nor others fanboyism is going to bend much. I swear, some folks seem to take personal offense at the very suggestion that the 4e might not be the most financially successful edition of all time by any metric possible.




And some people seem to take offense at the fact that 4e might not be a huge failure. If you read my post, you will see I didn't claim them to be hard numbers. I merely pointed out that they were at least as good, and probably better than the "evidence" of a splintering mentioned by Carmachu.

Cheers


----------



## xechnao

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would rather D&D die then let piazo hold the reigns...



And what is the reason behind this?


----------



## xechnao

Jack99 said:


> Every statement we have seen from WotC indicates that 4e outsold 3.x by quite a bit.



I dunno. How much would these indicate? 1%?...5000%?


----------



## Jeff Wilder

ExploderWizard said:


> The genius part was letting the site operate for as long as it did. Why pay for market research when fans will do it for nothing? The site proved that there is a demand for such cards now WOTC can sell them.



Such "genius" would backfire pretty impressively if the shut-down resource could prove that WotC was aware of its activities and permitted them.


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> Such "genius" would backfire pretty impressively if the shut-down resource could prove that WotC was aware of its activities and permitted them.




Only that they cant unless there was some kind of contact among them. Another reason Enworld is as safe as it can be.


----------



## Sammael

xechnao said:


> Only that they cant unless there was some kind of contact among them. Another reason Enworld is as safe as it can be.



Except that WotC has a legal advertising agreement with ENWorld, which, in my book, constitutes as "contact."


----------



## xechnao

Sammael said:


> Except that WotC has a legal advertising agreement with ENWorld, which, in my book, constitutes as "contact."




Eh yes that was my point. Besides the representatives being active on the forums.


----------



## Sammael

Ah, gotcha. I did not get your meaning. WotC could not send ENW a "cease and desist" and then claim that they didn't have knowledge of what was going on @ ENW, since they have a presence here (and a legal agreement with the site). Or, rather, they could, but it wouldn't work because contact can be proven. Makes sense.


----------



## Maggan

Shemeska said:


> We're all going to read into that void as we see fit, and without numbers that neither of us have access to, neither my skepticism nor others fanboyism is going to bend much.




Would it hurt too much to write "my skepticism nor others positive outlook" instead of slinging the "fanboyism" word around?

I mean, out of respect for fellow posters and all that?

/M


----------



## Bleoberis De Ganis

Everyone hated TSR. Well done WOTC for not learning by their mistakes. 3E and 3.5E (I'm not going to start on that oldy) made them lots and lots of money even though it was pirated to death and had an OGL.

*~ don't try to use fancy characters to get around profanity filters please - PS~*

Where is TSR now.

It is a bad sign for WOTC. 

When a company gets greedy, or because of bad accounting and management need greater and greater profits in order to balance the books, even if they are in reality making good profits but not enough to keep up, they start clamping down on everything like locusts swarming and destroying their food source in the process.

D&D is a hobby. A hobby thrives on getting your hands dirty making stuff. How can you make stuff for D&D without putting copyrighted material in it?

Who is going to download a bunch of powercards for the sake of stealing the rules? It is as stupid as taking a DMs books back off him because he showed them to the players. If WOTC want people to buy their power cards rather than have people download a set, print them out on a printer and then glue them to some card, then make the power cards well.

Dumb.

To be fair, from what I remember the power cards on this site were covered in official copyrighted logos, which you can't really blame them for wanting them removed.


----------



## amethal

GMforPowergamers said:


> please tell me that is a joke...I would rather D&D die then let piazo hold the reigns...



Please tell me this is a joke, or at least a gross exaggeration.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu

I think the 4e Fan Site Policy will be a good thing once it's out. It will at least help (better) clarify what can and can't be done, people can refer to it. At the moment there seems uncertainty except in definite cases of gross violation of copyright, which Wizards demonstratably don't want.

It is the case that common sense can never be relied upon, simply because it does not exist. 'Common Sense' is nothing more than a set of enthnographic preconceptions. A case in point: The Aztecs ritually sacrificed up to 30,000 people a year to ensure the sun rose every morning. If you wanted the sun to rise that's what had to be done, just 'common sense'.

Ultimately D&D-related sites are playing in Wizards' sandpit. In the current absence of a Fan Site policy, if you think what you want to do may cause an issue, perhaps a good approach may be to ask someone at Wizards, beforehand? I don't know if that's a realistic option, but hopefully it's a positive suggestion!


----------



## ExploderWizard

Azgulor said:


> Just because WotC _can_ charge for something doesn't mean it _should_. I'm a sales engineer, so I've seen where a "value-add" given for free engenders customer loyalty and where charging for a value-add pisses a happy customer off. I mean, are the potential revenues for power cards really that great? If they are, then WotC made the right move - _for WotC_.
> 
> 
> Now as I said, I don't know the timing involved, nor do I know the market demand for power cards, or what price point that market will bear - so I'm not blaming WotC or accusing them of anything. It is what it is.
> 
> Now all of the above may be the best possible move *for WotC*. Business is business and if I were on their side of the table, maybe I'd make the same decisions. But as a gamer, a GM, and a customer, some of these moves decrease choices and add expense (if I choose to purchase, of course). That's just an objective fact - whether it's good or bad is left to each person to decide. WotC doing something just because they can due to their size, market share, or brand recognition seems like poor reasons for a customer to justify such actions, IMO.
> 
> If Power Card revenues will rival that of a rulebook, then maybe it's worth it. But if they didn't come up with the idea until after fans posted homemade ones on websites...well just because they can doesn't necessarily mean they should.




To be fair to WOTC, I believe that power cards were planned before the website even went up. If they are indeed being released very shortly then the concept and plans for them probably existed before the release of the 4E rulebooks. 

As far as what a company _should_ be charging for, that depends on the company, thier primary product, and thier customer base. As things stand right now power cards are a handy game accessory that can enhance an existing product (4E core rules), but isn't a requirement for using that product. Minis are in that same catagory. One can use tokens, or whatever to replace the functionality of a mini. 

If it is WOTC's intention to transition cards into a core product rather than a game aid, then the free distribution of such cards becomes the equivalent of pirate pdfs of the core rulebooks. 

My theory (not supported by any evidence other than a gut feeling) is that WOTC is looking at going to a card based model for D&D.This doesn't make WOTC evil, but it would be a step farther away from what I believe D&D is all about. Factors that lead me to believe this are:

1) The editing horrors of the 4E core books. Books are expensive to print and customers (rightly) get angry over books with huge amounts of errata that require pages of web content to correct. 

2) Due to the electronic subscription model introduced with DDI, the core mechanics can be updated regularly.Not having large core rulebooks in print means more rules corrections/tweaking can be done electronically.

3) The successful track record that WOTC has with card games. MTG is huge and Hasbro knows this. To Hasbro, D&D is just another IP that is currently barely a blip on the radar. Card games are a strength for WOTC, why not take advantage of that?

4) The current edition of a game makes the best testing ground for the next one. Elements of 4E began to appear in late 3.5 products. Power cards are a good first step in seeing how the format is received by current players.


----------



## Mournblade94

ExploderWizard said:


> Its not suprising. WOTC has every right to demand that its copyrighted materials not be distributed free of charge.
> 
> The genius part was letting the site operate for as long as it did. Why pay for market research when fans will do it for nothing? The site proved that there is a demand for such cards now WOTC can sell them.




It is OK for WOTC to allow fan sites to give them free advertisements, and then shut them down as they see fit?  No wonder the GSL is lagging, it is too convenient for WOTC.  

yet ANOTHER reason not to support $e.

To be fair TSR was not much better, but at least they did not market new editions by trying to convince everyone that the good product that was on the market was actually bad.

I am glad that new companies like Paizo will carry the torch.


----------



## Piratecat

Mournblade94 said:


> It is OK for WOTC to allow fan sites to give them free advertisements, and then shut them down as they see fit?



It's not an "advertisement" when someone steals your work and makes it available for free to anyone. Let's say you spend two years writing a novel, and you finally get it published. I take it, scan it and make the text available for free  - with an identical font and cover image - on the iphone app store. Is this an advertisement for your book?

Of course it isn't.

I thought the 4e power card site was cool too, but the guys running it were knowingly breaking the law.  No one should be upset that this isn't okay.


----------



## Mournblade94

GMforPowergamers said:


> see that was the big bad side of OGL...dozens of books that looked compattable that were not...ones that were broken, or just didn't fit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me that is a joke...I would rather D&D die then let piazo hold the reigns...




Well you have Ed Greenwood signing on, Elaine Cunningham doing work for them.  MANY of the old designers from 3rd edition (Sean K reynolds to na,e a few) working on Paizo...

Pathfinder is going to be MORE like D&D in everything but name.

WOTC at this point might as well stamp Dungeons and Dragons on Chutes and ladders.  To them it is just a brand.. the integrity is gone.


----------



## Krensky

Jack99 said:


> Scott mentioned a site with all the D&D books available for downloads, and that there had been 9,000 downloads. Now, I have no idea how many books were in that bundle, but since he also mentioned that the site was just one of many (50?) he was looking into, well.. That's very quickly quite a few books.





Which is copyright infringement. It is neither theft or piracy.

Theft requires tangible property.

Piracy requires a boat or ship and violence or the threat of violence.


----------



## mxyzplk

Scott_Rouse said:


> The fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good. These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law.  The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.




This doesn't give me a lot of hope that the fansite guidelines will be useful.   

Copyright and trademark law means that realistically, many fansites can't help but technically be in violation somehow.  The GSL specifically excludes web sites as a possible licensed product.  Unless the fansite guidelines (as other company's fansite guidelines do, see White Wolf's or similar) do specify what IP you can use as a fansite,  what possible value add do they convey?


----------



## Piratecat

Do not derail this thread into Paizo-bashing or cheering, please. Whether you love or dislike Pathfinder, this thread isn't the place for it.


----------



## Azgulor

xechnao said:


> I am a customer and I feel that the OGL was a bad thing for me as a customer due to the value I lost on non D20 systems.
> But even if I disagree with you on this I want to praise you on your excellent analysis about market behaviors in your post
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/4675181-post96.html




I can't dismiss that more D20 means less non-D20 in the market and prior to the OGL I was running/playing exclusively non-D&D systems.  Non-D20 games definitely took a hit for a few years.  However, I suspect that OGL or D20 supplements might have been the gateway product for some companies that also produced non-D20 products either at the time or later on.  You've also got low-cost PDFs for niche products and gamers on a budget that may not have existed without the OGL.  The amount of useful material I have now is orders of magnitude greater than what I had pre-OGL.

But most of all I wanted to thank you for the compliment!


----------



## wedgeski

Mournblade94 said:


> WOTC at this point might as well stamp Dungeons and Dragons on Chutes and ladders.  To them it is just a brand.. the integrity is gone.



Please. Listen to the guys on the podcast talk passionately about the game, how pleased they are to be working on it, and how proud they are of what they've produced, and tell me there's no integrity there.


----------



## Mournblade94

Piratecat said:


> It's not an "advertisement" when someone steals your work and makes it available for free to anyone. Let's say you spend two years writing a novel, and you finally get it published. I take it, scan it and make the text available for free - with an identical font and cover image - on the iphone app store. Is this an advertisement for your book?
> 
> Of course it isn't.
> 
> I thought the 4e power card site was cool too, but the guys running it were knowingly breaking the law. No one should be upset that this isn't okay.




Its a good thing enworld has a contract then, otherwise there is numerous IP that can be shut down.  If I post my character on a site.. I am violatinig IP.  It is possible WOTC could shut that site now.

I think this support of WOTC on these moves are a wee bit too trusting.


----------



## xechnao

ExploderWizard said:


> 4) The current edition of a game makes the best testing ground for the next one. Elements of 4E began to appear in late 3.5 products. Power cards are a good first step in seeing how the format is received by current players.




A players handbook costs around 30$ and I believe not every player buys one for himself. If what D&D players needed to play was some collection or deck of power cards that could cost only 5$ to buy, it is very likely these decks sold 6 times more than PHs do now. At the same time Wotc would probably benefit much more from cutting production expenses. So we could perhaps see in the future some booster packs regarding races, equipment, powers and staff like that. The only downside to this is that games of this sort tend to have a limited life cycle. It relies on the shiny factor and the shiny factor is not a time resistant one. But you are definately right that 4e's design is one towards this direction.


----------



## Nymrohd

wedgeski said:


> Please. Listen to the guys on the podcast talk passionately about the game, how pleased they are to be working on it, and how proud they are of what they've produced, and tell me there's no integrity there.




Oh comeon, you are going with how pleased they are in a podcast? Have you ever watched actors at movie previews? People will endorse the worst load of crap in the world if they can make money of it. They will even do it with a smile.


----------



## Mournblade94

wedgeski said:


> Please. Listen to the guys on the podcast talk passionately about the game, how pleased they are to be working on it, and how proud they are of what they've produced, and tell me there's no integrity there.




I do not for ONE MINUTE believe the designers have no integrity.  They however are beholden to people that are not ultimately involved in GAMING.  To THEM it is a brand name only, and the designers have to work within those parameters.

it is not designers causing the websites to shut down, it is the law offices.

These are not good hands for D&D.

Wait until Hasbro decides it is just easier to make money off of D&D brand name video games.  Probably WOn't happen... but it could.

I am not against WOTC as I still buy their Star Wars products, but I will not support $e and I have convinced most of my gaming circle not to support it.


----------



## Piratecat

Mournblade94 said:


> I think this support of WOTC on these moves are a wee bit too trusting.



Fair enough. I disagree, and that's okay, too.

If you're trying to protect your copyright, as you're obligated to do, you look for low-hanging fruit; gross violations are what you target. A site that uses the D&D trade dress and has almost 2000 copy-n-pasted powers? Heck, yes. A fan posting his character? Absolutely not.


----------



## Azgulor

jensun said:


> While there has certainly been some excellent material produced under the OGL my impression is that it was outweighed by large quantities of low quality, poorly written rubbish which glutted the market.  It made picking out the useful from the dross pretty damn difficult.




I know certain parties have argued that the Bad-OGL outweitghed the Good-OGL but my own experience doesn't bear that out.  And with the number of reviews available on the web, I never felt I was an uninformed consumer when purchasing a 3rd-party product.

For every Book of Erotic Fantasy (which I think was d20 license, not OGL), I can site multiples that were top notch products, such as Mutants & Masterminds, Conan OGL, True 20, Game of Thrones, etc.  Also none of those products diminished my WotC purchases - it increased them due to the fact that I could plug-n-play so much of it.

I think the volume/glut of available product can't be disputed.  I think the "most of it was bad" argument is demonstrably false.  YMMV.



Tangent #1: I also find the volume/glut as justification for moving away from the OGL particularly funny given that many people trumpeted 4e as being a smart move b/c WotC had "printed every viable subject they could for 3.x"  (I'm paraphrasing , obviously). 

It still cracks me up that people can make a case that something is bad for the hobby when a 3PP does it but the exact same reason/statement is good for the hobby when WotC does it.  It's even funnier to me when the argument for both cases is made within the same post.


Tangent #2: I also love the "WotC is right to go with the GSL b/c OGL sales compete with core rulebook sales" and the "3PPs sales are barely blips on WotC's/D&D's radar".  Again, often argued by the same person in a single post.  Either the 3PPs sales were strong enough that WotC felt the GSL was necessary to defend against it, or the 3PPs sales were small enough that there was little business justification for going with the GSL _just because the could_ - i.e. the "Might Makes Right" issue.  It's unlikely (but not impossible) that both are true.

As a wise man once told me, "Never underestimate the stupidity of a corporation."  For grins, he also said, "the only thing that can exceed the stupidity of a corporation is the stupidity of government" and "the only thing that can exceed that is the stupidity of academia".


----------



## xechnao

Piratecat said:


> It's not an "advertisement" when someone steals your work and makes it available for free to anyone. Let's say you spend two years writing a novel, and you finally get it published. I take it, scan it and make the text available for free  - with an identical font and cover image - on the iphone app store. Is this an advertisement for your book?
> 
> Of course it isn't.
> 
> I thought the 4e power card site was cool too, but the guys running it were knowingly breaking the law.  No one should be upset that this isn't okay.




The power cards were not the PHs. They could be in the future but you need to successfully convince your customer base for the transition to happen. That site was an advertisement for this kind of transition. Perhaps even the taking down of it and all the fuss this creates because it makes customers think of the value and utility of power cards.


----------



## mudbunny

Mournblade94 said:


> I think this support of WOTC on these moves are a wee bit too trusting.




So far, we only know about WotC taking action (via C&D letters) against two websites. Both used large portions of the D&D IP *without permission*. Anyone thinking that WotC wouldn't do something about it is being fairly naive.

There is a *very* large difference between those sites and a kid somewhere putting up his character on his web page.


----------



## Jack99

Krensky said:


> Which is copyright infringement. It is neither theft or piracy.
> 
> Theft requires tangible property.
> 
> Piracy requires a boat or ship and violence or the threat of violence.




Fair enough. English isn't my native language, and in my native language, copying something illegally is called "making a pirate-copy": I am sure you can see now why I would use it as I have, considering the large amount of people who use it exacly like that.


----------



## Piratecat

xechnao said:


> The power cards were not the PHs. They could be in the future but you need to successfully convince your customer base for the transition to happen. That site was an advertisement for this kind of transition. Perhaps even the taking down of it and all the fuss this creates because it makes customers think of the value and utility of power cards.



So, are you claiming that it's okay to break the law because you're acting as an "advertisement" for the people you're stealing from?


----------



## the Jester

xechnao said:


> The power cards were not the PHs.




If there was no PH, you couldn't make power cards. The text was straight up cut and pasted from the PH. Come on, people- it's not that hard to figure out. WotC has a legal need to protect their trademarks, and they have every legal right to demand that _everyone_ with d&d stuff online take it down. They don't and they haven't; they've only approached the most egregious examples that they could find. 

:shakes head: Surely you don't think that WotC is _obligated_ to let people give away their work for free??


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mournblade94 said:


> Well you have Ed Greenwood signing on, Elaine Cunningham doing work for them. MANY of the old designers from 3rd edition (Sean K reynolds to na,e a few) working on Paizo...
> 
> Pathfinder is going to be MORE like D&D in everything but name.
> 
> WOTC at this point might as well stamp Dungeons and Dragons on Chutes and ladders. To them it is just a brand.. the integrity is gone.




I am not very happy with the 4E product line and the direction that the D&D brand has taken. Having said that I don't think its fair to say that the WOTC designers have no integrity. 

WOTC has produced a game they thought a lot of gamers would enjoy. I don't believe these designers would work on something if they didn't believe that.

I prefer Coke over Pepsi. Does this mean that Pepsico has no integrity and produced cola they knew to be inferior to the competition for the sole purpose of pissing me off?

There are other considerations that might have an impact on the current products. Hasbro beancounters wanting more revenue from thier IP than the normal rpg medium typically producers is certainly a possibility but thats far and away a different bag of rats from a lack of integrity by the designers.


----------



## Alzrius

Azgulor said:


> For every Book of Erotic Fantasy (which I think was d20 license, not OGL), I can site multiples that were top notch products, such as Mutants & Masterminds, Conan OGL, True 20, Game of Thrones, etc.




It was OGL, not d20 STL. Also, it wasn't that bad of a book; most people just overreact to the subject material and the fact that it had pictures of people in various states of undress (admittedly, the fact that it was photoshopped images of real people turned out to be very unpopular). The mechanics, writing, layout, etc. were all at least par, if not better, for a professionally-produced third-party product.


----------



## bobthehappyzombie

Piratecat said:


> So, are you claiming that it's okay to break the law because you're acting as an "advertisement" for the people you're stealing from?




Can I just take this opportunity to mention De Beers...



xechnao said:


> find a way to plasticize them.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_sleeve would be the method of choice.


----------



## xechnao

the Jester said:


> If there was no PH, you couldn't make power cards. The text was straight up cut and pasted from the PH. Come on, people- it's not that hard to figure out. WotC has a legal need to protect their trademarks, and they have every legal right to demand that _everyone_ with d&d stuff online take it down. They don't and they haven't; they've only approached the most egregious examples that they could find.
> 
> :shakes head: Surely you don't think that WotC is _obligated_ to let people give away their work for free??






Piratecat said:


> So, are you claiming that it's okay to break the law because you're acting as an "advertisement" for the people you're stealing from?






Piratecat said:


> Fair enough. I disagree, and that's okay, too.
> 
> If you're trying to protect your copyright, as you're obligated to do, you look for low-hanging fruit; gross violations are what you target. A site that uses the D&D trade dress and has almost 2000 copy-n-pasted powers? Heck, yes. A fan posting his character? Absolutely not.




In case my point above is not clear enough. I do not exclude the possibility that Wotc could have been behind the operating and closing down of these sites for marketing reasons. Yes, this is a conspiracy theory but if you think about it, it could also be some very efficient marketing -why? because the promotion comes from a fan, rather than the seller. Besides if I really wanted to use power cards I would buy some solid ones than having to print my own and find a way to plasticize them.


----------



## DaveMage

I like the suggestion earlier that rather than shut things like this down - find a way to partner with it.  It may not be possible in all (or even most) cases, but wouldn't it be nice if that was the first course of action rather than a C&D? (And perhaps they did try, but we don't have such information.)

Maybe I'm a sentimental fool*, but I love stories like the Suzanne Vega / D.N.A. relationship where rather than suing D.N.A. for using her a capella version of "Tom's Diner" with their music, A&M records and she made a deal with them and released it.  

I think the danger in simply sending C&Ds to sites that aren't making money, is tht you may be alienating some of your most-passionate fanbase.  That's not a good idea, IMO.  (But then, that's a whole other thread, isn't it?    )


*No "maybe" about it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

People keep quoting Ryan Dancy's reasons for the OGL.  However, they forget one prediction he made that failed.

He predicted that if there was a choice with either OGL products or a closed and different version of D&D, people would choose the OGL version and reject any radical changes D&D's future owners might make to D&D.

D&D was massively changed from 3e to 4e.
The OGL was not used for D&D rules.

It looks like he was wrong.

If you guys want to prove him RIGHT, do a mass exodus from D&D and support an OGL fork of the 3e D&D ruleset.  If you want to prove Ryan's philosophy right, I'd like to see over 50% of the market reject D&D and move to the other games.  

But trying to make D&D 4e "more open" is not going to work, neither will trying to reverse engineer it, etc.  WoTC made their choice.  

Personally, in this day and age, I wonder why people spend so much time working on stuff they know they don't have 100% control over.  A lot of creators for comics learned this lesson and focused on independent publishing.  Gary Gygax never really went back to D&D--while he ended up doing Castle Zagyg, he ended up creating 2 widely-different games, even though he had offers to do D&D stuff with TSR and WoTC--and he walked away from stuff he had no control over.  

That's the real model for being creative--make stuff you 100% control.  That's why I take a dimmer view on "fan fiction" or "derivative works".  All the effort going into working on stuff that goes beyond "fair use" tends to make me think these guys are wasting a lot of creative energy that could go to something else.  

As far as people "lockstep-defending" WoTC...I think it's a reaction to all the radical statements made in this decade by the moves towards "openness", giving away stuff for free, and turning a blind eye towards privacy.  

There's a lot of people who care about raving against "the man", and I think there are some frightening entitlement issues from the masses.  People forget "the man" sometimes is a little guy like you and me who has rights.  If I was a novelist of childrens books and discovered "slash fiction", I could see myself engaging in a lawsuit and attempting to shut things down, because I don't want my work corrupted by fan-fiction.  

While I am critical of WoTC's rather lax attitude towards the fan community with this release (the GSL situation should have been handled a lot better), I am also critical of reactionary people who take the OGL too far and focus more on how the game is licensed and should be released.  There are no "thought police", we are free to create our own campaign settings, rules, and adventures in our own homes.  Publishing derivative works--even for free--is a right reserved for the creators to control, and even in this day and age of people having blogs, message boards, etc, I defend the right of authors to have this control--from Disney to my friend who has written his own novella.


----------



## Mercutio01

xechnao said:


> In case my point above is not clear enough. I do not exclude the possibility that Wotc could have been behind the operating and closing down of these sites for marketing reasons. Yes, this is a conspiracy theory but if you think about it, it could also be some very efficient marketing -why? because the promotion comes from a fan, rather than the seller.




That's ridiculous.  And it shows that you simply don't have a clue when it comes to the Power Card creation scene here on ENWorld.  I'm quite positive that none of us who made designs of power cards are WotC plants.


----------



## DaveMage

JohnRTroy said:


> People keep quoting Ryan Dancy's reasons for the OGL.  However, they forget one prediction he made that failed.
> 
> He predicted that if there was a choice with either OGL products or a closed and different version of D&D, people would choose the OGL version and reject any radical changes D&D's future owners might make to D&D.




If this was his prediction *verbatim*, then his prediction is correct.  I have chosen the OGL version and rejected the changes of 4E.  There are many, many others like me.

If his prediction was that MOST people or ALL people would do so, then I agree, his prediction seems to be incorrect.  (But without the lack of real data, who knows?)


----------



## dm4hire

This could be debated either way Piratecat.  Since there were no offical power cards or anyway of doing it via WotC (until recently with the advent of the character generator and soon the actual cards) as long as they were not making profit WotC had to prove that by producing them the website was infracting on their copyright in away to deny them money.  Which would have been hard pressed since players still need the PH to play the game; granted they only need one.

If you follow the threads about piracy on Techdirt you'll see arguements on both sides proving how sites like the aforementioned actually do drive the market.  Most people prefer to be legitamit and having gotten a taste of what could be obtained most people actually go out and buy the real deal.  One way of looking at it from a marketing aspect that WotC should have done was not send an immediate C&D but request information as to how successful it was then compare and then offer to purchase the method of creation if it was proving to be more popular.  Or working with them so that perhaps they were the only sactioned site outside of WotC where you could acquire them via the web but require free advertising for WotC products.

A good case in point was the recent dispute Hasbro had with Scrabulous.  The backlash that happened from their C&D to the main site and Facebook was horrible for the company and it was proven that Scrabulous had actually increased sales of Scrabble.  Their C&D resulted in a legalized variant game being made which doesn't have quite the same following, nor does Hasbro's official Scrabble, so both sides lost out.

I just hope that WotC doesn't put a clamp on the template, which could be viewed as a character sheet.  I also hope that WotC is really weighing their options before issuing the C&D or they will start taking on the persona of the RIAA in a lot of peoples minds and we all know how that has worked out for the recording industry, ticking off the fans is not a good thing.

I agree that a fan site guideline would help a lot if they are going to try and limit fans and it would need to be posted were it can be easily found and referred to.


----------



## xechnao

Azgulor said:


> I know certain parties have argued that the Bad-OGL outweitghed the Good-OGL but my own experience doesn't bear that out.  And with the number of reviews available on the web, I never felt I was an uninformed consumer when purchasing a 3rd-party product.
> 
> For every Book of Erotic Fantasy (which I think was d20 license, not OGL), I can site multiples that were top notch products, such as Mutants & Masterminds, Conan OGL, True 20, Game of Thrones, etc.  Also none of those products diminished my WotC purchases - it increased them due to the fact that I could plug-n-play so much of it.




I wanted to see a different system developed for Conan's S&S than D20 3e for example. Mongoose did not choose to go with D20 because it is the most suitable system for playing in Hyboria IMO. It went for other reasons. Same feelings for a Game of Thrones.


----------



## Mournblade94

ExploderWizard said:


> I am not very happy with the 4E product line and the direction that the D&D brand has taken. Having said that I don't think its fair to say that the WOTC designers have no integrity.




I see where this post implied that, but I meant the entity that is WOTC, not the designers.  Please refer to a previous post, I made where I address the integrity of designers.  I DO BELIEVE the designers have integrity.



ExploderWizard said:


> WOTC has produced a game they thought a lot of gamers would enjoy. I don't believe these designers would work on something if they didn't believe that.




I believe the designers did their best with the parameters.  



ExploderWizard said:


> I prefer Coke over Pepsi. Does this mean that Pepsico has no integrity and produced cola they knew to be inferior to the competition for the sole purpose of pissing me off?




If coke had a perfectly good drink, and then coca cola changed thier drink to that of homogenized milk, I would be annoyed.  WOTC made homogenized D&D.



ExploderWizard said:


> There are other considerations that might have an impact on the current products. Hasbro beancounters wanting more revenue from thier IP than the normal rpg medium typically producers is certainly a possibility but thats far and away a different bag of rats from a lack of integrity by the designers.




Agreed

Again, I do not think the designers lack integrity.

I think the Heads of WOTC with which the designers must work lack the will to ensure their product stands up to the D&D name.

I find 4th edition to be a botched attempt, but I will still buy STAR WARS because it is a good system.

I don't think 4th edition is doing as well as people think in real space.  My game store needs ME to run D&D 4th edition on games day because they cannot find enough DM's willing to run it.

Most of the criticism I hear from people in the store is... its not D&D.

That is what I mean by lack of integrity.


----------



## JohnRTroy

DaveMage said:


> If this was his prediction *verbatim*, then his prediction is correct.  I have chosen the OGL version and rejected the changes of 4E.  There are many, many others like me.
> 
> If his prediction was that MOST people or ALL people would do so, then I agree, his prediction seems to be incorrect.  (But without the lack of real data, who knows?)




IIRC he predicted "the majority of players" would reject it.  Which apparently didn't happen.


----------



## jaerdaph

Zaukrie said:


> Any site that posts actual content from the game that WotC charges for should expect this to happen. If I sold a book, and people were extracting it's content and giving it away for free, I'd want them to stop.




x3

I agree 100%. WotC did nothing wrong.


----------



## DaveMage

JohnRTroy said:


> IIRC he predicted "the majority of players" would reject it.  Which apparently didn't happen.





True.  (Although the unquestionably-valid  EN World poll of a few weeks ago indicated that 58% had NOT switched to 4E.)


----------



## dm4hire

DaveMage said:


> If this was his prediction *verbatim*, then his prediction is correct.  I have chosen the OGL version and rejected the changes of 4E.  There are many, many others like me.
> 
> If his prediction was that MOST people or ALL people would do so, then I agree, his prediction seems to be incorrect.  (But without the lack of real data, who knows?)




I'd have to agree with you.  I am eagerly awaiting the final version of Pathfinder as well as Fantasy Craft and Song of Ice and Fire.  Two OGL and a spin off of the OGL.  I've also picked up Ubiquity which is a new system used in Hollow Earth Expedition and post apocalyptic "Desolation."  The point being, that despite having mixed feelings about 4e and owning just about every book to date, I'm looking for something better than 4e.  Heck even Arcanis' possible variant OGL is sounding promising.

Another way of seeing how well D&D is doing is by looking at Amazon's ratings.  Their down right horrible for the most part with the average for the corebooks being 3 stars.

Until OGL has had a chance to weigh in against D&D you really can't say that his prediction is false.  I think we're just getting ready to see how wrong or right he really was come the end of the year or a year from now.


----------



## Mournblade94

JohnRTroy said:


> IIRC he predicted "the majority of players" would reject it. Which apparently didn't happen.




I would argue this.  I know many people that bought the core books, tried it, and shelved it.

There is no empirical evidence what so ever for this stand.  Anecdotal is all you will have.  Sales will not prove ryan dancey wrong.  What are people playing?

In my two stores (Ifrequent them I do not own them), I see Magic and Warhammer MOST, followed by OGL games mostly MUTANTS AND MASTERMINDS and D20 modern.  I ask alot of these gamers why, they say they no longer liked D&D and largely abandoned it.

I did not abandon it, I play 3.5 and WHFRP.

Anecdotal only I understand, but this makes me convinced 4e is not the master of the market place.


----------



## dm4hire

Going back on topic I also think that it would have been better for WotC not to send a C&D but a letter stating that with the pending release of the actual cards that the site conduct a review and remove any material that might become an infringement upon release.  Thereby warning that a C&D would result once WotC had an actual product on store shelves.


----------



## xechnao

Mercutio01 said:


> That's ridiculous.  And it shows that you simply don't have a clue when it comes to the Power Card creation scene here on ENWorld.  I'm quite positive that none of us who made designs of power cards are WotC plants.




I did not call or imply you are a plant. Please think a bit on the message before rushing to put words into my mouth. Is it so hard to see what I am talking about? Lets take the discussion out on a different level. Do we have a clue when people need to vote about elections what is going on? Of course not every voter expressing his political opinion is a plant. A vast minority of them is. But that vast minority is the minority that invests more money and has more interest into it than all the others individually. 
In marketing and big business, if you could, you would see things a lot, but a lot stranger than this. As in elections, legal and illegal. These strange things happen behind the scenes. But it is not hard to figure out they happen and some times we actually find out about a tiny bit of them. 
Conspiracy theories? Yes. But to say that strange things such as this do not or have not happened is very naive IMO.


----------



## jonathanjacobs

Imaro said:


> Honestly this makes me wonder how well WotC's products and DDI are doing... you'd think if they were doing extraordinary they wouldn't be sweating little things like this. But that's neither here nor there and admittedly I could be totally off base with that.




just as a reply to Imaro's comment, you may be interested in this post over at The Core Mechanic for some details:

Hasbro Q4 2008 Earning Statement


----------



## the Jester

dm4hire said:


> Going back on topic I also think that it would have been better for WotC not to send a C&D but a letter stating that with the pending release of the actual cards that the site conduct a review and remove any material that might become an infringement upon release.  Thereby warning that a C&D would result once WotC had an actual product on store shelves.




The problem is that if WotC doesn't defend their trademarks now, they _cannot_ defend them later. There is a principle in law that amounts to, "You let me do it before, you can't start complaining now"- WotC simply doesn't have the option to ignore known large-scale infringement.


----------



## Mercutio01

dm4hire said:


> Going back on topic I also think that it would have been better for WotC not to send a C&D but a letter stating that with the pending release of the actual cards that the site conduct a review and remove any material that might become an infringement upon release.  Thereby warning that a C&D would result once WotC had an actual product on store shelves.



The C&D didn't have anything to do with the release of power cards.  It had everything to do with the fact that there were verbatim direct copies of the powers from the Player's Handbook, et al.

Also, why threaten a threatening letter?  That's all a C&D is.  In effect they say, "We see that you are using copyrighted material from books we published.  Please remove the copyrighted material or else we may be forced to sue you for copyright infringement."  That's it.  I don't understand why people are getting hung up on the C&D.

As someone who made power cards and then put them up online back in summer 2008, I understand both the market for the product and the desires people had for pre-printed cards.  After awhile I came to my senses and stopped making pre-printed cards because it IS copyright infringement.  I focused on creating templates and left it at that.  I use power cards from MSE that I co-designed, but for my own use and not distributed across the internet, which is neither copyright infringement nor illegal.

The issue is the distribution of copyrighted material not licensed away by the copyright holder.  If WotC had distributed the powers under a Creative Commons License, then as long as the website was following the CCL there wouldn't be a problem.  But they didn't.  They own the whole copyright and no one has a right to distribute that without the express permission of WotC.

To put it another way - say I write a book of short stories (or poems, which is more likely for me) and then I publish them.  If I go onto a website and someone is distributing some, but not all, of my poems that is copyright infringement.  If I post a few of those poems on my website to garner interest, that's fine.  But anyone who then takes that from my website and posts it on their's is also infringing my copyright.

Copyright gives the author of a product sole control over its distribution and protects their "right" to own the "copy" (that is the text of the product) until the date of his death +70 years.


----------



## mxyzplk

the Jester said:


> The problem is that if WotC doesn't defend their trademarks now, they _cannot_ defend them later. There is a principle in law that amounts to, "You let me do it before, you can't start complaining now"- WotC simply doesn't have the option to ignore known large-scale infringement.




But... They *did* ignore it up till now and them getting their own product ready.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mxyzplk said:


> But... They *did* ignore it up till now and them getting their own product ready.




earler in this thread scott rouse told us they found out about it at the end of Jan...they took less then a month to issue a C&D...how is that ignoreing it?




Scott_Rouse said:


> The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use. FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th.




   Now who here sereisly wants to defend this web site the broke all those laws??


----------



## xechnao

dm4hire said:


> I'd have to agree with you.  I am eagerly awaiting the final version of Pathfinder as well as Fantasy Craft and Song of Ice and Fire.  Two OGL and a spin off of the OGL.




A SoIF is definitely not a spin off, by the hobby's senses. It is what is called as "independent"? "Not D20"?


----------



## mudbunny

mxyzplk said:


> But... They *did* ignore it up till now and them getting their own product ready.




No. They didn't. They found out about the site near the beginning of January, and then probably spent time cataloging the points of infringement on the site so that they could provide it to the owners of the website. Once they were completely cataloged, they sent off the C&D. Allowing for time for mail delivery, writing of the letter by legal staff, and time by WotC staffers to ID all of the violations of IP, this is pretty rapid turnaround time.

_edited timeline to correct my error_


----------



## Imaro

jonathanjacobs said:


> just as a reply to Imaro's comment, you may be interested in this post over at The Core Mechanic for some details:
> 
> Hasbro Q4 2008 Earning Statement




Interesting... what I'm taking from this, and I could be totally off base, is...

Hasbro wants a piece of the "digital" gaming pie, whatever that entails...

D&D was made a part of that initiative, and plenty of money was spent on DDI's development and marketing up to this point (Oh, yeah and lets not forget about the expenditures on the now defunct Gleemax).

Games and puzzles for the full year were down slightly in profit.  And down an even greater amount in the fourth quarter.

Interpretation:  Yeah, Hasbro is expecting WotC to make DDI a major success, one way or another.  Wonder how well they've succeeded up to this point, since no mention of profits from this "digital" gaming initiative is made.


----------



## xechnao

GMforPowergamers said:


> Now who here sereisly wants to defend this web site the broke all those laws??




I do not believe anybody is defending this web site. They are rather being critic towards Wotc for various reasons. Two different things. And I would appreciate if you cared to answer my question. Why would you rather let D&D -that you love so much as a fan- let it die, than let some other company than Wotc, a company that has proven to be able to cover its fan demands-like Paizo for example- take care of it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

xechnao said:


> I would appreciate if you cared to answer my question. Why would you rather let D&D -that you love so much as a fan- let it die, than let some other company than Wotc, a company that has proven to be able to cover its fan demands-like Paizo for example- take care of it.




I forked that becuse priate cat asked us to not derail...


----------



## Brix

Convert to Pathfinder RPG
All old and news rule-stuff is OGL


----------



## portermj

Azigoth said:


> What's annoying is that unless someone has pirated copies of the rules and hasn't in any way compensated WotC for playing 4e, there just isn't any harm in using a site like 4E Powercards.




Except, it sounds like pirating copies of the rules is what that site did.  They reprinted copyrighted material.  It isn't any different that broadcasting only the last quarter of the Superbowl without the NFL's permission.

As far as the moral issue?  I feel that creators should be able to control what is done with their creations, as long as it is legal, even if it has negative consquences for the creator.  For example:  Even if file sharing sites helps Metallica sell records, Metallica has the moral (and legal) right to say that they don't want their work to be pirated.

Of course I realize that there is a pervasive entitlement culture out there that thinks anyone who creates a song, movie, play, tv show, book, manga, or game is morally obligated to let people have it for free.  In the name of respecting the fans of course.  

I just don't think I should have to subsidize other people's entertainment.  It costs money to develop this stuff.  Everyone who uses it should pay thier share of the costs.


----------



## Imaro

mudbunny said:


> No. They didn't. They found out about the site near the end of January, and then probably spent time cataloging the points of infringement on the site so that they could provide it to the owners of the website. Once they were completely cataloged, they sent off the C&D. Allowing for time for mail delivery, writing of the letter by legal staff, and time by WotC staffers to ID all of the violations of IP, this is pretty rapid turnaround time.




Just a correction...they (or at least Scott) found out about the website at the beginning of January, not the end...



Scott_Rouse said:


> ...
> FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th...


----------



## mudbunny

Imaro said:


> Just a correction...they (or at least Scott) found out about the website at the beginning of January, not the end...




Thanks. I misremembered. I will correct my post.


----------



## malraux

dm4hire said:


> Going back on topic I also think that it would have been better for WotC not to send a C&D but a letter stating that with the pending release of the actual cards that the site conduct a review and remove any material that might become an infringement upon release.  Thereby warning that a C&D would result once WotC had an actual product on store shelves.




But that first letter would be a cease and desist letter.  A letter asking someone to stop doing something is, by definition, a C&D.


----------



## mxyzplk

mudbunny said:


> No. They didn't. They found out about the site near the beginning of January, and then probably spent time cataloging the points of infringement on the site so that they could provide it to the owners of the website. Once they were completely cataloged, they sent off the C&D. Allowing for time for mail delivery, writing of the letter by legal staff, and time by WotC staffers to ID all of the violations of IP, this is pretty rapid turnaround time.
> 
> _edited timeline to correct my error_




Hmm, I guess that's the "more important stuff" they're choosing to spend their lawyer's time on rather than the fansite guidelines or the revised GSL.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mxyzplk said:


> Hmm, I guess that's the "more important stuff" they're choosing to spend their lawyer's time on rather than the fansite guidelines or the revised GSL.




so does that mean we can blame these sites that are wasting WotC time when they could have been working on better stuff??

  had there been no illigal websites then the law team would have time for the revised GSL...wow another reason to hate piriacy


----------



## RedBeardJim

the Jester said:


> The problem is that if WotC doesn't defend their trademarks now, they _cannot_ defend them later. There is a principle in law that amounts to, "You let me do it before, you can't start complaining now"- WotC simply doesn't have the option to ignore known large-scale infringement.




This applies to *trademarks* (e.g., the name "Dungeons & Dragons"), not to *copyright* (e.g. the content and wording of the power cards). Trademarks you must defend -- copyright is yours from the moment you create the work until whatever ridiculous amount of time Disney has managed to push it to, whether you defend it or not.


----------



## portermj

mxyzplk said:


> Hmm, I guess that's the "more important stuff" they're choosing to spend their lawyer's time on rather than the fansite guidelines or the revised GSL.




Yes, WOTC is a company that basically sells ideas.  Protecting their intellectual property really does qualify as more important stuff.


----------



## dm4hire

It could also be said that the lack of a clear and more open GSL is what has led to these websites as 3pp would have definitely jumped on the power cards by now if not WotC.  One has to wonder why WotC has taken so long to come out with power cards, especially when you look at their product list and follow up cards for other books are only about 2-3 months behind the forth coming book?


----------



## mxyzplk

GMforPowergamers said:


> so does that mean we can blame these sites that are wasting WotC time when they could have been working on better stuff??
> 
> had there been no illigal websites then the law team would have time for the revised GSL...wow another reason to hate piriacy




I assume this is a clever joke done to illustrate the kind of Karl Rove-esque logic permeating this thread.

Bit instead, if they had a clear fansite policy ahead of time that told people what they could/could not do - perhaps people who are just trying to promote the hobby wouldn't have to have been stigmatized as "pirates".

The mods are mighty quick to clamp down on anyone "calling names" on WotC or its fans here; apparently that protection doesn't extend to other Wizards fans who were actually taking the initiative to create stuff for the game.  No, they are criminals, pirates, and thieves.  Strange, just yesterday they were allies in the "yay 4e" cause, and evidence of the strong fan community.

I can't help but wonder which of you are next.


----------



## malraux

RedBeardJim said:


> This applies to *trademarks* (e.g., the name "Dungeons & Dragons"), not to *copyright* (e.g. the content and wording of the power cards). Trademarks you must defend -- copyright is yours from the moment you create the work until whatever ridiculous amount of time Disney has managed to push it to, whether you defend it or not.




My understanding was that the site in question did use a large amount of trademarked stuff in addition to copyrighted material.  Lots of DnD logos.


----------



## mudbunny

It doesn't take a fansite policy to figure out that reproducing  large portions of WotC IP is a bad idea...


----------



## Piratecat

I very much agree with you about the importance of a clear fansite policy. However...



mxyzplk said:


> The mods are mighty quick to clamp down on anyone "calling names" on WotC or its fans here; apparently that protection doesn't extend to other Wizards fans who were actually taking the initiative to create stuff for the game.



If you have a problem with moderation, please feel free to email the moderator (or any moderator, really.) The thread isn't the place to discuss it, though.


----------



## Mercutio01

mxyzplk said:


> Bit instead, if they had a clear fansite policy ahead of time that told people what they could/could not do - perhaps people who are just trying to promote the hobby wouldn't have to have been stigmatized as "pirates".
> 
> The mods are mighty quick to clamp down on anyone "calling names" on WotC or its fans here; apparently that protection doesn't extend to other Wizards fans who were actually taking the initiative to create stuff for the game.  No, they are criminals, pirates, and thieves.  Strange, just yesterday they were allies in the "yay 4e" cause, and evidence of the strong fan community.
> 
> I can't help but wonder which of you are next.




Do you need to be explicitly told NOT to break the law?  Not to violate copyright?  Seriously?


----------



## malraux

mxyzplk said:


> I assume this is a clever joke done to illustrate the kind of Karl Rove-esque logic permeating this thread.
> 
> Bit instead, if they had a clear fansite policy ahead of time that told people what they could/could not do - perhaps people who are just trying to promote the hobby wouldn't have to have been stigmatized as "pirates".
> 
> The mods are mighty quick to clamp down on anyone "calling names" on WotC or its fans here; apparently that protection doesn't extend to other Wizards fans who were actually taking the initiative to create stuff for the game.  No, they are criminals, pirates, and thieves.  Strange, just yesterday they were allies in the "yay 4e" cause, and evidence of the strong fan community.
> 
> I can't help but wonder which of you are next.




That's a rather bad faith argument as no one would have expected such a site to be acceptable under any fan site rule.  Nor was this site creating stuff in a meaningful way.


----------



## Jack99

mxyzplk said:


> Bit instead, if they had a clear fansite policy ahead of time that told people what they could/could not do - perhaps people who are just trying to promote the hobby wouldn't have to have been stigmatized as "pirates".




I doubt any of the two owners of the websites who have been taken down did not know they were breaking laws.


----------



## mxyzplk

Jack99 said:


> I doubt any of the two owners of the websites who have been taken down did not know they were breaking laws.




IP law is a wonderful thing in that a very large number of fansites, including ENWorld, are breaking it.  It's hard to write stuff for the game without it.  Everyone "knows" but thinks that their own use is OK or safe or whatever.

White Wolf makes the claim (in their fansite guidelines, by the way) that all WW characters are derivative work and protected by IP law.  You can't just make a clan Gangrel Kindred character and post them, they consider that a violation of IP law that only their fansite guidelines mitigate.

That's the point of the GSL, and of fansite guidelines.  They say what kind of exceptions to IP law are OK in their relevant contexts.


----------



## malraux

mxyzplk said:


> IP law is a wonderful thing in that a very large number of fansites, including ENWorld, are breaking it.  It's hard to write stuff for the game without it.  Everyone "knows" but thinks that their own use is OK or safe or whatever.
> 
> White Wolf makes the claim (in their fansite guidelines, by the way) that all WW characters are derivative work and protected by IP law.  You can't just make a clan Gangrel Kindred character and post them, they consider that a violation of IP law that only their fansite guidelines mitigate.
> 
> That's the point of the GSL, and of fansite guidelines.  They say what kind of exceptions to IP law are OK in their relevant contexts.




Again, that's a bad faith argument.  No one expects cut and paste examples of the entire PHB powers to be covered under the fan site policy.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

carmachu said:


> The base line is meaningless. PC games are not paper and pencil games.
> 
> So, when asked if you have any numbers on WOTC piracy theft, I get PC thefts and told its similar? You dont actually HAVE any numbers, just retoric that its rampant?
> 
> So again, any numbers on actualy RPG piracy theft?
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I have no doubts it happens, piracy. But if you going to throw around "lots of loss is happening!!!!*, numbers are going to have to come into play.




Indeed, the referenced "base line" involves a single game.  If I were to try to present a sample size of 1 as representative of anything, for any reason, they'd laugh me out of the university.  

So, we have a story about a single game by an indie developer that is suffering from high rates of piracy.  Those rates are estimates, based on the number of seeders and leechers of the game's torrent on a popular bittorrent search engine.  That assumes a few things:

1. Everyone who downloaded the game played it
2. The number of seeders is an accurate representation of the number of downloads
3. (most importantly, I think) A large proportion of downloaders would have purchased the game if they hadn't downloaded it.  This follows from the claim that revenues have been lost to piracy.

Since no evidence has been presented for any of these claims, and this is an isolated incident from which no generalization can be made, and it's not even a case study concerning a pen-and-paper roleplaying game in the first place, I fail to see how this can be used as part of an argument concerning any alleged losses attributable to pirates of the D&D game.

I'm not arguing (in this post) that there is not a relationship between piracy and lost sales on the part of WotC.  I'm arguing that the above-referenced argument is, in fact, a throwaway statement with absolutely no grounding in verifiable facts.

P.S. Buy World of Goo.  It's fun.


----------



## mxyzplk

malraux said:


> Again, that's a bad faith argument.  No one expects cut and paste examples of the entire PHB powers to be covered under the fan site policy.




But what will be OK?  How many people are OK and  how many are "pirate infringers?" 

Rouse's earliest post said "Oh, we're just looking at, you know, torrent sites.  People posting the whole PHB."

Now it's "well you know... all the text of the powers."  

It's a classic slippery slope.  If they cared they could define the line in the sand where it ends; instead they appear to just be wanting to C&D their way down the food chain.

It's like the music industry.  Sure, copying a whole CD is bad.  And copying a whole track is bad.  But now we're told a three second long sample is bad, and using a similar bassline is bad, and parody songs are bad, which are not "common sense."


----------



## Admiral Caine

Please disregard. I was replying to something as I was reading the posts in chronological order. Pirate Cat asked that the topic be dropped. Feel free to delete this post.


----------



## malraux

mxyzplk said:


> But what will be OK?  How many people are OK and  how many are "pirate infringers?"
> 
> Rouse's earliest post said "Oh, we're just looking at, you know, torrent sites.  People posting the whole PHB."
> 
> Now it's "well you know... all the text of the powers."
> 
> It's a classic slippery slope.  If they cared they could define the line in the sand where it ends; instead they appear to just be wanting to C&D their way down the food chain.
> 
> It's like the music industry.  Sure, copying a whole CD is bad.  And copying a whole track is bad.  But now we're told a three second long sample is bad, and using a similar bassline is bad, and parody songs are bad, which are not "common sense."




I agree that a fan site policy would be helpful, no argument about that.  But its hard to argue that this is an actual slippery slope rather than the SS fallacy.  Thus far we have C&Ds against torrents of the entire book and C&Ds against sites that post every single power in the phb word for word.  I would expect the slippery slope to continue to sites that contain every power for a single class word for word.  But its a big jump from that to a parody of a power being the subject of a C&D.


----------



## Scribble

mxyzplk said:


> It's like the music industry.  Sure, copying a whole CD is bad.  And copying a whole track is bad.  But now we're told a three second long sample is bad, and using a similar bassline is bad, and parody songs are bad, which are not "common sense."




Just because something was overlooked in the past doesn't make it legal. It just means it wasn't pursued for some reason.


----------



## mxyzplk

Scribble said:


> Just because something was overlooked in the past doesn't make it legal. It just means it wasn't pursued for some reason.




And thus you make my point for me.  What does Wizards intend to pursue?  Why can't Wizards come out and state it?


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> Just because something was overlooked in the past doesn't make it legal. It just means it wasn't pursued for some reason.




What he is saying is that legal and "common sense" do not always coincide on various actions or behaviors and in this case what usually happens lies on the behavior of who has the power to gain the legal system's protection  -directly or indirectly.


----------



## billd91

mxyzplk said:


> And thus you make my point for me.  What does Wizards intend to pursue?  Why can't Wizards come out and state it?




Aside from having so much legalese to worry about that it's a slow process? I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) Flexibility - they can go after targets of opportunity rather than deal with the blowback of complains for an unevenly enforced guideline.

2) Loopholes - publishing a set of guidelines, as useful as they might be, also invites scoundrels who intend abuse the spirit of the policy by finding loopholes around the wording.

And to toss in a third: It simply hasn't been a high-enough priority to devote the time.


----------



## Scribble

mxyzplk said:


> And thus you make my point for me.  What does Wizards intend to pursue?  Why can't Wizards come out and state it?




My best guess would be copyright violations that come to their attention.

When you withdrawl money from an ATM is it your job to turn to the nearest person and say: "Taking this money from me by force, or deception, would be a violation of US law, and I will pusue any abuse through legal action."

Or do you just assume that if they steal from you, you will then call the cops?

Look man, I agree, WoTC would probably be better served creating a fansite policy. I think most people who want to create a fansite for D&D are generally interested in supporting D&D, and want to do so in a legal way. I think Wizards would probably benefit from supporting their fans ability to do so without having to contact a lawyer or soemthing. I was just saying that because someone didn't take action againt something ilegal before doesn't make it legal.

Aside from that I wonder- did either of the shut down sites try to get in touch with Wizards before they opened their electronic doors? Scott Rouse seems like a decent guy pretty open to at least TRYING to point fans in the right direction.


----------



## Ourph

mxyzplk said:


> Why can't Wizards come out and state it?




Why not just assume WotC will enforce their rights to the full extent the laws allow?  It's what most companies do, and those that don't (Disney frex) usually claim more protection than the law allows in any official IP-infringement policy, which is actually worse for the fans.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> 2) Loopholes - publishing a set of guidelines, as useful as they might be, also invites scoundrels who intend abuse the spirit of the policy by finding loopholes around the wording.




yea like we have to worry about D&D players abuseing the word of the rule to supercide the spirit of it...where would you dfind such a person... never mind


  and to who ever asked me if I was jokeing, yes when I said blame the pirates for the lack of updated GSL I thought I was being funny...darn multi quite not working right...


----------



## shieldknight01

*How Naive Are We?*

Can we honestly believe that no one at WOTC or Hasbro had seen the fansite power cards until Jan 5th?  I mean, come on, I've been using the MSE to create power cards since October, and I know that the Power Card thread on this site has been up for much longer than that, and it has links to the very sites that create these files, not to mention jpgs and file downloads of examples.

Please, they are sending out the C&D letters now, because they were never sure if the Power Cards would sell, but now that they see everyone making there own, they want to own the market.  Not that I can blame them, but they could have put a stop to this almost 6 months ago.  Not now, right before they sell the new power card sets.

Just my 2cents.


----------



## Xyxox

shieldknight01 said:


> Can we honestly believe that no one at WOTC or Hasbro had seen the fansite power cards until Jan 5th?  I mean, come on, I've been using the MSE to create power cards since October, and I know that the Power Card thread on this site has been up for much longer than that, and it has links to the very sites that create these files, not to mention jpgs and file downloads of examples.
> 
> Please, they are sending out the C&D letters now, because they were never sure if the Power Cards would sell, but now that they see everyone making there own, they want to own the market.  Not that I can blame them, but they could have put a stop to this almost 6 months ago.  Not now, right before they sell the new power card sets.
> 
> Just my 2cents.




Going with Occam's Razor would suggest the Power Cards site was not brought to the attention of the appropriate parties within WotC management until January 5 as that is a far simpler answer than to suggest a wide ranging evil conspiracy.


----------



## Ourph

shieldknight01 said:


> Can we honestly believe that no one at WOTC or Hasbro had seen the fansite power cards until Jan 5th?




Given that I've been actively playing 4e since last summer and using Power Cards in almost every session and I hadn't heard about the site until this thread, I find it very easy to believe exactly that.


----------



## jaerdaph




----------



## Scribble

Ourph said:


> Given that I've been actively playing 4e since last summer and using Power Cards in almost every session and I hadn't heard about the site until this thread, I find it very easy to believe exactly that.




Also, I wouldn't say WoTC (Or any corporate entity) is really "fast" with anything.

For al we know they might have known about it from day one, someone reported it, and it went into some random corporate lawyer guy's "to do" pile. (Probably on top of other less important things such as reveiwing an already released document for changes designed to make people happy, as a favor to an overworked coworker.)


----------



## Imaro

Ourph said:


> Why not just assume WotC will enforce their rights to the full extent the laws allow? It's what most companies do, and those that don't (Disney frex) usually claim more protection than the law allows in any official IP-infringement policy, which is actually worse for the fans.




 Because doing this is silly, since even posting a character you create can, technically, be considered  IP infringement. 



Xyxox said:


> Going with Occam's Razor would suggest the Power Cards site was not brought to the attention of the appropriate parties within WotC management until January 5 as that is a far simpler answer than to suggest a wide ranging evil conspiracy.






jaerdaph said:


>





  You know I find it hilarious that WotC is always held up as a business when it suits it's fans, but the minute a detractor suggests they did something most businesses would in a situation... suddenly it's a conspiracy theory... or it's ridiculed... There have been numerous cards with the full text of powers distributed all over the internet. 

  IMO,as a company concerned with their IP and usage of it, it is more absurd to think WotC was oblivious or didn't notice any of the sets of power cards (with the full text) out there any earlier than January... I mean just the fact that they have multiple presences on this site alone, where links to tons of power cards (with full text) are listed means even the minutest effort would have garnered them this information.

  No, it's much more likely that while, perhaps not aware of Ryan's specific site... WotC has been aware of the sets of power cards on the internet and...up to this point...chose not to do anything about them because they helped promote their product and they in turn had nothing to offer their customers. Personally I think this lax attitude up until now, probably led to people like Ryan thinking it was okay to create a website with the power text on them since there are already PDF's & MSE sets with them in it.

SIDE NOTE:  As far as "common sense" here's a site that has been up forever for Exalted 2nd edition... on the site are the Charm Cards for Solar Exalted, Dragon-Blooded Exalts and Lunar Exalts.  That's all the powers from 3 different books, along with great character sheets and rule cheat sheets... yet for years there have been no C&D's from WW for the site to take the cards down.  I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that WW recognizes sites like these help promote their game and cultivate the "hobby" aspect as well.

exalted sheets


----------



## malraux

Imaro said:


> Because doing this is silly, since even posting a character you create can, technically, be considered  IP infringement.




I'm not convinced that is correct.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Imaro said:


> SIDE NOTE: As far as "common sense" here's a site that has been up forever for Exalted 2nd edition... on the site are the Charm Cards for Solar Exalted, Dragon-Blooded Exalts and Lunar Exalts. That's all the powers from 3 different books, along with great character sheets and rule cheat sheets... yet for years there have been no C&D's from WW for the site to take the cards down. I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that WW recognizes sites like these help promote their game and cultivate the "hobby" aspect as well.
> 
> exalted sheets




That is a good point, even though I usually don't go for "well they did it, so it must be okay" argument. But I agree.

An earlier poster, Clatsclaw I believe, was replying to Azigoth and made the point that PowerCards could somehow be used in a manner which would allow people to play the game without actually buying it. Much like the old SRD could.. to an extent.

But that's not very realistic in this case, and the Exalted Charm Cards are a good example.

It's really extreme to think that people are going to Reverse Engineer the 4E game system from Power Cards alone. I realize that prior to Core Rules release last year that fans did do a lot of that sort of stuff with the Shadowfell quickstart rules, but with the books readily available now- its a different situation.

Let me use a metaphor using auto parts.

The Manufacturers and Sellers of auto parts protect their products from theft because-
1.) It costs money to produce them
2.) They want to sell them.

I guess you could argue-
3.) Some guy could theoretically cobble them all together into a real working car! _And then not buy a car!_

Yeah, it could happen. But I don't see that as the overriding concern for why auto parts stores protect their inventory. If you're going to rip off a car, you're going to rip off a car. You're not going to do it by swiping spark plugs and hubcaps.

And to step through the metaphor.. If you're going to pirate a game rulebook, you're going to pirate a game rulebook. Not Power Cards.

If as a vendor you're going to sell Power Cards, you're going to want to make sure no one gives Power Cards away for free.

*NOW.....*

As I have said before, WOTC is completely within their rights. No argument. No complaint.

(And lest someone is skimming this post, I in no way advocate piracy!)

But let us not make up reasons for why they're doing this. WOTC is doing it because it is their property and they want to sell it. That argument needs no further embellishment.

They want to sell Power Cards.

White Wolf was not interested in doing that, so they could see how the free Charm Cards made their books easier to use, and how they added value to their game system.


----------



## Ourph

Imaro said:


> Because doing this is silly, since even posting a character you create can, technically, be considered IP infringement.



What facts do you have to back that up? Each WotC book has a copyright statement at the front that clearly tells people they aren't supposed to reproduce the material contained inside. I can find no evidence that WotC has ever made a similar public statement claiming it violates their copyright to create a character based on their rules and post it to the web.


----------



## Imaro

Ourph said:


> What facts do you have to back that up? Each WotC book has a copyright statement at the front that clearly tells people they aren't supposed to reproduce the material contained inside. I can find no evidence that WotC has ever made a similar public statement claiming it violates their copyright to create a character based on their rules and post it to the web.




I'm not an IP lawyer... so I can't answer this in a definite, but if we are assuming WotC is enforcing their IP and trademarks to the *fullest* extent... Here's a few questions I honestly am not sure about...

1. Are the names of Paragon Paths their IP?  If so I can't use these...even though every character eventually takes one. 

2. If my character is from the Forgotten Realms, and his backstory uses elements from that campaign setting, am I using WotC's IP when I write it up?

3. Aren't the specific names of powers WotC's  IP?  So how do I list what powers my character has?

4.  Are the names of specific magic items in their books IP?

5. Are the specific names of feats their IP?

Anyway these are just a few of the extremes, off the top of my head, that can arise when taking it to the level of WotC enforcing it to their *fullest* extent.


----------



## Treebore

Ourph said:


> What facts do you have to back that up? Each WotC book has a copyright statement at the front that clearly tells people they aren't supposed to reproduce the material contained inside. I can find no evidence that WotC has ever made a similar public statement claiming it violates their copyright to create a character based on their rules and post it to the web.





Actually it would be. Depending. If you use a "character sheet" created by WOTC? Yes, it would be a violation, we only have permission "for personal use only", publishing it on the WWW with uncontrolled distribution is not "personal use only".

Also, even if you create your own character sheet format, you still need to be sure not to use any terms WOTC has covered by copyright, otherwise you will still be in violation of copyright.

You can likely successfully argue "Fair use" when your distributing it among your friends with whom you game, but when you put it up on the WWW its no longer "fair use" or "personal use", so your then flirting with copyright violations.

So if you put a sheet up on a private website, or via a private chat board, your probably fine with "Fair" and "personal" usage, but when you put things up to where anyone can use it? Your going beyond the scope of "Fair Use" as well as "personal use".

Even private chat boards don't fully protect you, thats because when you go beyond a certain number of people you arguably become a club, or similar "public" entity, and WOTC could go after you then as well.


DISCLAIMER: No, I am not a lawyer, and am in no way offering "legal advice".


----------



## malraux

In general lists of things are not copyrightable, though the specific order might be.  The other thing is that forms are made to be filled out, so posting an example character sheet should be safe.  that is, clearly the intent of the phb is to teach someone to create a character, so doing so for personal use is a legitimate use of the phb.

Writing a background might be problematic, I'll grant that.


----------



## El Mahdi

Mournblade94 said:


> ...Anecdotal only I understand, but this makes me convinced 4e is not the master of the market place.




I almost completely agree with you.  I'd say that right now, 4E is probably master of the market as far as RPGs go, but not necessarily master of the gametable.

No matter how much people want to spin it, whether fans for or against, or WoTC themself, if 4E can't become entrenched as the game of choice for a majority of players, for actual play at the gametable, 4E will not succeed.  I personally think 4E's success is far from decided.  Time will tell, but I think it's still in the balance, and could go either way.

Even if sales right now show 4E as king, if it doesn't become master of the gametable, that will not remain true.


----------



## dvvega

> Originally Posted by *mxyzplk*
> Why can't Wizards come out and state it?




They do not have to come out an state anything regarding their IP and intent to protect it. Copyright Law is immediately enacted the minute they put pen to paper.

Regarding the character sheet analogy. 

1) Wizards would easily be able to defend Copyright Infringement if you printed your character sheet with complete power card write ups, and full explanations of all your feats to a public medium such as a website.

2) They allow reproduction of the character sheet as stated in their manuals for personal use. This does not include you putting it on a public website since it then becomes public use.

3) It might be harder for them to contest a character sheet that showed no mechanics (how to use the sheet, how your AC was derived, etc) and listed only the power names and types. Since these would not be enough to reverse engineer their game system.

D


----------



## El Mahdi

the Jester said:


> The problem is that if WotC doesn't defend their trademarks now, they _cannot_ defend them later. There is a principle in law that amounts to, "You let me do it before, you can't start complaining now"- WotC simply doesn't have the option to ignore known large-scale infringement.




Defending their trademarks only applies toward logos and such being used on the site. Definitely something worth defending, but only a portion of what was involved.

Verbatim text is Copyright material, not Trademark material. You do not lose the right to defend your copyright if you don't pursue those violating it. With Trademarks you can. AFAIK, even if WoTC let the site continue to use Copyright material for an extended period of time, and knew about it, they could at anytime decide to exercise their rights under copyright law.

Trademark and Copyright are two very different and distinct things.

Logos and such are Trademark. Creative works such as text from a book are Copyright.


edit: Ooops! I see that RedBeardJim already brought up this point.  My Bad!


----------



## Keefe the Thief

What i learned from this thread: 
- Putting 1800 power cards on the internet helps to cultivate the hobby, whatever that means. 
- Master of the Gametable is not a substitude phrase for DM.
- There are still people out there typing stuff like "$e" to fight the man.


----------



## Imaro

So, after thinking on this some more I went and pulled out the cards I had printed off this site... now unless I am totally mistaken about this being the same site I used, the cards used the style and format that Ander00 used for his cards... this...







I don't see any trademarks, the Dungeons & Dragons name... or even the exact format that was used in the PHB's... though it does use all of the text. 

Honestly I just don't see how you can use these to play D&D 4e without the books.  It also gives a little more insight into why the creator may have thought he was ok in using these on his website... They've been circulating on the net almost since 4e was first released.  In fact the only thing his website did was allow one to construct a personalized deck with just the needed cards for your character and print it out.


----------



## dvvega

@Imaro

I don't think you are "getting" it. WOTC is defending its copyright ... that is the text on that power card is their material. No one has a right to copy that text verbatim and make it publicly available except for WOTC themselves. In the case of copyright verbatim is a little flexible as well, so "clever" people who change one or two words are not going to get away with it.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Imaro said:


> Honestly I just don't see how you can use these to play D&D 4e without the books.





You can't.

Some guy in this thread claims he knows that the makers of these websites know that they're breaking the law.

...But he can't read minds or ascertain the thought and motives of others.

This is all about money. 

WOTC wants to sell these for ten bucks per character class, or a DDI subscription. 

And it is their legal right to contest giving cards away for free. (Or, at the risk of being corrected by the pedantic- it is also their right to challenge anybody besides themselves selling 4E Power Cards taken from their books)

But that's it in a nutshell. Any more grandiose talk is just talk.


----------



## dm4hire

Actually I don't think that was the problem Imaro.  The real problem was that via the website a person had access to all of the powers published by WotC.  Passing around a few power cards as were done at the start by Ander00 really isn't a big deal compared to full access to the material the website was offering.  Though I have seen pdfs of everything floating around as mentioned.  Kind of hard to stop a file from floating around versus a full website that infringes the content.  That I can understand despite not really liking the stance.  I would have perfered WotC taking a different approach, but to be honest I really can't think of anything outside of what I already mentioned.

In reference to my suggestion about the letter earlier I was simply indicating that by doing it my way WotC would in a sense be providing a grace period which would allow the website to shutdown in a manner that would at least appease the fans.  Instead the C&D requires immediate action, though their C&D is really a form of DRM so the website could have continued until ordered by court, but faces a heavier fine if proven wrong.  As with the previous C&D discussed there were fans upset because they had material saved that, though against copyright, was technically theirs with the right to access it and should have been given the opportunity to at least retrieve it.  In effect they created character sheets, or in the new case power cards, which are by products the same as if we sat at a table and created a character or wrote down the powers on a sheet of paper.  The grace period would in effect be telling the fans "Hey, we screwed up, but it's not your fault.  We can't let you create anything new, but you can take what you've already done with you."  The fans might be upset they can't make anything new, but they won't be PO'd that they lost everything which was the case for some of the fans for those sites.  Course if the new site was making PDFs for download then there would be nothing be saved on it most likely so their immediate shutdown is iffy, though giving them a few days to close shop would have been a nice gesture.   As I've mentioned fans will still go out and buy the official product regardless.


----------



## Jack99

Admiral Caine said:


> You can't.
> 
> Some guy in this thread claims he knows that the makers of these websites know that they're breaking the law.
> 
> ...But he can't read minds or ascertain the thought and motives of others.
> 
> This is all about money.
> 
> WOTC wants to sell these for ten bucks per character class, or a DDI subscription.
> 
> And it is their legal right to contest giving cards away for free. (Or, at the risk of being corrected by the pedantic- it is also their right to challenge anybody besides themselves selling 4E Power Cards taken from their books)
> 
> But that's it in a nutshell. Any more grandiose talk is just talk.




If you are referring to my comment 2 pages back, please try to at least get it right.



Jack99 said:


> I doubt any of the two owners of the websites who have been taken down did not know they were breaking laws.




That's hardly the same as "claiming" to "know" anything. It's called an educated guess.


----------



## Admiral Caine

It was a paraphrase Jack, not a quote.

Jeez.. I am so shocked that you're actually trying to make an issue of this that I read your quote four times now. I actually for a moment thought I had made a mistake, and I apologized to you. Then I had to read it again and edit it back out. Amazing. Good job. 

But you're splitting hairs. Really. I say potato, you say pot-tot-toe.


----------



## Wimwick

It's too bad that a fan site got shut down, especially when they are only trying to help the community.

While I respect WotC for enforcing their product and IP, I wonder how many copies of their Power Card book they will sell. I won't be buying it. I subscribe to DDI and get power cards included with the Character Builder. For that matter I get power cards for books that aren't even out yet. For me the digitial initiative is the way to go.


----------



## the Jester

Re: Copyright vs. Trademark: I know the difference, that's why I specified _trademarks_ in my post above. Things like the logo were all over those cards (or so I hear). 



Imaro said:


> No, it's much more likely that while, perhaps not aware of Ryan's specific site... WotC has been aware of the sets of power cards on the internet and...up to this point...chose not to do anything about them because they helped promote their product and they in turn had nothing to offer their customers. Personally I think this lax attitude up until now, probably led to people like Ryan thinking it was okay to create a website with the power text on them since there are already PDF's & MSE sets with them in it.




Right- WotC very well may have said, "Huh, this kid's got five power cards posted on his web site. That's cool- that will help promote the game, but it doesn't do it by posting wholesale chapters of the PH." Then, when they found someone who was posting wholesale chapters of the PH, they said, "WHOAH!! NOT COOL!!"

Just because they gave someone an inch doesn't mean that anyone else can get away with a mile. 

I understand that it's "bad for the fans" if WotC defends its intellectual property. Heck, I wish all the awesome d&d gravy was free too. I'd never miss a supplement then! But, wait- how would the Rouse, mearls, Mr. Cordell and all the rest get paid?? Sometimes "bad for the fans" means the business keeps going.


----------



## Xyxox

Imaro said:


> You know I find it hilarious that WotC is always held up as a business when it suits it's fans, but the minute a detractor suggests they did something most businesses would in a situation... suddenly it's a conspiracy theory... or it's ridiculed... There have been numerous cards with the full text of powers distributed all over the internet.
> 
> IMO,as a company concerned with their IP and usage of it, it is more absurd to think WotC was oblivious or didn't notice any of the sets of power cards (with the full text) out there any earlier than January... I mean just the fact that they have multiple presences on this site alone, where links to tons of power cards (with full text) are listed means even the minutest effort would have garnered them this information.
> 
> No, it's much more likely that while, perhaps not aware of Ryan's specific site... WotC has been aware of the sets of power cards on the internet and...up to this point...chose not to do anything about them because they helped promote their product and they in turn had nothing to offer their customers. Personally I think this lax attitude up until now, probably led to people like Ryan thinking it was okay to create a website with the power text on them since there are already PDF's & MSE sets with them in it.
> 
> SIDE NOTE:  As far as "common sense" here's a site that has been up forever for Exalted 2nd edition... on the site are the Charm Cards for Solar Exalted, Dragon-Blooded Exalts and Lunar Exalts.  That's all the powers from 3 different books, along with great character sheets and rule cheat sheets... yet for years there have been no C&D's from WW for the site to take the cards down.  I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that WW recognizes sites like these help promote their game and cultivate the "hobby" aspect as well.
> 
> exalted sheets




What you suggest is not an activity any legitimate business would engage in as doing so would put their IP at risk.

I say this as an employee of a company that as the sole source of its revenue, produces IP. We, as a comapny, are aware our IP is pirated because all IP companies have their IP pirated. We do not know of specific sites, but when discovered, we ahve them shut down.\

So again, you are engaging in conspiracy theories.


----------



## Shadowsong666

Admiral Caine said:


> You can't.
> This is all about money.




Thats really all its about. 
If they could, they would disallow letting someone else read the books you purchased.

But well, we all have a social desire for sharing. So we all just spend some and get everything. Group hugs!


----------



## jmucchiello

Wow, am I out of the loop! Can someone point me at the discussion for the first site sent a C&D, I missed that discussion entirely?

I'm shocked it took until page 7 of this thread for someone to lament that WotC didn't put this guy on the payroll. That was my immediate reaction to the idea. Yeah, not really possible in a company with standard corporate structure but this site (which I never saw) sounds like it was a mean feat of software engineering.


----------



## El Mahdi

the Jester said:


> Re: Copyright vs. Trademark: I know the difference, that's why I specified _trademarks_ in my post above. Things like the logo were all over those cards (or so I hear).





So you did.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Admiral Caine said:


> So, by extension of this position, you would agree that all Power Cards not made by WOTC (or made 100% entirely by the individual for their own sole personal use) is a violation WOTC's rights?




For personal use? No.

But if by "power card" you mean "a card that duplicates both the name of the power and the text describing the mechanics of that power" then, yeah, that's an open-and-shut copyright violation.

Attempts to rewrite the text describing the mechanics is a legally gray area, but is still going to get you whacked with a C&D because Wizards, like TSR before it, believes that there is a significant and protected non-mechanical creative expression inherent in most RPG mechanics. (You can't copyright mechanics. But you also can't mechanically describe a beholder without violating the copyright protecting the concept of a beholder.)

Are they right? Maybe. I'd even say probably. But there's no legal precedent.

And in any case, it's irrelevant in this case because, in this case, the text is being replicated. And that, as I say, is an open-and-shut copyright violation.


----------



## Ourph

Treebore said:


> Actually it would be. Depending. If you use a "character sheet" created by WOTC? Yes, it would be a violation, we only have permission "for personal use only", publishing it on the WWW with uncontrolled distribution is not "personal use only".



So don't do that. 



> Also, even if you create your own character sheet format, you still need to be sure not to use any terms WOTC has covered by copyright, otherwise you will still be in violation of copyright.



"Terms" (i.e. individual words or phrases like "Armor Class", "Reflex", "Healing Surge", "Hit and Run" or "Riposte Strike") aren't copyright protected and it's perfectly acceptable to post those to a public internet page as part of a character sheet. You shouldn't redistribute the entire text for each power verbatim, but listing the names isn't violating any copyrights.


----------



## dm4hire

The only problem is that D&D falls under game and therefore under the copyright laws for games you cannot copyright mechanics, only content built around it.  Which is why just about every fantasy game out there has Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, and what not for races and classes such as fighter, ranger, barbarian, and so on despite being OGL or completely outside it.  So your example of rephrasing is actually legal to some extent if it relates to mechanics which power cards actually are.

The C&D is totally related to the whole content being copied completely for more than just a few powers and from what has been mentioned also the use of other items that most likely were covered by Trademark.  Trademark being a whole other ballgame as discussed.


----------



## Elephant

Huh.  Someone likes 4e and puts up some nifty power cards to help make the game run more smoothly for people.

In response to this enthusiasm on the part of their customers, WOTC slaps 'em with a C&D, in effect saying "BAD fan!  You're not allowed to add to the fun!"

Way to go, guys.


----------



## Kit Cloudkicker

avin said:


> I saw that coming from miles.
> 
> Wotc is going to sell their own power cards.




And make a mint doing it. This really effing annoys me.


----------



## Dannager

This post has been reworded by a moderator to be less insulting.  Don't put words in peoples mouths.  Thank you.


----------



## Jack99

Admiral Caine said:


> It was a paraphrase Jack, not a quote.
> 
> Jeez.. I am so shocked that you're actually trying to make an issue of this that I read your quote four times now. I actually for a moment thought I had made a mistake, and I apologized to you. Then I had to read it again and edit it back out. Amazing. Good job.
> 
> But you're splitting hairs. Really. I say potato, you say pot-tot-toe.




I am that good.  No seriously, you might be right. It was late when I posted and it's been a long week. Re-reading it now, I have to agree that I might have been splitting hairs. Your rewrite of what I said was not that far from what I meant.

Cheers


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> What you suggest is not an activity any legitimate business would engage in as doing so would put their IP at risk.
> 
> I say this as an employee of a company that as the sole source of its revenue, produces IP. We, as a comapny, are aware our IP is pirated because all IP companies have their IP pirated. We do not know of specific sites, but when discovered, we ahve them shut down.
> 
> So again, you are engaging in conspiracy theories.




So even though, through a simple google search you can find tons of sites with power cards that contain full text and descriptions... In fact just browsing these forums turns up plenty... you honestly believe a company like WotC since 4e was released hasn't done this... even though they were aware of their core books being put up on torrent sites  before the books were even released? 

Yeah it's easy to throw that "conspiracy" word around when you want to discredit an argument but don't have anything substantial to back it up with except... anecdotal evidence that doesn't even relate directly to WotC.  Yeah whatever, you've really revealed the "conspiracy" for what it is...


----------



## Merkuri

jmucchiello said:


> I'm shocked it took until page 7 of this thread for someone to lament that WotC didn't put this guy on the payroll.




The problem with putting somebody like this on the payroll is that WotC does not want to encourage sites like these.  They might admire the software engineering or the creativity in the way they were displayed, but bottom line was they were very blatantly violating WotC's copyright.  If WotC took this guy and said, "We're going to forgive the copyright violation and give you a job," there would probably be tons of other people springing up with websites of their own who were afraid to do so before for fear of legal action from WotC.  That's not something WotC wants.


----------



## Imaro

the Jester said:


> Right- WotC very well may have said, "Huh, this kid's got five power cards posted on his web site. That's cool- that will help promote the game, but it doesn't do it by posting wholesale chapters of the PH." Then, when they found someone who was posting wholesale chapters of the PH, they said, "WHOAH!! NOT COOL!!"
> 
> Just because they gave someone an inch doesn't mean that anyone else can get away with a mile.
> 
> I understand that it's "bad for the fans" if WotC defends its intellectual property. Heck, I wish all the awesome d&d gravy was free too. I'd never miss a supplement then! But, wait- how would the Rouse, mearls, Mr. Cordell and all the rest get paid?? Sometimes "bad for the fans" means the business keeps going.




You did see the card I posted right?  It's not a matter of an inch vs. a mile.  The only discernible difference (Because there are PDF's of the full power cards on numerous sites) is that this website allowed you to pick and choose which cards you wanted and construct  a PDF with just those cards to print... but they really are the exact  same cards.  

In the end I do not disagree that WotC had the right to take the site down, but I think it was particularly petty, and only happened because WotC  is choosing to sell their own cards for $10 a class (hope these have a nice space to write in my bonuses and are reusable as said bonuses change without falling apart from the eraser).  I personally believe it's a money thing and not a protection of trademark or copyright thing.  I also believe WotC was content to let these fan made cards float around the internet because they realized at the time it helped facilitate play of 4e and the only cards they had offered were with the sub-par character sheets.  Now they need to drive their players towards DDI or to purchasing packs of power cards... I understand it totally, just don't like it when I'm looking at the stuff other, rpg companies allow for free.


----------



## Merkuri

Imaro said:


> I personally believe it's a money thing and not a protection of trademark or copyright thing.




Why can't it be both?

Companies protect their trademark and their copyright BECAUSE of money.


----------



## Imaro

Merkuri said:


> Why can't it be both?
> 
> Companies protect their trademark and their copyright BECAUSE of money.




All I'm doing is stating what *I* believe it to be.  It very well could be both, but I find that hard to believe since these sites and numerous others with full sets of power cards have been allowed to operate since last year.  But with the advent of the character builder (finally) and their own packs of cards... now it's crackdown time. 

 I mean honestly people who don't want to buy the cards are either going to make their own, write it out on an index card or just use a sheet... I know I don't plan on spending $10 per class on power cards which, if even one gets messed up I have to buy a whole pack again to get it.  I'd rather have a PDF collection... which of course WotC isn't offering.


----------



## xechnao

Merkuri said:


> Why can't it be both?
> Companies protect their trademark and their copyright BECAUSE of money.




In fact the term intellectual property is a bit strange. It makes one almost try to imagine it refers to the intellectual value of something, rather than the value of commercial rights on marketable products dressed with the intellectual "matter".
Imagine if a singer wrote a song and only he was able to sing it live to other people. Does such a thing exist?


----------



## grickherder

xechnao said:


> In fact the term intellectual property is a bit strange. It makes one almost try to imagine it refers to the intellectual value of something, rather than the value of commercial rights on marketable products dressed with the intellectual "matter".
> Imagine if a singer wrote a song and only he was able to sing it live to other people. Does such a thing exist?




Intellectual property doesn't refer to the actual work in question.  Intellectual property refers to the exclusive rights for reproduction and/or distribution.  The actual legally protected rights are the property.  The term has just been thrown around and propagandized so much that people think the intellectual property is the actual work.   It's the rights that can be bought, sold, rented, licensed, etc.,.  

Who owns the actual work?  Not a relavant question.  I own my player's handbook that I bought but WotC owns the right to reproduce it.  I have property rights and WotC has protected commercial rights to the same work.

As far as the original topic goes, WotC was totally in their rights to ask the website in question to shut down.  It was a great site, (in terms of usefulness, design, etc.,), but an obvious violation of WotC's exclusive rights.  WotC was in no way unreasonable for asking it to be taken down.


----------



## xechnao

grickherder said:


> Intellectual property doesn't refer to the actual work in question.  Intellectual property refers to the exclusive rights for reproduction and/or distribution.  The actual legally protected rights are the property.  The term has just been thrown around and propagandized so much that people think the intellectual property is the actual work.   It's the rights that can be bought, sold, rented, licensed, etc.,.
> 
> Who owns the actual work?  Not a relavant question.  I own my player's handbook that I bought but WotC owns the right to reproduce it.  I have property rights and WotC has protected commercial rights to the same work.




Yes, this is what I was trying to say. I guess you were trying to agree with me here but I always conserve the doubt of failing to be clear first place. I know it happens a lot of times!

EDIT: I also want to add distribution and reproduction must be something industrialized. It cant be forced on people reading something orally. And this is why and where trade dress and trademarks are important I guess.


----------



## grickherder

Sorry if my post came across as pedantic or rude.  I was trying to agree-- my bad on the communication front.


----------



## xechnao

grickherder said:


> Sorry if my post came across as pedantic or rude.  I was trying to agree-- my bad on the communication front.




hey, no worries about you. I was actually worrying about my communication front which I know for a fact it is not "user friendly"


----------



## MrGrenadine

IANAL, but if 4epowercards.com was my site, I would've been tempted to see what the courts would've said about the matter.

Selling someone else's work as your own is wrong, but thats not the case here.  No money changed hands, and no credit was taken--the text in question was obviously quoted from the PHB and other WotC books.  

Also, as stated above, the powers themselves are incomplete information, so you couldn't possibly reverse engineer the game rules from the power cards.  The powers use terms which are only defined in the core books, so you could know that a power came into affect when a creature was  'bloodied', but you wouldn't know what 'bloodied' meant unless you used the rule book itself.  And why would anyone even want the cards unless he or she was already playing the game, (i.e. is also a WotC customer)?

To me, this is a case of someone simply providing a service to aid the playing of a game.  Take chess for example--if someone made free cards for each piece that described how the piece moved, even if quoting from rules printed by another company, what's the problem?  To play the game, you would still need a board and pieces.  The cards only assist with playing, they don't eradicate the need to purchase the game.


And assuming that both sites that were recently shut down were violating WotC's copyright, my question is this:  why didn't either site merely change their content enough to comply with the law?

In the case of 4epowercards.com, replacing the actual text with a paraphrased version is all that would've been needed, (and the removal of any D&D or WotC logos or trademarks, if there were in any in use).

But in both cases, the sites were shut down with ONE very brief comment from the creator, which means that the creators both signed non-disclosure agreements, AND one of two things:

WotC used such heavy handed tactics that the site creator was scared into going away and signing the NDA, OR WotC was really nice about it, and paid the site creator a significant amount to go away and sign the NDA.

You can see how, in both cases, it behooves WotC to keep the details of the deal quiet, and I would love to know how both went down.


----------



## catsclaw227

MrGrenadine said:


> And assuming that both sites that were recently shut down were violating WotC's copyright, my question is this:  why didn't either site merely change their content enough to comply with the law?



If I am not mistaken, with Ema's site, he decided that making the changes wasn't worth the time or effort.

And for 4epowercards.com, I imagine that "merely change their content" would have entailed HOURS and HOURS of time.  There were over 1800 card violations...

And to address a previous post, I have been using an MSE set and even followed the power cards thread.  But I never heard of 4epowercards.com until this thread.

And.... (again)....  the people that duplicate that much of WOTCs text either didn't care that they were doing something illegal or they didn't bother finding out if it was OK.  Either way, negligence was at play.



			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> Huh. Someone likes 4e and puts up some nifty power cards to help make the game run more smoothly for people.
> 
> In response to this enthusiasm on the part of their customers, WOTC slaps 'em with a C&D, in effect saying "BAD fan! You're not allowed to add to the fun!"
> 
> Way to go, guys.



Strawman.   They didn't send the C&D in response to the enthusiasm of a 4e fan.  They sent it in response to over 1800 powercards full of WOTC IP that were knowingly distributed for free. How is this hard to understand?

Let's ask one of the publishers out there....  Maybe Chris Pramas (Green Ronin) or Matt Sprange (Mongoose) or Joe Goodman (Goodman Games) can chime in:

If someone took large amounts of your closed IP an made it available for free online, would you feel legally obligated to ask them to stop?


----------



## Charwoman Gene

MrGrenadine said:


> Take chess for example--if someone made free cards for each piece that described how the piece moved, even if quoting from rules printed by another company, what's the problem?




That's illegal.  It's BLATANT AND OBVIOUS copyright violation.


----------



## Imaro

catsclaw227 said:


> If I am not mistaken, with Ema's site, he decided that making the changes wasn't worth the time or effort.
> 
> And for 4epowercards.com, I imagine that "merely change their content" would have entailed HOURS and HOURS of time.  There were over 1800 card violations...
> 
> And to address a previous post, I have been using an MSE set and even followed the power cards thread.  But I never heard of 4epowercards.com until this thread.
> 
> And.... (again)....  the people that duplicate that much of WOTCs text either didn't care that they were doing something illegal or they didn't bother finding out if it was OK.  Either way, negligence was at play.
> 
> 
> Strawman.   They didn't send the C&D in response to the enthusiasm of a 4e fan.  They sent it in response to over 1800 powercards full of WOTC IP that were knowingly distributed for free. How is this hard to understand?
> 
> Let's ask one of the publishers out there....  Maybe Chris Pramas (Green Ronin) or Matt Sprange (Mongoose) or Joe Goodman (Goodman Games) can chime in:
> 
> If someone took large amounts of your closed IP an made it available for free online, would you feel legally obligated to ask them to stop?





Again...

 As far as "common sense"... here's a site that has been up forever for Exalted 2nd edition... on the site are the Charm Cards for Solar Exalted, Dragon-Blooded Exalts and Lunar Exalts. That's all the powers from 3 different books, along with great character sheets and rule cheat sheets... yet for years there have been no C&D's from WW for the site to take the cards down. I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that WW recognizes sites like these help promote their game and cultivate the "hobby" aspect as well.

exalted sheets


Edit: on a side note Mongoose has a PDF SRD for their Runequest rules... available for anyone to download.


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> As far as "common sense"... here's a site that has been up forever for Exalted 2nd edition... on the site are the Charm Cards for Solar Exalted, Dragon-Blooded Exalts and Lunar Exalts. That's all the powers from 3 different books, along with great character sheets and rule cheat sheets... yet for years there have been no C&D's from WW for the site to take the cards down. I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that WW recognizes sites like these help promote their game and cultivate the "hobby" aspect as well.
> 
> exalted sheets



And has WW publicly stated their approval of this site, or is it in violation of their fan site policy?

I am actually curious, because I don't know the answer.



Imaro said:


> Edit: on a side note Mongoose has a PDF SRD for their Runequest rules... available for anyone to download.



Yes, I have seen and read it.  My question to the publishers was about closed content.  Maybe I wasn't clear.

EDIT:  Actually, I did say "closed IP" in my original post.  OK, I thought I was hallucinating.


----------



## Imaro

catsclaw227 said:


> And has WW publicly stated their approval of this site, or is it in violation of their fan site policy?
> 
> I am actually curious, because I don't know the answer.




I don't know the answer either, but it's been there and is referenced on boards many of the designers participate on... mainly RPG.net.  How is this relevant anyway since WotC doesn't have a fansite policy?  Right now it seems a toss up on whether you will get a C&D letter or not.




catsclaw227 said:


> Yes, I have seen and read it.  My question to the publishers was about closed content.  Maybe I wasn't clear.
> 
> EDIT:  Actually, I did say "closed IP" in my original post.  OK, I thought I was hallucinating.




Well here's a site with IP information about Aldea, the world of Blue Rose rpg by Green Ronin, again it's been up forever...  I actually would love to hear if Chris Pramas believes a site like this hurt his game or helped to promote and foster interest in it...

Blue Rose Notes


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> I don't know the answer either, but it's been there and is referenced on boards many of the designers participate on... mainly RPG.net.  How is this relevant anyway since WotC doesn't have a fansite policy?  Right now it seems a toss up on whether you will get a C&D letter or not.



I was just asking because if I remember correctly, WW has a fairly strict fan-site policy.  If they know it exists and it violates their fan-site policy, then it creates a legal precedence for WW to ignore a site that violates their fan site policy and that opens all kinds of problems for them.




Imaro said:


> Well here's a site with IP information about Aldea, the world of Blue Rose rpg by Green Ronin, again it's been up forever...  I actually would love to hear if Chris Pramas believes a site like this hurt his game or helped to promote and foster interest in it...
> 
> Blue Rose Notes



I'd be curious to know about his thoughts on this as well.


----------



## catsclaw227

Imaro said:


> Well here's a site with IP information about Aldea, the world of Blue Rose rpg by Green Ronin, again it's been up forever...  I actually would love to hear if Chris Pramas believes a site like this hurt his game or helped to promote and foster interest in it...
> 
> Blue Rose Notes



Taking a cursory look at it doesn't lead me to believe that they have copy/paste posted a lot of stuff printed from the Blue Rose book.  This may be the difference.  Wholesale copying of game elements of a large portion of your book (PHB powers took up over 100 pages, minus a page or two for each of the classes) is a lot different than printing a map or two and paraphrasing elements of the game world.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Charwoman Gene said:


> That's illegal.  It's BLATANT AND OBVIOUS copyright violation.




Quotes from published works, when used in another published work, are not copyright violations.

I believe compliance with the law hinges on the creation of a new work, however that is defined legally.

In this case, perhaps a game aid is a new work?


----------



## Xyxox

Imaro said:


> So even though, through a simple google search you can find tons of sites with power cards that contain full text and descriptions... In fact just browsing these forums turns up plenty... you honestly believe a company like WotC since 4e was released hasn't done this... even though they were aware of their core books being put up on torrent sites  before the books were even released?




To try and keep up with it would require many full time employees, so yes.



Imaro said:


> Yeah it's easy to throw that "conspiracy" word around when you want to discredit an argument but don't have anything substantial to back it up with except... anecdotal evidence that doesn't even relate directly to WotC.  Yeah whatever, you've really revealed the "conspiracy" for what it is...




It's far easier to stoke the fires of suspicion with conspiracy theories about evil intent.


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> To try and keep up with it would require many full time employees, so yes.




And yet somehow, they are finding a way to do it now...



Xyxox said:


> It's far easier to stoke the fires of suspicion with conspiracy theories about evil intent.




Who said anything about "evil"... it wasn't, it was smart business.


----------



## Xyxox

Imaro said:


> And yet somehow, they are finding a way to do it now...




Six months after the fact. Again, the illegal activity is so widespread that it is impossible to keep up with it.



Imaro said:


> Who said anything about "evil"... it wasn't, it was smart business.




It's about the most lidiotic business activity possible! IF WotC were *STUPID ENOUGH* to purposefully allow a site to violate their copyright in some lamebreained scheme for market testing, they would put that copyright at risk. Sijmply put, willingly allowing somebody to violate your copyright is tanamount to approval.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

scott told us that it came to there attention on Jan 5th of this year...now no matter what problems you have with the company don't insult a valued member of this community by saying he is lieing...

   and before people say "he has to say that" he could have said nothing on the subject...he choose to say that...there for it is in my opionon the truth...


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> It's far easier to stoke the fires of suspicion with conspiracy theories about evil intent.




"evil"? Well, what corporations do is to try to make money within the system. This is their true god and you cant deny this due to the established fact of the game of competition. If some other corporation manages to make more money it becomes the one that controls the market. So I guess you could call the system "evil", yes. Is it not? 
And should we suck it up and ridicule any suspicion as some "stupid" conspiracy theory?


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> It's about the most lidiotic business activity possible! IF WotC were *STUPID ENOUGH* to purposefully allow a site to violate their copyright in some lamebreained scheme for market testing, they would put that copyright at risk. Sijmply put, willingly allowing somebody to violate your copyright is tanamount to approval.




And "will" is something we can check with ESP right? I forgot that spell, how idiot and stupid I am! Not to say that you cant risk your copyright -just your trademarks, at least this is what people are saying about the actual laws.


----------



## Xyxox

xechnao said:


> And "will" is something we can check with ESP right? I forgot that spell, how idiot and stupid I am! Not to say that you cant risk your copyright -just your trademarks, at least this is what people are saying about the actual laws.




Yes, you can risk your copyrights.

And "will" is something that can be checked via an instrument called "discovery". Corporations document activities and documents must be produced in the discovery phase of litigation.

You don't know much about IP litigation, do you?


----------



## xechnao

MrGrenadine said:


> In this case, perhaps a game aid is a new work?




I guess a new work must be something of the nature of the copyrighted matter in question. Something of intellectual value. Not a new kind of media distribution of the same intellectual property. 
But are you sure about what you are saying regarding quoted text? If this be true then what was the value of OGL first place?


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> Six months after the fact. Again, the illegal activity is so widespread that it is impossible to keep up with it.




Ok, yet they are at this particular time making it a priority and thus are... at least to a point... "keeping up with it.  So somehting *cough* character builder *cough* $9.99 power card sets *cough*... has made this a priority now.



Xyxox said:


> It's about the most lidiotic business activity possible! IF WotC were *STUPID ENOUGH* to purposefully allow a site to violate their copyright in some lamebreained scheme for market testing, they would put that copyright at risk. Sijmply put, willingly allowing somebody to violate your copyright is tanamount to approval.




I'm sorry, but you're telling me you can loose copyright protection (not trademark) by not pursuing all instances where your copyright is used without your permission??  I've been on the U.S. copyright office site and it states copyright lasts until the death of the author plus 70 years afterwards.  Now unlike you, I didn't claim to work for a company whose sole purpose is to create and manage IP... but I don't think you can loose copyright protection in the way you are suggesting... do you have any proof of this?



GMforPowergamers said:


> scott told us that it came to there attention on Jan 5th of this year...now no matter what problems you have with the company don't insult a valued member of this community by saying he is lieing...
> 
> and before people say "he has to say that" he could have said nothing on the subject...he choose to say that...there for it is in my opionon the truth...




Read what I have posted again, if you are referring to me, before making accusations.  Scott was very careful to state he became aware of this particular website on Jan 5th.  However this website uses powercards that have been on the internet since way before Jan 5th.  This is what I have been speaking of, how long has WotC been aware of powercards ( or even just the powercards this site made use of) that replicate the text from the PHB... I bet it was earlier than Jan 5th.


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> Yes, you can risk your copyrights.
> 
> And "will" is something that can be checked via an instrument called "discovery". Corporations document activities and documents must be produced in the discovery phase of litigation.
> 
> You don't know much about IP litigation, do you?




You are asking to win the world war with a pea shooter.


----------



## Merkuri

Imaro said:


> So somehting *cough* character builder *cough* $9.99 power card sets *cough*... has made this a priority now.




Is there a problem with that?

Businesses have a lot going on.  I doubt they have somebody employed who's sole job is to search the web for copyright infringement.  They probably knew that sites existed that had power cards on them, but were too busy to try and hunt down them all.  

Now that they're going to be releasing their own power cards they probably decided to put somebody on it (Rouse?) at least part time.  They found a few sites and set out a couple C&Ds.  This is a perfectly valid way for them to work.


----------



## tomBitonti

MrGrenadine said:


> Quotes from published works, when used in another published work, are not copyright violations.
> 
> I believe compliance with the law hinges on the creation of a new work, however that is defined legally.
> 
> In this case, perhaps a game aid is a new work?




From the Harry Potter case, that would seem to be the case, however, the use of substantial text verbatim is still not allowed.  An index to all of the Potter books, including terms that are protected text, was indicated to be allowed; however, an index having entries that reproduced copyright text was not.


----------



## xechnao

Merkuri said:


> Is there a problem with that?



The problem is acknowledging or accepting how the industry's products and the industry itself(its relations with its public) are working.


----------



## Fifth Element

MrGrenadine said:


> Quotes from published works, when used in another published work, are not copyright violations.



They might be, if they do not fall under fair use.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> Yes, you can risk your copyrights.



Do you have any case law to back that up? There is nothing in the copyright laws I'm familiar with that allows for this. Maybe the US has some strangeness in its laws that I'm not aware of? It would be very interesting to know about.


----------



## Cor Azer

Xyxox said:


> Yes, you can risk your copyrights.




Uh... no. You can't. Your copyrighten stuff remains as such until you explicitly state it to be in the public domain, or something like $massive_number of years after your death.

What you can risk though, is the amount of damages you can receive. If you knowingly let someone continue infringing on your copyrights, you limit the amount of statutory damages you can recover from them (ie, you can't let them "run up the tab" before going after them).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

who here thinks if I start my own fan site to D&D and I scan the players handbook pages with class info on them, and provide them for free that I am OK to do so???

    Is there anyone here that hinks I am NOT breaking the law???


----------



## Imaro

GMforPowergamers said:


> who here thinks if I start my own fan site to D&D and I scan the players handbook pages with class info on them, and provide them for free that I am OK to do so???
> 
> Is there anyone here that hinks I am NOT breaking the law???




Was anything on either of the sites that were sent C&D letters scanned from the books... if so I wasn't aware of this.  Or is your comparison refering to something else?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Imaro said:


> Was anything on either of the sites that were sent C&D letters scanned from the books... if so I wasn't aware of this.  Or is your comparison refering to something else?




I belive (I only delt with the first site not this new one that to be honnest I never herd of before this) they did copy and paste not scan... is there a diffrence in your mind?  is the act of retyping (if it wasn't really c and p) enough in your mind to change it??


----------



## Xyxox

Cor Azer said:


> Uh... no. You can't. Your copyrighten stuff remains as such until you explicitly state it to be in the public domain, or something like  of years after your death.
> 
> What you can risk though, is the amount of damages you can receive. If you knowingly let someone continue infringing on your copyrights, you limit the amount of statutory damages you can recover from them (ie, you can't let them "run up the tab" before going after them).




AND WE HAVE A WINNER!

If you cannot enforce your copyrights, they are worthless.


----------



## Imaro

GMforPowergamers said:


> I belive (I only delt with the first site not this new one that to be honnest I never herd of before this) they did copy and paste not scan... is there a diffrence in your mind? is the act of retyping (if it wasn't really c and p) enough in your mind to change it??




Honestly, I think it depends upon the company (even though alot of people are making it seem like it's "common sense" to know what you can or can't put on a fansite)... I have cited numerous examples where what could be considered "IP" is used by fans to create game aids for the players of said games... now if someone gave enough away in one of these aids to actually play the game without the books then yeah, I would feel that's wrong... For example here's another site where someone has done exactly what you're asking (and more) for Castles & Crusades... it's a cheat sheet for character creation that has class abilities at first level, racial information, equipment, etc. to create a character. It's linked to on the TL forums and is openly talked about by the fanbase there...

http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/

Under Character Creation Cheat Sheet... oh yeah, there's also a PDF CK Screen, even though Troll Lords produces a for sale screen as well.


----------



## El Mahdi

Treebore said:


> Actually it would be. Depending. If you use a "character sheet" created by WOTC? Yes, it would be a violation, we only have permission "for personal use only", publishing it on the WWW with uncontrolled distribution is not "personal use only". ...
> 
> DISCLAIMER: No, I am not a lawyer, and am in no way offering "legal advice".




DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer either.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I am pretty sure.

WoTC can put "For Personal Use Only" on their character sheets all they want, and it doesn't necessarily mean they have any legal grounds to restrict it's use.  The only thing they can restrict on them is logos and Trademark material.  The rest of the sheet is simply a form.  If you removed all Trademark material (Logos, the D&D name, etc.), you can copy the rest of the sheet as is, and post it, print it, and yes - even sell it, and WoTC has no legal grounds to stop you.  Now, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't try to stop you.  And if one doesn't have the money to fight a legal battle, they win anyways.  But the fact remains that forms are not copyrightable and therefore are not protected.

If you put copyrightable material on it, such as spells/powers/feats/skills text, lists of spells/feats/powers, or dropdowns that do the same - then you've infringed copyright again.  But, a blank form (character sheet) is not copyrightable.  (Technically, posting a fully fleshed out character, with all of his feats/skills/powers,etc. - using copyrighted text/material, it's probably violating copyright.  But if it's just a fan on a fansite, it's too small for WoTC to probably worry about.)


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> AND WE HAVE A WINNER!
> 
> If you cannot enforce your copyrights, they are worthless.




That's not what you said... even if you don't recieve compensation, you don't loose them... you can still force that person to stop using them and your compensation only applies to that particular instance of use... but nice way to try and slide the goalposts.


----------



## Xyxox

Imaro said:


> That's not what you said... even if you don't recieve compensation, you don't loose them... you can still force that person to stop using them and your compensation only applies to that particular instance of use... but nice way to try and slide the goalposts.




I said you RISK them.

And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.

Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> AND WE HAVE A WINNER!




Only that this reinforces the other side of the argument where you are standing from -regarding the timing of the C&D letter that is. 
From what moment would Wotc be risking losing damage loss enforcement in this case?


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> I said you RISK them.
> 
> And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.
> 
> Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.




And I'm saying you risk the level of compensation for their unauthorized use not the actual copyright... Really, semantics aside you didn't state it correctly and then didn't expound on it or defend your statement when it's validity was challenged...someone else had too (and they still disagreed with your original statement), so excuse me if I don't believe that that's what you *really* meant...


----------



## Xyxox

Imaro said:


> And I'm saying you risk the level of compensation for their unauthorized use not the actual copyright... Really, semantics aside you didn't state it correctly and then didn't expound on it or defend your statement when it's validity was challenged...someone else had too (and they still disagreed with your original statement), so excuse me if I don't believe that that's what you *really* meant...




I am not accountable for educating you as to what is considered risk in business.


----------



## the Jester

Imaro said:


> You did see the card I posted right?  It's not a matter of an inch vs. a mile.  The only discernible difference (Because there are PDF's of the full power cards on numerous sites) is that this website allowed you to pick and choose which cards you wanted and construct  a PDF with just those cards to print... but they really are the exact  same cards.




No, the difference is that the site in question had ALL THE POWER TEXT FROM THE PH posted.

If other sites have pdfs of all of those cards I would be shocked if WotC didn't send them C&D's once they become aware of them.

And I remain shocked that others have such a hard time with the idea that posting about 50% of the PH (guesstimating, I admit) would not be cool with WotC. I don't really care which 50% it is- all the powers, everything _but_ the powers, every odd page, whatever. It is INCREDIBLY obvious, if you think about it for one second, that any business that sells that information (in book form, for example) is NOT going to want it freely disseminated. 

"But it's bad for the fans!" 

Hey, you know what? _Write_ what you want, _create_ what you want, share it with your friends and your gaming group- but when you start widely distributing it, expect trouble. I don't care if it is WotC, GE, the Smithsonian or whatever- you cannot simply distribute the work of others without consequences. 

I just cannot fathom why it is so hard to fathom this. But whatever, obviously some people have more of a sense of entitlement to the work and intellectual labor of others than I do.


----------



## Imaro

Xyxox said:


> I am not accountable for educating you as to what is considered risk in business.




You stated it wrong. Even the poster (whose post explained your stance in a much more clear and succinct way) first states you are wrong. Perhaps it's not everyone else... perhaps it really was you that were wrong. No, couldn't be that's to simple an answer for why numerous posters felt you were wrong... even the one you claim agreed with you.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> I said you RISK them.



And you'd still be wrong.



> And you do. Risk involves loss of anything, but from a business standpoint, your greatest risks always involve loss of revenue.



No, technically you don't risk your copyrights. You only risk some of the damages you can get from litigation. You can still stop people from continue to infringe on your copyright. It's rather unhealthy to include income from litigation in your business plan.



> Maybe you should learn more about the corporate world before you decry what corporations have to do to insure viability.



Maybe you should learn more about civility before you insult people on ENWorld.


----------



## El Mahdi

xechnao said:


> Imagine if a singer wrote a song and only he was able to sing it live to other people. Does such a thing exist?




IANAL, but...

Technically, Yes.  Technically, every local band in every local bar is performing copyrighted material without the license to do so (unless it's their own original copyrighted material).  However, it's almost impossible to enforce, completely non-cost-effective to enforce, and actually counter-productive (since it is in effect, free advertising) and might be considered fair-use(?).  However, if you wrote a song, and someone else started performing it, and they were actually becoming better known for it than you (or they were performing it so badly it was ruining the song), it would be in your best interest (and your rights) to force them to stop performing it.

If one of these bands started recording versions of other bands songs, or selling recordings of live performances of other peoples songs, or started performing large venues with entrance fees specifically for hearing the music (as opposed to a cover charge at a bar, which is for more than just the band), then the copyright holder (whether the music company or the musicians themselves), could (and usually do) come down on the offender like a ton-of-bricks.  And, they will win.

There are lot's of example of this happening.  Boston is a good one.  At one point in Boston's history, two former members of Boston started touring, playing predominantly Boston material and billing themselves as the "Boston" sound.  Tom Scholz (Boston's founder) sued them (I believe for both Trademark and Copyright infringement) and won (but of course it took a lot of money, on both sides).  Another good example is musicians sending C&D's to politicians for using their music in their campaigns without permission.

If someone wants to use someone elses material on an album (whether live or studio), or more and more commonly in commercials, they have to get permission, and the copyright holder is within their rights to charge a royalty fee (a percentage fee to essentially license the copyrighted material, with said license possibly restricting how and how-long the material may be used).

So basically, copyright is copyright, whether a text or music.  They are both equally protected.


----------



## xechnao

El Mahdi said:


> IANAL, but...
> 
> Technically, Yes.



I am not convinced.



El Mahdi said:


> If one of these bands started recording versions of other bands songs, or selling recordings of live performances of other peoples songs, or started performing large venues with entrance fees specifically for hearing the music (as opposed to a cover charge at a bar, which is for more than just the band), then the copyright holder (whether the music company or the musicians themselves), could (and usually do) come down on the offender like a ton-of-bricks.  And, they will win.



Yes, to this I agree it works this way.


----------



## Imaro

the Jester said:


> No, the difference is that the site in question had ALL THE POWER TEXT FROM THE PH posted.
> 
> If other sites have pdfs of all of those cards I would be shocked if WotC didn't send them C&D's once they become aware of them.
> 
> And I remain shocked that others have such a hard time with the idea that posting about 50% of the PH (guesstimating, I admit) would not be cool with WotC. I don't really care which 50% it is- all the powers, everything _but_ the powers, every odd page, whatever. It is INCREDIBLY obvious, if you think about it for one second, that any business that sells that information (in book form, for example) is NOT going to want it freely disseminated.
> 
> "But it's bad for the fans!"
> 
> Hey, you know what? _Write_ what you want, _create_ what you want, share it with your friends and your gaming group- but when you start widely distributing it, expect trouble. I don't care if it is WotC, GE, the Smithsonian or whatever- you cannot simply distribute the work of others without consequences.
> 
> I just cannot fathom why it is so hard to fathom this. But whatever, obviously some people have more of a sense of entitlement to the work and intellectual labor of others than I do.




Whatever, if I felt that way I wouldn't have bought the 4e PHB, DMG and MM instead of downloading the PDF's that are all over the internet... also see my earlier post about how I feel differently if there is enough information to play the game posted.  In fact I didn't even defend Ema's site when it came under C&D... but the power card thing just irks me... especially if it's leading to them dissapearing of the net for good.  To me it's paying extra to help facilitate the play of a game I have already bought.  The power cards, unlike the minis and dungeon tiles, offer me no useability beyond D&D and thus honestly I would rather not be forced to pay for them if there are free ones I can keep as a PDF and print as many copies as I want of.   In the end like I said earlier I don't dispute whether WotC had the right to send out the C&D letters... I don't however agree with the direction I see this headed in...YMMV of course.


----------



## El Mahdi

MrGrenadine said:


> IANAL, but if 4epowercards.com was my site, I would've been tempted to see what the courts would've said about the matter.
> 
> Selling someone else's work as your own is wrong, but thats not the case here. No money changed hands, and no credit was taken--the text in question was obviously quoted from the PHB and other WotC books. ...




IANAL, but...

Copyrighted material is protected material - period - whether being sold or not.  Money does not have to change hands in order to be violating copyright.  Copyright means that you have almost absolute control over how your copyrighted material is used, when it's used, and how it's used - period (except for uses that may be considered "Fair Use" - such as the press, reviews, etc.).


----------



## El Mahdi

Xyxox said:


> Yes, you can risk your copyrights. ...




Are you sure about that?  I was under the impression that only trademarks were vulnerable to this?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MrGrenadine said:


> IANAL, but if 4epowercards.com was my site, I would've been tempted to see what the courts would've said about the matter.






I wonder...how long until someone gets a C&D from wotC and says "No"...

      then what???

   WotC will have only 1 choice...sue...and with a lawsuit will come mor epress...

    what will happen when WotC is forced to take action instead of these little letters...



      I will play profit here and make a prediction: someone will call for a boycott...others will call it a war on fans...eaither way sales will drop...to compensate WotC will raise prices...witch will lead to more illigal downloads...witch will force WotC to crack down harder...


        so to sum up my predictions those people that shut down there sites ASAP when they got the C&D are doing all of us a favor...


----------



## Xyxox

El Mahdi said:


> Are you sure about that?  I was under the impression that only trademarks were vulnerable to this?




What is risked is the value of the copyrights. IF you will not enforce them, then the value decreases.

I will use the case described in the OP as an example.

Web site "A" provides a free service where you, the user, can produce a PDF file of power cards you can print out. This seems innocuous, however, to accomplish this requires ~1800 separate violations of WotC copyright.

Meanwhile, WotC provides the DDI service which will accomplish this same functionality and a printed product for power cards. To do this they leverage value of already existing intellectual property contained within the PHB. The value of the intellectual property is decreased  by the existance of web stie "A" because web site "A", in violation of WotC's copyright, is providing a free service that WotC seeks to gain revenue from in a subscription service and in a printed product.

Failure to enforce the copyright in this case has risk associated with it in that the value of the intellectual property is directly and measurably decreased.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> What is risked is the value of the copyrights. IF you will not enforce them, then the value decreases.



Are you saying that your consider the value of copyrights to be in the damages you can receive through litigation? I thought the value of copyrights were in the products you could sell...

Do you think you can state your position a little more clearly, because it seems several of us have a hard time understanding it.

Edit: That must have been telepathy at work...


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> Are you saying that your consider the value of copyrights to be in the damages you can receive through litigation? I thought the value of copyrights were in the products you could sell...
> 
> Do you think you can state your position a little more clearly, because it seems several of us have a hard time understanding it.
> 
> Edit: That must have been telepathy at work...




Re-read my edited post where I used the case of the OP as an example.

edit: and you must have hit "save" at the same time I hit "Quote".


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> Web site "A" provides a free service where you, the user, can produce a PDF file of power cards you can print out. This seems innocuous, however, to accomplish this requires ~1800 separate violations of WotC copyright.
> 
> Meanwhile, WotC provides the DDI service which will accomplish this same functionality and a printed product for power cards. To do this they leverage value of already existing intellectual property contained within the PHB. The value of the intellectual property is decreased  by the existance of web stie "A" because web site "A", in violation of WotC's copyright, is providing a free service that WotC seeks to gain revenue from in a subscription service and in a printed product.
> 
> Failure to enforce the copyright in this case has risk associated with it in that the value of the intellectual property is directly and measurably decreased.



In other words, their profit from DDI will be less, because some consumers would use the free service instead of subscribing to DDI.

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## El Mahdi

Xyxox said:


> What is risked is the value of the copyrights. IF you will not enforce them, then the value decreases.




My post was written before I had caught up with the rest of the conversation. (My Bad - but I'm caught up now.) But, I still think you are trying to argue your way out of a mispoken statement, or just a plain mistake.

Please, don't try and use me to further this awkward endeavor.

Your very own arguments and acknowledgements say that what is being risked is the value of damages, not the value of the copyright itself. The Value of the copyright is determined by how much people want it, and how much the copyright holder is willing to license or sell it for (or how much money you can make producing products based on it - which may be what you really meant - I'm not sure).

Keep pressing this bad position all you want, but I'm pretty sure you are fighting a losing battle.


(You may quote, bait, or pursue this further all you want, but I will not respond to this part of the conversation from here on out.)


Peace.


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> In other words, their profit from DDI will be less, because some consumers would use the free service instead of subscribing to DDI.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?




Not entirely as there are multiple choices here.

I'm saying the value of the intellectual property is decreased because of thexistance of the free service that is operating in violaiton of WotC's copyrights.

The value of the intellectual property can be realized in several ways in this specific case.

1) DDI subscriptions.
2) Sales of PDF versions of the PHB (which a user could copy and paste from to produce only the needed power cards at home.
3) Power Card sales.
4) Heretofore unplanned products which leverage this intellectual property (software, wet-eraseable power sheets, who knows what, etc.).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Oldtimer said:


> In other words, their profit from DDI will be less, because some consumers would use the free service instead of subscribing to DDI.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?




yes and no... let me take a crack...


    If site A is allowed to keep doing this, then next year ABC role-playing company puts out power cards from PHB, and WotC sues them, ABC role-playing company can turn around and say "X is avalible for free on the web"...then the damages can be reset...or even done away with with the argument "If it is free on te web how much damage is us selling ours doing"


----------



## Xyxox

El Mahdi said:


> My post was written before I had caught up with the rest of the conversation. (My Bad - but I'm caught up now.)  But, I still think you are trying to argue your way out of a mispoken statement, or just a plain mistake.




You'd be wrong in that assumption.


----------



## Xyxox

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes and no... let me take a crack...
> 
> 
> If site A is allowed to keep doing this, then next year ABC role-playing company puts out power cards from PHB, and WotC sues them, ABC role-playing company can turn around and say "X is avalible for free on the web"...then the damages can be reset...or even done away with with the argument "If it is free on te web how much damage is us selling ours doing"




That's a further loss of value in the copyright, but only if ABC role-playing can demonstrate WotC knew of the existance of site "A". That would be the key and there's no way of knowing until you go through discovery.

And should WotC lose such a case, the value of the copyright becomes nil.


----------



## Oldtimer

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes and no... let me take a crack...
> 
> 
> If site A is allowed to keep doing this, then next year ABC role-playing company puts out power cards from PHB, and WotC sues them, ABC role-playing company can turn around and say "X is avalible for free on the web"...then the damages can be reset...or even done away with with the argument "If it is free on te web how much damage is us selling ours doing"



Now you are talking damages again. You could still smack them (i.e. ABC Roleplaying Co) for the crime of copyright infringement.

You might not get any money from ABC RP Co, but you can certainly stop them from doing that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xyxox said:


> That's a further loss of value in the copyright, but only if ABC role-playing can demonstrate WotC knew of the existance of site "A". That would be the key and there's no way of knowing until you go through discovery.
> 
> And should WotC lose such a case, the value of the copyright becomes nil.




now  I am unsure of this next part so if I am wrong please correct me:

would then loseing that case allow Green Ronin, Mongoose, and Piazo and others like them to then treat 4e the way the OGL let them treat 3.5...or even more open???


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> Now you are talking damages again. You could still smack them (i.e. ABC Roleplaying Co) for the crime of copyright infringement.
> 
> You might not get any money from ABC RP Co, but you can certainly stop them from doing that.




The only price that can be paid for copyright infringement is a set of damages.

So if ABC is ruled to be doing zero damage, there is no price to pay for the infringement and it can continue in perpetuity as it is doing no damage.

Now, web site "A" who is offering a free service can be demosntrated to be doing damage. Every time somebody uses the service, that's a DDI subscription of a Power Cards sale that WotC does not realize because the end product was delivered by web site A.

So if it can be demonstrated from web logs that web site "A" had 9000 individual PDFs created, WotC wouldl be within their rights to demand $45,000 in damages (9,000 times $5/month DDI subscription).

Failure to enforce the copyright immediately would decrease the value of the copyright by $45,000.

Now think about it. You're Gamer Goodguy who created web site "A" out of the goodness of your heart and your love of the game, but when you realize you could be liable for $45,000 in damages your web site did to WotC, plus any potential punitive damages and court costs, what would be your course of action when you receive the C&D?

edited to add: Also, if Gamer Goodguy says, "NO" to the C&D, WotC then sends a C&D to hosting company "A" who then takes down the site. Hosting Company "A" won't risk being held liable for this blatant violation of WotC's copyright.


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> Not entirely as there are multiple choices here.
> 
> I'm saying the value of the intellectual property is decreased because of thexistance of the free service that is operating in violaiton of WotC's copyrights.
> 
> The value of the intellectual property can be realized in several ways in this specific case.
> 
> 1) DDI subscriptions.
> 2) Sales of PDF versions of the PHB (which a user could copy and paste from to produce only the needed power cards at home.
> 3) Power Card sales.
> 4) Heretofore unplanned products which leverage this intellectual property (software, wet-eraseable power sheets, who knows what, etc.).




What about the costs that drive these sales such as marketing or even needed R&D? What if the free power cards promoted PHB sales?
How are you going to directly and measurably demonstrate this in practice.  And unplanned products?


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> So if it can be demonstrated from web logs that web site "A" had 9000 individual PDFs created, WotC wouldl be within their rights to demand $45,000 in damages (9,000 times $5/month DDI subscription).
> 
> Failure to enforce the copyright immediately would decrease the value of the copyright by $45,000.



No because the service is free. Wotc has no basis to claim that those who freely downloaded such content would pay what Wotc is asking for if the web site was not freely distributing such content.


----------



## Xyxox

xechnao said:


> No because the service is free. Wotc has no basis to claim that those who freely downloaded such content would pay what Wotc is asking for if the web site was not freely distributing such content.




Try arguinig that before a judge. The damages are real. IT doesn't amtter that web site "A" charged nothing for the service. WotC charges $5/month for the same service and it's WotC's IP, thus the damages are real.


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> Try arguinig that before a judge. The damages are real. IT doesn't amtter that web site "A" charged nothing for the service. WotC charges $5/month for the same service and it's WotC's IP, thus the damages are real.




In fact if I were in such a position I would. The damages are as real as the law concerning them is. Is there such a law that enforces what you are talking about?


----------



## Dannager

xechnao said:


> In fact if I were in such a position I would. The damages are as real as the law concerning them is. Is there such a law that enforces what you are talking about?



Do you even understand how civil law _works_?  Or that it exists to begin with?


----------



## Filcher

Thing is, we are in a new digital age. For a lot of the smaller 3pp, the only product *is* a PDF. For these publishers, every unpurchased PDF is a loss of a sale. Every unpurchased PDF is damage.  

If this is true for a small 3pp, why wouldn't it be true for WotC?

Yes, the illegal distribution of a 3pp PDF might promote later sales, but unless the publisher authorizes the distribution, it is still stealing the one product they have.


----------



## Cor Azer

Xyxox said:


> The only price that can be paid for copyright infringement is a set of damages.




Note that there are generally two types of damages - statutory damages deal with how much your actions cost me, while punitive damages are a way of saying "no matter how much actual damage you did to me, the judge wants to discourage both you and anyone else from acting like this in the future". The two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they linked.



Xyxox said:


> So if ABC is ruled to be doing zero damage, there is no price to pay for the infringement and it can continue in perpetuity as it is doing no damage.




So, be careful here about the "ruled to be doing zero damage". ABC may not have caused any statutory damage, but there may still be punitive damage. And even if ABC was found to not have caused any damage in this instance, it in no way says they can continue in perpetuity. Or at least, there's no guarantee of such. It really depends on the reason for the lack of damages (ie, if it was because the usage was in line with fair use, then fair use can continue; but if, for example, you discovered ABC was infringing on your copyright before they actually published the supplement, you can demand they stop, the courts might not award statutory damages (since ABC didn't release the product), punitive damages may or may not be assessed (likely depending on how nice ABC's lawyers play with the court), but that does not mean they can now continue to publish their product.

Long story short: no damages does not automatically mean continue on for perpetuity.



Xyxox said:


> Now, web site "A" who is offering a free service can be demosntrated to be doing damage. Every time somebody uses the service, that's a DDI subscription of a Power Cards sale that WotC does not realize because the end product was delivered by web site A.
> 
> So if it can be demonstrated from web logs that web site "A" had 9000 individual PDFs created, WotC wouldl be within their rights to demand $45,000 in damages (9,000 times $5/month DDI subscription).
> 
> Failure to enforce the copyright immediately would decrease the value of the copyright by $45,000.




The damages might be reduced, but the value of copyright isn't... copyright has no explicit monetary value, absent of licensing revenue or goodwill capital.

Scenario:
Site A reproduces WotC material starting in January. WotC discovers it in March. If WotC respond immediately (where immediately is defined by the courts), Site A is liable for statutory damages for two months. If WotC decides to wait for X amount of time (say, a year), Site A can probably get that difference of time excluded from the statutory damages; they're still liable for the first two months, but their (competent?) lawyer can probably argue that WotC delayed responding to run up the damages.
In either event though, once WotC responds, assuming the material is found to be infringing, the site is not allowed to keep it up. 

More so, the copyright on WotC's material is not worth any less. Statutory damages may be lessened, but litigation income is not tied to the value of copyrighted material. And any delay in responding to this case has no bearing on any other infringement case that may be pending.


----------



## Cor Azer

xechnao said:


> No because the service is free. Wotc has no basis to claim that those who freely downloaded such content would pay what Wotc is asking for if the web site was not freely distributing such content.




Yes, WotC would probably claim each use was a lost sale. A competent defense lawyer would show that not every usage would have led to a DDI subscription had the infringing material not been available. So it probably would have been, essentially, a haggling - WotC claiming $45K in damages, ABC claiming $0 in damages, and the judge awarding $X in statutory damages, where 0 <= X <= 45K, plus possibly some amount in punitive damages. Exactly where X falls in there depends on lawyer arguments, amount of infringement, and probably a few other things.

Note that if ABC was charging for their service, their derived income would probably be added on top of the statutory damages above; so not charged saves yoy from paying more, but it doesn't necessarily stop you from paying anything.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> The only price that can be paid for copyright infringement is a set of damages.



Unless you count fines and jail time, of course.



> So if ABC is ruled to be doing zero damage, there is no price to pay for the infringement and it can continue in perpetuity as it is doing no damage.



No, it would still be a crime. It seems you are only talking about civil law here. What about criminal law?

I realise that were talking US law in this thread, since the site was located in the US. Maybe that's what is confusing me. Surely copyright infringement is a crime in the US? A crime with jail as a possible sentence and heavy fines as a minimum?

In my jurisdiction (Sweden), this case would be reported to the police and end up in a criminal court. The amount of damages you receive depend on the actual damages you can prove (we don't have punitive damages in a criminal court). No matter what damages you receive, the persons found guilty of copyright infringement would receive a punishment of heavy fines or jail. Even if you can't prove any actual damage, the copyright infringement still stands. Does it not work in a similar way in the US?


----------



## Cor Azer

Oldtimer said:


> Unless you count fines and jail time, of course.
> 
> No, it would still be a crime. It seems you are only talking about civil law here. What about criminal law?
> 
> I realise that were talking US law in this thread, since the site was located in the US. Maybe that's what is confusing me. Surely copyright infringement is a crime in the US? A crime with jail as a possible sentence and heavy fines as a minimum?
> 
> In my jurisdiction (Sweden), this case would be reported to the police and end up in a criminal court. The amount of damages you receive depend on the actual damages you can prove (we don't have punitive damages in a criminal court). No matter what damages you receive, the persons found guilty of copyright infringement would receive a punishment of heavy fines or jail. Even if you can't prove any actual damage, the copyright infringement still stands. Does it not work in a similar way in the US?




Not all copyright infringement is criminal activity in the US. I am unsure of what damage threshold or requirements are needed in the case for it to be considered criminal.


----------



## Fifth Element

xechnao said:


> In fact if I were in such a position I would. The damages are as real as the law concerning them is. Is there such a law that enforces what you are talking about?



I humbly suggest that you should let your attorney do the arguing, if you ever find yourself in such a situation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Cor Azer said:


> Not all copyright infringement is criminal activity in the US. I am unsure of what damage threshold or requirements are needed in the case for it to be considered criminal.



But if it's below the criminal threshold, can you still engage in a civil suit? And how can it be copyright infringement if it's not a criminal activity. Is your copyright law not part of the criminal code?

I'm sorry if I derail the thread with detailed law questions, but I find it very interesting to learn the differences between US law and our law in this area. Sometimes (as when we were debating the previous C&D against Ema) US law is not even applicable, so it's good to know how it differs.


----------



## xechnao

Fifth Element said:


> I humbly suggest that you should let your attorney do the arguing, if you ever find yourself in such a situation.



If yo could afford one that is. Even this matter is bogus.  In some countries for example the state does not grant you one for civil cases but it does for criminal ones.


----------



## xechnao

Cor Azer said:


> Yes, WotC would probably claim each use was a lost sale.




In US law is claiming enough or does it have to provide some substantial evidence or something like that? I mean how the legal system defends itself by the possibility for someone to start charging for millions for some power card or whatever product have you and then asking for damages for someone that has been distributing them for free?


----------



## Spatula

Imaro said:


> In the end like I said earlier I don't dispute whether WotC had the right to send out the C&D letters... I don't however agree with the direction I see this headed in...



Oh, please.  WotC isn't going to go around shutting down every website that has some game terms on it.  Talk about paranoia.

Flagrant copyright & trademark violations = obviously and stupidly illegal
People posting their characters online = not an actual threat to WotC's business


----------



## merelycompetent

xechnao said:


> In US law is claiming enough or does it have to provide some substantial evidence or something like that? I mean how the legal system defends itself by the possibility for someone to start charging for millions for some power card or whatever product have you and then asking for damages for someone that has been distributing them for free?




Your best bet is to consult with a lawyer for your legal questions. There is also a great deal of general information available on the net:

U.S. Copyright Office
Copyright Office Basics
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center

I'm sure that there are other reliable sites out there. The above should get you started.


----------



## Dannager

xechnao said:


> In US law is claiming enough or does it have to provide some substantial evidence or something like that? I mean how the legal system defends itself by the possibility for someone to start charging for millions for some power card or whatever product have you and then asking for damages for someone that has been distributing them for free?



In a civil case the standard is what's referred to as a preponderance of evidence - in other words, it is generally accepted that if a majority of the evidence agrees with your claim, the case will be adjudicated in your favor.

This gets iffy in an intellectual property case, as coming up with _any_ kind of evidence about what people _might_ have done if they weren't able to illegally obtain material is difficult.  Given, however, that it's a clear violation of law and that it's likely that at least _some_ damage was incurred due to lost sales, the judge would probably view WotC's case favorably.

Note that all of the above is based on pre-law student knowledge.  IANAL.


----------



## Imaro

Spatula said:


> Oh, please.  WotC isn't going to go around shutting down every website that has some game terms on it.  Talk about paranoia.
> 
> Flagrant copyright & trademark violations = obviously and stupidly illegal
> People posting their characters online = not an actual threat to WotC's business




Did I say that?  Really did I?  What I do think is going to happen is that we are going to see some really good power card sets (possibly better than the one's WotC produces) vanish off the net... at least as far as being available through legal means.


----------



## the Jester

Imaro said:


> Did I say that?  Really did I?  What I do think is going to happen is that we are going to see some really good power card sets (possibly better than the one's WotC produces) vanish off the net... at least as far as being available through legal means.




The whole point is that they _weren't_ available through legal means- the copyright violation means that having them up was illegal from the start, regardless of whether WotC spoke up or not.


----------



## Cor Azer

Oldtimer said:


> But if it's below the criminal threshold, can you still engage in a civil suit? And how can it be copyright infringement if it's not a criminal activity. Is your copyright law not part of the criminal code?
> 
> I'm sorry if I derail the thread with detailed law questions, but I find it very interesting to learn the differences between US law and our law in this area. Sometimes (as when we were debating the previous C&D against Ema) US law is not even applicable, so it's good to know how it differs.




Just to be sure, I'm not a lawyer, but I read one on Slashdot 

Again, I don't know the exact differences between civil copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement. If I had to hazard a guess, criminal copyright infringement would be mass duplication and distribution (for some quantity of mass), especially if misrepresentation is involved (claiming the work is your own, for instance), whereas civil copyright infringement is akin to downloading a copy.


----------



## Cor Azer

xechnao said:


> In US law is claiming enough or does it have to provide some substantial evidence or something like that? I mean how the legal system defends itself by the possibility for someone to start charging for millions for some power card or whatever product have you and then asking for damages for someone that has been distributing them for free?




That's where the lawyers come in. Plaintiff and defendant can claim whatever they wish... the question is how well their arguments and evidence convince the judge or jury, which may end up being some middle ground between the two sides.


----------



## dvvega

In the world of copyright law it does not matter if it is a criminal or a civil suit, it must be upheld as a local person in the country would be protected/sued if the country has signed onto the Berne Convention.

Thus if you are in Sweden with a great website with all the Ritual texts on it because you are printing out Ritual cards and the owner of the Ritual text is in the US then if you refused to comply with a C&D letter the US can then make a petition to the Swedish law courts as if they were Swedish Copyright Holders.

In quick easy terms, you are treated as a citizen of that nation with regards to copyright and that country must uphold your copyright just as they would for one of their own.

As to the difference between civil and criminal copyright law. A criminal offence is generally a misrepresentation of the imprint of the material you originally copyrighted. For example, putting the WoTC logo on a record sheet of your own making and selling your efforts. This indirectly implies that you are a WoTC representative or that your work has somehow been approved by them. 

And technically saying T$R infringes their copyright because you are mutilating/altering the seal/imprint of a company. Lucky for us it isn't their original logo we are doing it to 

This kind of case came up with Judges Guild in TSR days if I remember correctly. They were using the TSR logo which implied sanctioned material but it wasn't so.


----------



## jmucchiello

jmucchiello said:


> Wow, am I out of the loop! Can someone point me at the discussion for the first site sent a C&D, I missed that discussion entirely?



Anybody?


----------



## jmucchiello

El Mahdi said:


> IANAL, but...
> 
> Technically, Yes.  Technically, every local band in every local bar is performing copyrighted material without the license to do so (unless it's their own original copyrighted material).  However, it's almost impossible to enforce, completely non-cost-effective to enforce, and actually counter-productive (since it is in effect, free advertising) and might be considered fair-use(?).  However, if you wrote a song, and someone else started performing it, and they were actually becoming better known for it than you (or they were performing it so badly it was ruining the song), it would be in your best interest (and your rights) to force them to stop performing it.



Except ASCAP and BMI exist and this isn't really an issue. ASCAP and BMI receive licensing fees from every public performance venue in existence allowing live and recorded music to be reproduced for the enjoyment of the venues' patrons. It is amazingly similar to a protection racket. If you open a bar with a jukebox, within weeks someone from one of the two companies will show up asking for a cut. I have no idea how they find out but they do.

In any case, those companies are supposed to distribute the royalties collected in this manner to the copyright holders. Of course, they don't know what songs end up being covered so generally if you cover obscure songs, the owners of those songs are probably screwed out of their small royalty unless they witness the performance and send a claim to ASCAP/BMI.


> Boston...



This had to be a trademark issue involving the name and logos of the band. An artist contracted by ASCAP or BMI cannot stop anyone from performing their songs as long as the royalties are being paid. That's the whole point of singing with ASCAP or BMI, to get paid for public performance of your music. If you don't want it performed publicly, you don't sign with them. But good luck suing starving artists who just happen to cover your songs.


----------



## epochrpg

> They certainly have the “legal right” to go after anyone so much as saying the words “Dungeons & Dragons” on their site.  But the point of the gaming community is to let people use that IP to advance the game.  Rouse says “Oh, you know, we only really care about pirate sites posting whole torrents of our books.”  But that’s clearly a lie in the face of this action.  And he crosses the line from honest company rep to corporate shill when he says things like “not one website has been sued because of a lack of policy” (emphasis mine).  No, you don’t have to sue them, they close down when you C&D them because they can’t afford the lawyers you can, and they are risking their own personal money, time, and life while you get to hide behind incorporation and an organization.




quoted from this site following the Ema's shutdown: Will WotC Close You Down Next? « Geek Related


----------



## Bladewing

Ok I started reading this thread but the discussion turned into (imho) pointless legal debate, so I skipped a dozen pages. Sorry if this is a repeat question because of that.

Is a version that keeps the layout and design but doesnt actually list the copyrighted content from the sourcebooks available, where you can enter power names and game text on your own and then print it?

I used the power cards from that site because I liked the design. That they already included the relevant rules text was an obvious time saver, but I'd be fine with typing them myself for the cards I want to use while playing. and I'm assuming distributing such a file without the rules text would be legal (correct me if that's wrong).


I also have a related question about WotC's planned official power cards:

1. How do they look? You see, the main advantage of the site that received the cease and desist was the awesome design of the cards. Certainly much better then those made with the character builder beta and also edging out other 3rd party versions I found. I have no problem buying the official power card decks if they are well designed and look great.

2. Do they come with a pdf to print them with appropriate attribute/feat/etc modifiers factored in? If I have to do the math each time or keep additional notes on another card and/or reference my character sheet, they arent nearly as useful as the material provided by 3rd party sites up to now.


----------



## Jack99

jmucchiello said:


> Anybody?




here


----------



## misalo1

Xyxox said:


> Yes, but will you buy the power cards when they are released?




My vote... No

If they are like the books and DM's screen I'll have a set of cards with all the WotC Error's included and no way to correct the cards.

I made my own cards and when a update hits WotC.com I fix and print. No errors, No 'Updated Card List' to check during play. No Fuss.

Anyways the price isn't in my budget...

PHB - $23.00 + PHB  Power Card Display - $57.00 = $80.00  (give or take some pennies)

Martial Power -  $20.00 + Power Card Packs x4 -  9.99 x 4 = $60.00  

So $43.00 vs. $140.00


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Xyxox said:


> It's far easier to stoke the fires of suspicion with conspiracy theories about evil intent.




The pursuit of profit is *evil*. 

If WOTC continues its evil corporate pursuit of profit, I mean, where does that leave all the fans who enjoy popping online to offer "Best Wishes" to all the great designers that Hasbro lays off every Christmas?


----------



## Oldtimer

dvvega said:


> In the world of copyright law it does not matter if it is a criminal or a civil suit, it must be upheld as a local person in the country would be protected/sued if the country has signed onto the Berne Convention.
> 
> Thus if you are in Sweden with a great website with all the Ritual texts on it because you are printing out Ritual cards and the owner of the Ritual text is in the US then if you refused to comply with a C&D letter the US can then make a petition to the Swedish law courts as if they were Swedish Copyright Holders.
> 
> In quick easy terms, you are treated as a citizen of that nation with regards to copyright and that country must uphold your copyright just as they would for one of their own.



Yes, this I know and understand fully. If I took over 4epowercards.com and put it up on my server, WotC would have to bring the issue to swedish courts and the issue would be evaluated under swedish copyright laws as if WotC had been a swedish company. No problem with this.



> As to the difference between civil and criminal copyright law. A criminal offence is generally a misrepresentation of the imprint of the material you originally copyrighted. For example, putting the WoTC logo on a record sheet of your own making and selling your efforts. This indirectly implies that you are a WoTC representative or that your work has somehow been approved by them.
> 
> And technically saying T infringes their copyright because you are mutilating/altering the seal/imprint of a company. Lucky for us it isn't their original logo we are doing it to
> 
> This kind of case came up with Judges Guild in TSR days if I remember correctly. They were using the TSR logo which implied sanctioned material but it wasn't so.



This makes no sense to me at all. You are talking about misuse of trademark, not criminal copyright infringement.

If US copyright law is this much different, american companies would be very confused if they actually had to go to court against a swedish (or other european) web site. It makes me wonder what would have happened if Ema had just said "no" to WotC, since he was in italian jurisdiction.

Anyway, don't let me derail this thread further. Please return to your regular scheduled discussion.


----------



## catsclaw227

epochrpg said:


> quoted from this site following the Ema's shutdown: Will WotC Close You Down Next? « Geek Related



Yes, but this blog is heavily biased and admitted so by the writer.  And BTW, Scott Rouse didn't say what mxyzplk quoted him saying.  I haven't found one post anywhere where he said “Oh, you know, we only really care about pirate sites posting whole torrents of our books.”  As a matter of fact, the statement I believe he was referring to was more akin to saying that, at the time of the quote, they were focusing efforts on a particular site that had a ton of pirated downloads available.  When mxyzplk can point us to where he got his quote, I will apologize and move on, but it is simply just pouring gasoline on a fire that is already heating up.


----------



## Imaro

misalo1 said:


> My vote... No
> 
> If they are like the books and DM's screen I'll have a set of cards with all the WotC Error's included and no way to correct the cards.
> 
> I made my own cards and when a update hits WotC.com I fix and print. No errors, No 'Updated Card List' to check during play. No Fuss.
> 
> Anyways the price isn't in my budget...
> 
> PHB - $23.00 + PHB  Power Card Display - $57.00 = $80.00  (give or take some pennies)
> 
> Martial Power -  $20.00 + Power Card Packs x4 -  9.99 x 4 = $60.00
> 
> So $43.00 vs. $140.00





QFT, I'm so glad I took the time to download and learn how to use the MSE.  I spend enough on dungeon tiles, and miniatures (which can at least be used with other fantasy games besides 4e) as accessories to D&D (3.5 and 4e) that I'm just not cool with buying another (mainly useless outside of 4e) accessory to play a roleplaying game.   I'll be making my own cards from here on out.


----------



## mxyzplk

jmucchiello said:


> Anybody?




I link to all the relevant threads and original sources here: Will WotC Close You Down Next? « Geek Related

My post is clearly biased, however.  (Truth is a labelled bias nowadays.)  Take it with a grain of salt, but use the links and judge for yourself.


----------



## catsclaw227

But see, even then, there's no implication that they didn't have plans to send C&D to blatant disgregard for IP.  He says that they are dealing with huge sharing sites and at the time of the quote, they don't care about someone posting his homebrew. 

Neither Ema nor 4epowerscards were simply guys posting their homebrew.  The two concepts are wildly far apart.  WOTC isn't going to take down Urbis.  They sent C&D's to sites wholesale copying their IP and providing it for free.

So the quote was taken way out of context with regards to the sites that received a C&D.  It reminds me of Michael Moore's tactics, which he readily admits is manipulative and intended to create a false association between two unrelated clips.


----------



## mxyzplk

jmucchiello said:


> Except ASCAP and BMI exist and this isn't really an issue. ASCAP and BMI receive licensing fees from every public performance venue in existence allowing live and recorded music to be reproduced for the enjoyment of the venues' patrons. It is amazingly similar to a protection racket. If you open a bar with a jukebox, within weeks someone from one of the two companies will show up asking for a cut. I have no idea how they find out but they do.




Yeah, here in Austin there has been a rash of small venues - coffee shops that have sone acoustic guy show up once in a while, etc. - getting cracked down on by these guys and told to pay large fees or not allow music performances.  Sadly, many of them are giving up offering music as a result.


----------



## catsclaw227

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> My entire point is not that Wizards isn't legally entitled to C&D these guys. My point is that legally, they're entitled to C&D just about everyone including homebrew guy. Who they go after is strictly according to "whoever they feel like this month." Their statements about why do try to create the implication of a limit, but there is not one. They haven't said, for example, that "we don't think the stuff on ENWorld doesn't violate our IP rights" - they just say "Oh we like *you* guys. We're 'less concerned' with you."




I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.   In my opinion, your stance is extreme and borderline fear-mongering.  

I am not worried that our group's game website/blog/forum will be targeted by WOTC because we posted our game's PCs and I put up some images from the SoW Adventure Path we are running.

If I were to post all the class details from the current crop of source books and copy all the monsters from Draconomicon and Open Grave for anyone to download, then yes, I should be concerned.    

But, then again, I wouldn't do it in the first place, since it violates WOTC's IP and it isn't mine to freely disseminate.

Do you feel that a fansite has the right (even in spirit, regardless of legality) to reproduce the IP of a for-profit company, without permission, and give it away for free?


----------



## jgsugden

WotC is selling powercards right now.

If you've paid for D&D insider, you can download the character generator. It creates power cards.

I think WotC is missing the boat with these C&D letters. Shutting down other web sites is never popular. Rather, I'd contact the people running these sites and discuss options that allow WotC to bring these people on board with WotC.

In Ema's case, I'd have offered to let the site continue if they shared profits with WotC, and agreed to meet certainly quality and timeliness standards. Further, I'd have offered to provide advanced previews of the text of new product to help Ema stay timely. This is the approach I'd take with any pay site selling my product in a different format. 

In the powercards site case, when the cards were not being sold for profit, I'd simply have told them that they may continue operation AS LONG AS they implement a sign in system so that only D&D insiders could sign in. In other words, I'd have left it open for business for D&D insiders only.

The costs of these transitions would have needed to have been born by the sites themselves, with limited technical support from the WotC folks.

I'd expect to see both sites reject these types of offers, but there is a chance they might accept the offer - and if not, and a C&D was necessary, at least WotC could say that they made efforts to work with the community before they resorted to striking out with C&Ds. To me, using a C&D should be a measure of near last resort.


----------



## xechnao

mxyzplk

There might be a reason behind this. The sooner they had provided a fan site policy the more their PR could have suffered. Same about the GSL/OGL policy. Similarly about trying to convince for a new model of game based on or needing power cards. Is this unexpected?
Was it you that cited white wolf's fan site policy? I read on a thread (think it was on rpg.net) about these C&D letters that white wolf conceded a fan site policy after flame wars were growing really long. 
So I guess this fan public(market) and entertainer(industry) conflict is one to be expected.


----------



## Dausuul

mxyzplk said:


> And yes, they weren't homebrew.  But they also weren't torrent sites. ...
> 
> So they are deliberately creating an unsafe environment even for the homebrewers out there till they come out with a stated policy.  I don't consider pointing this out "anti-Wizards."  Their actions are limiting innovation and communication about their own product.  IMO it's way in their best interest to decide what kind of D&D promotion they want fansites to do and declare they're OK doing it.  At this rate they are just scaring off random fansiters from bothering with their games.  Rouse's answer to them is "check with  your lawyer!"  Yeah, sure....




I am in no way a lawyer, but I know that copying large chunks of the Player's Handbook and posting them online is a damn-fool thing to do, and anyone who does it would be an idiot not to expect a C&D the minute Wizards gets wind of it.

Now, should they have a stated fansite policy? Absolutely, just like they should have a GSL for third-party publishers, and I'm pretty irritated that they've taken this long about it. But in the absence of a stated policy, a little common sense should apply. Obviously Rouse isn't going to offer us an ironclad, hard-and-fast definition of what will and will not be challenged; as far as I know, he also is not a lawyer, and if WotC hasn't come up with a policy yet, he's not about to commit them to one on his own.

So he gave us an idea of WotC's general aims right now - take down the sharing/torrent sites, leave the homebrewers alone. Clearly, this is not all-encompassing and is merely a guideline. The question then becomes, say I'm planning to create a site that is neither a torrent site nor a homebrew. Which category does it fall closer to? The answer in this case is quite clear: It's putting up a whole bunch of Wizards IP to be downloaded by the public for free, which puts it in the sharing/torrent category.

Find me a case of somebody who's posting genuine homebrew stuff receiving a C&D, and I'll share your outrage (as well as being dubious about the legality of it). But I'm not going to try to defend blatant copyright infringement on the grounds that it isn't _exactly the same_ as a sharing/torrent site.



jgsugden said:


> In the powercards site case, when the cards were not being sold for profit, I'd simply have told them that they may continue operation AS LONG AS they implement a sign in system so that only D&D insiders could sign in. In other words, I'd have left it open for business for D&D insiders only.
> 
> The costs of these transitions would have needed to have been born by the sites themselves, with limited technical support from the WotC folks.




I agree, this would have been a much better solution; in fact, creating a system of licensed fansites authorized to repost Wizards IP for DDI subscribers would be a brilliant move, allowing WotC to harness the enthusiasm of their fans (just compare the 3E d20srd.org to the Wizards SRD site to see how much value fan enthusiasm can add), and increase the value of the DDI at minimal cost to themselves. Here's hoping someone with the authority to implement such a solution reads this...


----------



## catsclaw227

jgsugden said:


> In Ema's case, I'd have offered to let the site continue if they shared profits with WotC, and agreed to meet certainly quality and timeliness standards. Further, I'd have offered to provide advanced previews of the text of new product to help Ema stay timely. This is the approach I'd take with any pay site selling my product in a different format.
> 
> In the powercards site case, when the cards were not being sold for profit, I'd simply have told them that they may continue operation AS LONG AS they implement a sign in system so that only D&D insiders could sign in. In other words, I'd have left it open for business for D&D insiders only.



As you said, these ideas, while interesting, would make for some major headaches.  

In the case of the powercards site, there's no way WOTC would give up their membership information or authentication info. Managing the login process would be painful and would either require that WOTC redirect all users to the powercards site with a temp authentication ticket, or provide the 3PP site a complete list of users (not on any planet would that happen!).  

Forget about the nerdrage that would ensue if any of this authentication process failed even a little bit.


----------



## mxyzplk

catsclaw227 said:


> I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.   In my opinion, your stance is extreme and borderline fear-mongering.
> 
> I am not worried that our group's game website/blog/forum will be targeted by WOTC because we posted our game's PCs and I put up some images from the SoW Adventure Path we are running.
> 
> If I were to post all the class details from the current crop of source books and copy all the monsters from Draconomicon and Open Grave for anyone to download, then yes, I should be concerned.
> 
> But, then again, I wouldn't do it in the first place, since it violates WOTC's IP and it isn't mine to freely disseminate.
> 
> Do you feel that a fansite has the right (even in spirit, regardless of legality) to reproduce the IP of a for-profit company, without permission, and give it away for free?




And it's fine to disagree.  I have to say though, since White Wolf came out with its guidelines saying "your characters are derivative IP and we own them" just a couple months ago, I don't have that same safe feeling WotC won't do the same.  Comes down to a basic trust issue.  IMO, a real life recent example of the #2 RPG company doing it means that speculating that the #1, who won't come out and say what its policy is, might do the same isn't really fearmongering, it's plain logic.

The answer of course to "does a fansite have the spiritual right to reproduce IP..." is of course yes.  In fact, I'd replace "right" with "need."  Not wholesale copying, but as we have seen, the legal definition of "reproducing IP" is as simple as my current priest's character sheet including the power "short descriptions" from the PHB.  That's technically reproducing Wizards IP and it's technically actionable.  But it's also kinda expected.  And some amount of this, Wizards wants to happen.  It's part of building a community around your products.  But how much do they want to have happen, and where does it cross the line for them?

This isn't some unique problem to this industry.  I work for a computer-type company with plenty of software IP.  Some people still adhere to a completely closed model there, but that's largely old giants that made their money long ago.  The newer guys, you have to figure out - what do I release as open source?  What do I make "industry standard interfaces", release to the IEEE as specs, etc. rather than trying to keep them proprietary?  How do I allow our base to write programs using our products, create add-ons for our products, etc?  And we know it's important for the community of our customers, resellers, consultants, etc. to know where that line is, as vagueness is chilling to the market.  People don't want to take a risk and get shut down after investing time and money.  Even WoW had to come to a clear agreement with modders as to what was OK and what wasn't.  WotC needs to do the same.


----------



## Maggan

catsclaw227 said:


> Forget about the nerdrage that would ensue if any of this authentication process failed even a little bit.




"Here I am, standing in what was once the headquarters of game producer Wizards of the Coast. Mere hours ago, the tidal wave of what Pentagon experts have called "The Billion Gamer Flamewar" hit this unsuspecting suburd, reducing these buildings and several surrounding blocks of industry property to ashes. President Obama have promised to look into this  devastating turn of events, and have hinted that Internet access might be revoked for gamers across America, to save us all from a similar fate once these gamers learn that Hasbro, the owners of Wizards of the Coast, is poised to ask a gamer to pick up a pice of trash he dropped at GenCon. Reporting live from where ever I'm standing at the moment, I'm Kent Brockman."

/M


----------



## Dausuul

catsclaw227 said:


> As you said, these ideas, while interesting, would make for some major headaches.
> 
> In the case of the powercards site, there's no way WOTC would give up their membership information or authentication info. Managing the login process would be painful and would either require that WOTC redirect all users to the powercards site with a temp authentication ticket, or provide the 3PP site a complete list of users (not on any planet would that happen!).
> 
> Forget about the nerdrage that would ensue if any of this authentication process failed even a little bit.




Certainly there would be serious technical challenges involved in setting it up (the temp authentication ticket seems like the most likely approach), but think of the ultimate value to be gained. Every successful fan site would add to the value of the DDI and pull in more subscribers, fueled by word of mouth on sites like ENWorld. A lot of the apps that are currently giving WotC's software team nightmares could be developed free of charge by fans, and competing fansites could fine-tune things like format and presentation. WotC could even run a "Featured Fansite of the Month" article, or something of the sort, in Dragon.

Thanks to the nature and history of their product, WotC happens to have a very dedicated (not to say obsessive), creative, tech-savvy fanbase. Why not capitalize on that?


----------



## Ydars

Because then WoTC would have to give up some control and some of that cool IP they invented.

You know: stuff like Beholders, and Githyanki and all the other D&D iconics. Stuff like Eberron and FR etc.

This is their right as they legally own all this stuff, right. 

Oh wait? They actually didn't invent ANY of this stuff: the fans did, or else writers of fantasy novels that got ripped off but never bothered to sue WoTC or TSR before them.

All WoTC actually invented was game mechanics, which can't be construed as IP. 

You will forgive my confusion over recent events.


----------



## Merkuri

mxyzplk said:


> "We are dealing with huge sharing sites and torrent sites and less concerned with some guy posting his homebrew."  - Scott Rouse, Nov 2008
> 
> ...So now this month they're also concerned with people making power cards.  How about next month?




Considering the number of powers that were taken word-for-word from the PHB, this site probably fell under the category of "huge sharing sites."

It sounds to me like they're not really concerned with people who make power cards, per say.  They're concerned with people who put up a large amount of copyrighted material for other people to download.


----------



## Dausuul

Ydars said:


> Because then WoTC would have to give up some control and some of that cool IP they invented.




How would they be giving up IP? Licensing is not the same as giving up.


----------



## Glyfair

Dausuul said:


> How would they be giving up IP? Licensing is not the same as giving up.



Because they either give up control, or hire entirely new staff in order to oversee the licenses.  Even if they do, allowing others to work using that IP is giving up a certain amount of control.

Now, we can pretty much be sure that WotC is not going to be adding staff in order to do this licensing.  Remember why Scott has said the updates to the GSL have taken so long to get released (if not in so many words)?  It's because he had to take up some of the workload from a number of employees in the recent round of layoffs.  

In this business environment a company that is overworking its employees already isn't going to start a new venture that requires hiring new employees and setting up a new department for an uncertain revenue stream.  

Just hiring 3 employees to facilitate and watch these new sites would mean at least $100,000 a year.  That's not terribly likely to be gotten back any time soon.  In fact, it is likely that by the time it is, WotC will already have up the same content with a more efficient revenue stream (because they wouldn't have to share it with 3rd parties).


----------



## Spatula

mxyzplk said:


> The answer of course to "does a fansite have the spiritual right to reproduce IP..." is of course yes.  In fact, I'd replace "right" with "need."  Not wholesale copying, but as we have seen, the legal definition of "reproducing IP" is as simple as my current priest's character sheet including the power "short descriptions" from the PHB.  That's technically reproducing Wizards IP and it's technically actionable.  But it's also kinda expected.  And some amount of this, Wizards wants to happen.  It's part of building a community around your products.  But how much do they want to have happen, and where does it cross the line for them?



It crosses the line when you're reproducing entire sections of the books.  This really isn't difficult to figure out.


----------



## Rel

mxyzplk, I've just deleted a couple of your posts that contained personal attacks and political references.  If you can't make your point without resorting to these then refrain from posting.  There will be no further warnings regarding this (to you or anybody else in this thread).


----------



## Mercutio01

mxyzplk said:


> the legal definition of "reproducing IP" is as simple as my current priest's character sheet including the power "short descriptions" from the PHB.  That's technically reproducing Wizards IP and it's technically actionable.



The Fair Use portion of copyright law has four pieces to consider to determine if something is fair use-

   1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So, with something like a character sheet, you could argue fair use.  It's significantly alterered from the original product.  It copies only a small portion (and with my character sheets I never wrote the whole text of a feat or skill down), and it's not substantial.  My character posted online has minimal (if any) effect on the potential market.  And it's not commercial in nature.

White Wolf could try to sue for copyright infringement based on a character sheet, but I'd be a) surprised if they actually did, despite the threat, and b)even more surprised if the suit won in a court of law.


----------



## Kzach

Piratecat said:


> That would have been really cool.




Only if the 'new' model worked.

Did the OGL work for WotC or did it hurt WotC?

The only reason I can fathom for the about turn in policy is that the whole open movement ultimately didn't work for WotC.

It reminds me a lot of the Apple clone wars. Apple opened up the hardware side to licensing and it ended up costing Apple far more than it could ever possibly make them. They tried, they failed, and now they're more successful than ever despite closing the platform up again and being utter tight fanny's.


----------



## Alzrius

Mercutio01 said:


> b)even more surprised if the suit won in a court of law.




What does that have to do with anything?

The legal rightness or wrongness of a civil action isn't that relevant when it's a corporation taking action against an individual. The much more important part is who has the deeper pockets (i.e. the corporation) to go through such a trial in the first place. That's why a C&D letter is usually enough - the guy with less money knows he can't take the fiscal burden, and capitulates.


----------



## Mercutio01

Alzrius said:


> The legal rightness or wrongness of a civil action isn't that relevant when it's a corporation taking action against an individual. The much more important part is who has the deeper pockets (i.e. the corporation) to go through such a trial in the first place. That's why a C&D letter is usually enough - the guy with less money knows he can't take the fiscal burden, and capitulates.




Except it would be a civil case, not a criminal one, and in many cases the loser ends up covering the legal fees for the winner.


----------



## Alzrius

Mercutio01 said:


> Except it would be a civil case, not a criminal one, and in many cases the loser ends up covering the legal fees for the winner.




I know it's a civil case, I called it that in my post.

However, I still don't think your reasoning here has merit. Given how expensive legal fees are, if a corporation files suit against an individual, and said individual goes to trial over it, they'll almost certainly never make it all the way to a verdict - their money will run out long before that. 

If you can't afford a lawyer (or, quite often, team of lawyers) to make it all the way through a case, you've as good as lost. Arguing the merits of a civil case yourself isn't really a practical option, since no matter how right your position was, a practiced lawyer would utterly annihilate you in front of a judge.

Hence why I say that the actual legality of something isn't the most important factor in a civil suit - if WotC wants to stop a site from using anything that they think even remotely resembles their IP, a C&D letter will almost always suffice. No one person that they'd sue has the money to take them to court and actually make it to a verdict.


----------



## jgerman

mxyzplk said:


> I have to say though, since White Wolf came out with its guidelines saying "your characters are derivative IP and we own them" just a couple months ago, I don't have that same safe feeling WotC won't do the same.




Just because they say it, doesn't make it so. 

For that matter just because WotC sends a C&D, doesn't mean they're correct... even if the site gets taken down. Whether or not either of these recent people/sites/whatever were actually infringing on WotC's copyright isn't for WotC or the alleged infringer to decide. It's up to a court. It's certainly not as black and white as people make it out to be despite how often the phrase "it's clear that" gets used by both sides. In both of these cases, it's a non-issue. WotC accused someone of infringing on their copyright and rather than fight both sites gave up (or were forced to by their ISP). 

The legal options to challenge claims of copyright infringement exist, whether they're worth pursuing for the "little guy" and how much bullying big corporations engage in to get their way are another story.


----------



## Dausuul

jgerman said:


> For that matter just because WotC sends a C&D, doesn't mean they're correct... even if the site gets taken down. Whether or not either of these recent people/sites/whatever were actually infringing on WotC's copyright isn't for WotC or the alleged infringer to decide. It's up to a court. It's certainly not as black and white as people make it out to be despite how often the phrase "it's clear that" gets used by both sides.




Ooookay... would you explain how posting big chunks of the Player's Handbook online, in a manner competing directly with WotC's own products, is _not_ blatant copyright infringement?


----------



## Jeff Wilder

(I am a lawyer.  I'm _not_ an IP lawyer.  Please keep that in mind.)

I stopped reading this thread at page 19.  If anybody's covered my points below since, I apologize.

If people are really interested in why it's a bad idea to allow the violation of copyright, beyond the diminishment of the IP's value, look up "estoppel," "waiver, implied," and "adverse possession" in a decent legal dictionary or good legal website.

These are very compelling legal arguments in nearly any context -- the first two especially, though the latter is particularly applicable to property concepts -- and while I can't say for certain that they apply to copyright enforcement, I'd be surprised if arguing for one or all wouldn't make a good case, in the event that WotC knowingly allowed copyright violations.

One other thing I'll mention just as a point of interest:

The thing about copyright law (and other facets of intellectual property law) is that it always lags behind technology.  Up until 15 or 20 years ago, that wasn't a huge deal ... being 10 years behind technology didn't mean much.  But now?  Being 10 years behind technology is immense.  You really never know, in IP litigation, when a judge is going to finally recognize that the gap between "how technology is actually used" and "how IP law assumes technology will be used" is -- relatively speaking -- getting wider and wider, and try to shrink it.

That's not a risk that the holder of a valuable IP is going to relish taking.  (What are the implications of this in practice?  Well, trying to figure out the answer to that is what makes it interesting ... )

Anyway, I agree with the people that say WotC is just making a smart business decision.  I also agree with the people for whom this behavior diminishes WotC in their eyes.  It surprises me how many people -- on both sides -- don't seem to recognize that these aren't mutually exclusive positions.

WotC is not the White Knight it used to be.  Folks can make their purchasing decisions with that in mind.


----------



## Cor Azer

Jeff Wilder said:


> WotC is not the White Knight it used to be.  Folks can make their purchasing decisions with that in mind.




To be fair, I don't think WotC was ever a White Knight. They make make games, and they likely enjoy playing games. But they are a business looking to make money - they purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.

And I agree about the lack of mutual exclusion. I think WotC were smart to call potential infringers on their actions, but it still sucks that it that a more fan/consumer friendly resolution wasn't possible (I do also realize the business and logistical barriers to such actions though).


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Cor Azer said:


> [WotC] purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.



Again, these aren't mutually exclusive.  (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")



Cor Azer said:


> I think WotC were smart to call potential infringers on their actions, but it still sucks that it that a more fan/consumer friendly resolution wasn't possible



Was it tried?


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> Again, these aren't mutually exclusive.  (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")




I can not see it the way you are seeing it. A roleplaying game like D&D means different things to different people. So "saving a game" is not something we can objectively agree upon its meaning here. But they did manage to make money out of it or so it seems.


----------



## jgerman

Dausuul said:


> Ooookay... would you explain how posting big chunks of the Player's Handbook online, in a manner competing directly with WotC's own products, is _not_ blatant copyright infringement?




I didn't make a claim either way. I'm sorry I'm not going to tilt at your strawman. I haven't seen either site nor am I a judge, and neither are you. Nor is anyone else that's taken part in this discussion. 

Copyright infringement issues are not always black and white, particularly when fair use comes into play.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Kzach said:


> Only if the 'new' model worked.
> 
> Did the OGL work for WotC or did it hurt WotC?
> 
> The only reason I can fathom for the about turn in policy is that the whole open movement ultimately didn't work for WotC.
> 
> It reminds me a lot of the Apple clone wars. Apple opened up the hardware side to licensing and it ended up costing Apple far more than it could ever possibly make them. They tried, they failed, and now they're more successful than ever despite closing the platform up again and being utter tight fanny's.




Its not whether the OGL worked or not, that can be debated forever. It is more whether the execs currently in charge think it worked or not. Since the effects of the OGL are so difficult to put hard numbers too personal opinion and personal business philosophy are what will end up carrying the day.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Cor Azer said:


> To be fair, I don't think WotC was ever a White Knight. They make make games, and they likely enjoy playing games. But they are a business looking to make money - they purchased the D&D brand from TSR because they saw value in it, not because they were trying to be heroes to the masses.




Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy. 

Now of course the WotC of today is in no way the same WotC of 10 years ago.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

xechnao said:


> A roleplaying game like D&D means different things to different people. So "saving a game" is not something we can objectively agree upon its meaning here.



We can't objectively agree that WotC saved D&D as a brand?  Really?  I mean, love 3E or hate it, D&D was all but dead when WotC bought TSR, wasn't it?


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> We can't objectively agree that WotC saved D&D as a brand?  Really?  I mean, love 3E or hate it, D&D was all but dead when WotC bought TSR, wasn't it?




I was trying to be clear pointing out that D&D as a roleplaying game is not something that can be valued objectively -as a roleplaying game. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
A brand OTOH is something objectively recognized. But it is not the same thing. A brand is about money, a game is about love and white knights and whatever.


----------



## Cor Azer

Jeff Wilder said:


> Again, these aren't mutually exclusive.  (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")




We're probably arguing semantics here. In my opinion, if you're doing something for any extra reason in addition to altruism, the activity as a whole can't really be considered altruism. It can still be beneficial to others, but it's not altruism/White Knight.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Was it tried?




Point. I should have said "apparently wasn't possible", since it doesn't look like it was attempted.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Cor Azer said:


> We're probably arguing semantics here. In my opinion, if you're doing something for any extra reason in addition to altruism, the activity as a whole can't really be considered altruism. It can still be beneficial to others, but it's not altruism/White Knight.



"White Knight" has a business meaning, too.  Admittedly, I was using it as a hybrid of that meaning and one that fits more comfortably on this board.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Alzrius said:


> I know it's a civil case, I called it that in my post.
> 
> However, I still don't think your reasoning here has merit. Given how expensive legal fees are, if a corporation files suit against an individual, and said individual goes to trial over it, they'll almost certainly never make it all the way to a verdict - their money will run out long before that.
> 
> If you can't afford a lawyer (or, quite often, team of lawyers) to make it all the way through a case, you've as good as lost. Arguing the merits of a civil case yourself isn't really a practical option, since no matter how right your position was, a practiced lawyer would utterly annihilate you in front of a judge.
> 
> Hence why I say that the actual legality of something isn't the most important factor in a civil suit - if WotC wants to stop a site from using anything that they think even remotely resembles their IP, a C&D letter will almost always suffice. No one person that they'd sue has the money to take them to court and actually make it to a verdict.




Almost always is the right phrasing. Sure WotC has deep pockets, but how deep and how much of those deep pockets are they willing to spend and for what. There risk is who they decide to go after. If the person, like myself, believes in what they are doing and has the money to fight back they may just get that fight. If the person they sue has enough cash for a lawyer to begin with, but no deep pockets, and is willing to lose all their money over principle, then WotC could be in trouble. Sure WotC would eventually be able to outspend them, but WotC would end up spending hundreds of thousands and if they win they would end up with nothing. Since America has no debtors prisons, all WotC would have is a judgment against future income that would amount to practicality nothing. Plus, as has been mentioned, there is also the countersuit for legal fees, so if the defendants can find a lawyer who also believes that the defendant is right and is willing to stick around after the initial cash is used up then they might still get paid. Then WotC could be on the hook for even more with absolutely nothing to show for it. 

The C&D letters make for a good scare tactic, but unless WotC is sure they will win then actually suing is something they will actually have to seriously think about. In this particular case WotC would likely win, but if the owner of the site is willing to put up money even knowing they will lose, then it still may not be worth it financially for WotC to press the case. Again, WotC only collects damages if the defendant can pay damages. Remember, WotC is a business and all those lawyers have to be paid, and if paying those lawyers is more expensive than the profits they will make from increased sales of Power Cards then that is not a wise use of their money. People often collect personal injury damages because it is cheaper to pay claimants a few thousand dollars, than it is to spend tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers to fight the case. If it is Trademark, then they have to sue or risk losing their Trademark, but for Copyright only they don't have to sue.


----------



## Cor Azer

Brown Jenkin said:


> Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy.




Again, I'm not saying that Adkinson and WotC didn't love the game, but in my opinion, if they were also in it for money/the brand, it's not being a White Knight.

As people often say about rules changes - had D&D stopped being published with the end of TSR, there wouldn't have been some police force that went out and collected all our books. The WotC crew could still play their games; all of us would still have our 2E campaigns (or whatever other RPGs we were playing).

I don't think the game needed saving.

WotC enjoyed their gaming experiences and had fond memories. They also saw some value in the brand. They had some ideas for how to grow it and rework parts of it to, with luck, make it more fun. This would obviously have the benefit of giving all the D&D fans new books to enjoy, but as publishers, this mainly meant revenue.

I'm not trying to ascribe black hats to WotC in place of this white knight image. I don't think they "stole" D&D or anything. They wanted to help improve the game (and I generally think they've succeeded), but they are a business, and that means they exist to try to make money.

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your goals is to make money (or perhaps, more exactly, to earn profit; this distinguishes those fans who share their own material but derive income from showing ads to support their site), then that is mutually exclusive from altruism. Obviously, your view of altruism may differ.


----------



## Cor Azer

Jeff Wilder said:


> "White Knight" has a business meaning, too.  Admittedly, I was using it as a hybrid of that meaning and one that fits more comfortably on this board.




Really? I did not know that. I was considering it in the colloquial sense. I'll have to go read up about the business/technical definition.

Onward to wikipedia!


----------



## Scribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy.




And then he promtly sold it to one of (if not the) largest toy companies.


just sayin.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scribble said:


> And then he promtly sold it to one of (if not the) largest toy companies.
> 
> 
> just sayin.




And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.


----------



## Scribble

Brown Jenkin said:


> And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.




Sure. 

I just don't think his actions were quite as altruistic as a lot of people seem to claim.


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.




So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?


----------



## billd91

xechnao said:


> So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?




Hard to say. 
I think it's safer to say that the OGL _can be_ in a company's commercial interests _or not_ depending on the company's strategy and how well they can use it to promote their commercial interests. I think it's also safe to say that it's an untraditional RPG publishing model that Hasbro might not have favored or been interested in pursuing as a strategy. I think you could also argue that WotC, once Adkinson was gone, wasn't entirely clear on how to make the most of the OGL either.


----------



## Spatula

Jeff Wilder said:


> Was it tried?



What would a realistic "more fan/consumer friendly resolution" have looked like?  I'm having troubling grasping these complaints, along with the "WotC should have hired these people" statements.

I haven't seen the particular sites that got taken down, but I have seen other power card sites.  They offer:
* a particular design & layout for 4e powers.  WotC already has design/layout people, as far as hiring goes.
* a copy & paste job from the PHB.
* alleged trademark violations. (I haven't seen the site so I don't know how true this is)
* the latest site to be taken down created a sheet that had just the powers you wanted on it.  WotC's character builder app pretty much already does this.

Remove the illegal content and you're left with power card templates, which are already out there on the net for fans/consumers.  And apparently the site owners felt that absent the protected content that was reproduced without permission, they didn't have much to offer the community.


----------



## xechnao

billd91 said:


> Hard to say.
> I think it's safer to say that the OGL _can be_ in a company's commercial interests _or not_ depending on the company's strategy and how well they can use it to promote their commercial interests. I think it's also safe to say that it's an untraditional RPG publishing model that Hasbro might not have favored or been interested in pursuing as a strategy. I think you could also argue that WotC, once Adkinson was gone, wasn't entirely clear on how to make the most of the OGL either.




I was not asking about the OGL. I was asking about Adkinson's intentions regarding the OGL.

Now my take on the OGL is that it is a "mode" that can be sound to use depending on the conditions of the market. Wotc used it to grow the market. When the market grew up to a certain point it could grow no more or started collapsing on itself Wotc retires the OGL so to take control of that market. Taking control while you are on the OGL mode is harder.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

xechnao said:


> So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?




No. Ryan Dancy said both that the OGL would raise the tide and float all boats, and that the OGL would protect the game forever against changes that people didn't like. The OGL did increase the pie for everyone, but Hasbro has decided to make drastic changes and has a different opinion of open source. Because of the OGL however 3.x will forever be available to those that prefer it. The OGL achieved both of its goals.


----------



## VictorC

This is clearly not a gray area. Two peoples' web sites got the boot for breaking the law. Wizards is not obligated to let it go or offer jobs to either of the offenders. 

To suggest otherwise is crazy, or (and more likely) people just wanting something to bitch about. Really grow up.


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> No. Ryan Dancy said both that the OGL would raise the tide and float all boats, and that the OGL would protect the game forever against changes that people didn't like. The OGL did increase the pie for everyone, but Hasbro has decided to make drastic changes and has a different opinion of open source. Because of the OGL however 3.x will forever be available to those that prefer it. The OGL achieved both of its goals.




I do not believe that Hasbro has a different opinion of open source (see my post above). Regarding the "protection" of 3e you are talking about then yes this is something that the OGL has achieved. But I do not believe this is so important in the long run. It helped Paizo though versus 4e. Wotc pays some price here but perhaps it is worth it for how the OGL helped it first place.


----------



## Alzrius

VictorC said:


> This is clearly not a gray area. Two peoples' web sites got the boot for breaking the law. Wizards is not obligated to let it go or offer jobs to either of the offenders.
> 
> To suggest otherwise is crazy, or (and more likely) people just wanting something to bitch about. Really grow up.




Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar. They're not obligated to let it go or offer you a job. To suggest otherwise is crazy.


----------



## VictorC

Alzrius said:


> Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar. They're not obligated to let it go or offer you a job. To suggest otherwise is crazy.





True Story, and if I was sent a letter telling me to stop using it. The last thing I would do is throw a completely irrational fit and say that because I'm a fan who buys their products I'm entitled to use their IP how I see fit. 

However, seeing as how I don't have a web site offering Victor's bitchin' Tanis face, I don't think it's the same thing. Do you, really?


----------



## Fifth Element

Alzrius said:


> Another area that isn't gray is that you're breaking the law by reusing WotC's artwork as your avatar.



Actually, that might be grey. Such a small amount of artwork used may fall under fair use, after all.


----------



## DaveMage

Fifth Element said:


> Actually, that might be grey. Such a small amount of artwork used may fall under fair use, after all.





Oh?  Where's the line?


----------



## El Mahdi

DaveMage said:


> Oh? Where's the line?




That would be up to a Judge to ... umm ... judge.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Brown Jenkin said:


> Ryan Dancy said [ . . . blah blah blah . . . ], but Hasbro has decided [ . . . blah blah blah . . . .]




I love how, whenever anything comes out of WotC that people like, specific individuals are cited. But if it's something people disagree with, the corporate boogeyman is the cause.

Ryan Dancey set up the OGL and d20L not as some maverick loose cannon, but as a manager working at a large corporation. Later, other individuals (myself included) worked on the OGL's future incarnations _at the same large corporation_.

No boogeyman. Just people.


----------



## Scribble

CharlesRyan said:


> Ryan Dancey set up the OGL and d20L not as some maverick loose cannon, but as a manager working at a large corporation.




Great. Thanks a lot. Now I can't get an image of Ryan Dancy (with a Mullet) being screamed at by a cigar smoking, way too stressed, on the verge of a heart attack, Peter Adkison over a paper strewn desk 80s action movie style out of my head.

"You're a loose cannon Dancy! A LOOSE CANNON! I got gamers screamin down my neck for this new drug cartel expansion pack, and you bring me THIS?!?! Now you get out there and design me that expansiopn pack and I don't wanna hear another word about this cocamamy OGL scheme! OR NEXT TIME I"LL HAVE YOUR PEN!!! YOU HEAR ME?!?!"


----------



## Krensky

Scribble said:


> Great. Thanks a lot. Now I can't get an image of Ryan Dancy (with a Mullet) being screamed at by a cigar smoking, way too stressed, on the verge of a heart attack, Peter Adkison over a paper strewn desk 80s action movie style out of my head.
> 
> "You're a loose cannon Dancy! A LOOSE CANNON! I got gamers screamin down my neck for this new drug cartel expansion pack, and you bring me THIS?!?! Now you get out there and design me that expansiopn pack and I don't wanna hear another word about this cocamamy OGL scheme! OR NEXT TIME I"LL HAVE YOUR PEN!!! YOU HEAR ME?!?!"




Damn you sir for putting that scene in my head.


----------



## jmucchiello

xechnao said:


> So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?



You ask that as if the OGL could not both be to the benefit of D&D players and the D&D brand owner.

In fact, asking that implies you believe he was capable of harming the commercial value of the D&D brand while working for the publicly traded company owning that brand. That's a harsh accusation to make against a business executive.


----------



## xechnao

jmucchiello said:


> You ask that as if the OGL could not both be to the benefit of D&D players and the D&D brand owner.
> 
> In fact, asking that implies you believe he was capable of harming the commercial value of the D&D brand while working for the publicly traded company owning that brand. That's a harsh accusation to make against a business executive.




There are many different lines in this and to try to analyze we will be reopening a can of warms. 

Lets say I asked what I asked as to try to contrast the other poster's point. Perhaps it was not diplomatic in the way you put it here but I think you have read too much into it.

Having said that business executives are capable for various things and this is apparent especially today. And it is not that I feel any shame against them believing this. But I am certainly not referring here to the matter in question.


----------



## SteveC

CharlesRyan said:


> I love how, whenever anything comes out of WotC that people like, specific individuals are cited. But if it's something people disagree with, the corporate boogeyman is the cause.
> 
> Ryan Dancey set up the OGL and d20L not as some maverick loose cannon, but as a manager working at a large corporation. Later, other individuals (myself included) worked on the OGL's future incarnations _at the same large corporation_.
> 
> No boogeyman. Just people.



Charles...I think what you see with this is that when there are positive developments to announce, people take credit for them in a public manner. Ryan was very proud of the development of the OGL, and let the world know about it. In the case discussed in this thread, no one has (or likely will for a whole host of reasons) come forward and say "this was my decision, I'm taking responsibility for it."

It is not a particularly good secret that the OGL fell out of favor during the Hasbro years, and the result of that is it wasn't carried over into the new edition. Once again, we don't have a person to step up and say "I'm responsible for the GSL instead of continuing the OGL for the new Edition: it was my decision." My assumption is that is because the decision was not made by anyone who ever reads ENWorld, nor, frankly, even plays RPGs. Now I said assumption, so that's assuming, with all that it implies. If someone would like to step forward and claim credit for the change, I'd be happy to credit them directly, but I don't expect that will happen.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, and I do understand what you mean, but I think it's just a victim of the corporate culture.

--Steve


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Well said SteveC


----------



## Fifth Element

DaveMage said:


> Oh? Where's the line?



I thought my use of "might" and "may" made it clear that I don't know where the "line" is, if indeed there is one. I was simply responding to the positive assertion that the avatar defnitely violates copyright.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Steve, thanks for the cogent, rational response. That said, I disagree. Scott Rouse has discussed the GSL many times, and made it very clear that he's the one responsible for it, at least at the implementation level. Given no preconceptions, it seems that the default assumption should be that Scott is responsible. I posit that since many people are suspicious of the GSL, they fall back on preconceptions that it was mandated to Scott by some mythical cadre of "suits."

[A side note: For all I know, maybe it was--I have no inside information on this issue. But that wasn't my experience of how things happened back in my days at WotC.]

You kind of show your own preconceptions here:



SteveC said:


> It is not a particularly good secret that the OGL fell out of favor during the Hasbro years . . .




I was the custodian of the OGL over the middle of 3rd edition's lifecycle, and I contest this statement. Certainly, opinions varied among individuals within the organization, as they will among individuals everywhere (especially gamers!). And, after five or six years' experience with it, the benefit of hindsight gave us many ideas about how we might have implemented it differently. But "fell out of favour" is far too categorical to be accurate, at least up through my tenure.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

CharlesRyan said:


> I was the custodian of the OGL over the middle of 3rd edition's lifecycle, and I contest this statement. Certainly, opinions varied among individuals within the organization, as they will among individuals everywhere (especially gamers!). And, after five or six years' experience with it, the benefit of hindsight gave us many ideas about how we might have implemented it differently. But "fell out of favour" is far too categorical to be accurate, at least up through my tenure.




This sounds to me like it fell out of favor. You say during your time opinions about it varied. You also say that with hindsight how you (plural) might have implemented it differently. It sounds like those with negative opinions eventually won the battle and that the GSL is the result of making the GSL with those changes that some thought were the problems with the OGL. Definitely sounds like the OGL that we had fell out of favor and the GSL is the what the end result is.


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> This sounds to me like it fell out of favor. You say during your time opinions about it varied. You also say that with hindsight how you (plural) might have implemented it differently. It sounds like those with negative opinions eventually won the battle and that the GSL is the result of making the GSL with those changes that some thought were the problems with the OGL. Definitely sounds like the OGL that we had fell out of favor and the GSL is the what the end result is.




I still fail to see your POV. The market conditions and possibilities are not static. It is a living thing or relationship: things can change as they change in real life. What Wotc has done in each instance could have worked to its advantage. At one instance this was the OGL at another instance its evolution to the GSL.


----------



## tomBitonti

CharlesRyan said:


> Steve, thanks for the cogent, rational response. That said, I disagree. Scott Rouse has discussed the GSL many times, and made it very clear that he's the one responsible for it, at least at the implementation level. Given no preconceptions, it seems that the default assumption should be that Scott is responsible. I posit that since many people are suspicious of the GSL, they fall back on preconceptions that it was mandated to Scott by some mythical cadre of "suits."
> 
> ...
> 
> I was the custodian of the OGL over the middle of 3rd edition's lifecycle, and I contest this statement. Certainly, opinions varied among individuals within the organization, as they will among individuals everywhere (especially gamers!). And, after five or six years' experience with it, the benefit of hindsight gave us many ideas about how we might have implemented it differently. But "fell out of favour" is far too categorical to be accurate, at least up through my tenure.




I _think_ that whether the GSL was mandated to Scott is the key question, and in a corporation, a "cadre of suits" is not entirely mythical.  Lawyers and managers abound.  That phrase "mythical cadre of suits" seems to sidestep the key argument with a dismissive turn of phrase.

Also, I imagine that a part of the reasoning for the idea that the OGL fell out of favor was that it was never pursued (very much) beyond the initial implementation.  Here I'm taking "falling out of favor" is "not being assigned sufficient resources to keep it lively".  Although, from that point of view, I would rather say "never achieved traction".

One should also be careful about saying "implemented it differently" (since there are lots of software folks on this board), and consider that you might mean "set different requirements" (perhaps expressed as outcomes: what is the license intended to achieve?).  That will most likely lead to a different implementation, but the phrase "implemented it differently" doesn't convey the same meaning.

I am presuming that when you say "implement it [the OGL] better" (text in brackets added by me), that you are being loose and meaning "implement [a D&D license] better", since the tie between the OGL and the GSL seems mostly to be the "license" part.  My presumption is that few view the GSL as a reimplementation of the OGL, but rather, a whole new license.

Thx all for the discussion,

TomB


----------



## DaveMage

Fifth Element said:


> I thought my use of "might" and "may" made it clear that I don't know where the "line" is, if indeed there is one. I was simply responding to the positive assertion that the avatar defnitely violates copyright.




Ah.  I had hoped you had some relevant information that might clarify the law - didn't realize you were simply offering an opinion.


----------



## Nikosandros

Jeff Wilder said:


> We can't objectively agree that WotC saved D&D as a brand?  Really?  I mean, love 3E or hate it, D&D was all but dead when WotC bought TSR, wasn't it?



I'm not so sure...

I mean, TSR was in dire financial straits when it was bought by WotC. But I think that D&D was still doing well enough, even though I'm far from certain about it. There were certainly a lot of other factors involved in the demise of TSR, like the commercial failure of Dragon Dice and various and sundry management mistakes.


----------



## Dire Bare

DM Magic said:


> Though it took several days, I made it to the end! I read every post and laughed more than I thought I would. I feel like just climbed a mountain... or swam from Alcatraz to the mainland.
> 
> Anyhoo, I should give an opinion or something... otherwise, what was this for?
> 
> Let's just say I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat and have no problem with how Wizards of the Coast handled the situation. I mean, after all -- no babies were eaten during the delivery of the Cease and Desist, so thumbs up for that, right?




You deserve XP for all of your hard work!   _*Edit: Except I can't quite figure out how to do it . . . is the XP feature still working?_

However, you should be aware that tinfoil hats are quite in vogue on the internets, and I have it on good authority that after WotC sends you a C&D, they do in fact celebrate afterwards at a local orphanage chowing down on innocent babies!!!!  Evil bastards!


----------



## Scribble

DM Magic said:


> I mean, after all -- no babies were eaten during the delivery of the Cease and Desist, so thumbs up for that, right?




All that poves is Wizards is not in fact a Dingo!


----------



## Dire Bare

Nikosandros said:


> I'm not so sure...
> 
> I mean, TSR was in dire financial straits when it was bought by WotC. But I think that D&D was still doing well enough, even though I'm far from certain about it. There were certainly a lot of other factors involved in the demise of TSR, like the commercial failure of Dragon Dice and various and sundry management mistakes.




It has been a long time, but I'm 98% positive that D&D was no longer being published when WotC bought TSR, for a period of at least several months if not longer.  No official, "We're dropping D&D" announcement, but no new books, no new magazines, no nothing for months.  Was it D&D's "fault" TSR went under as opposed to other factors?  D&D was TSR's flagship product.  It kept TSR alive on life support long after they should have gone under due to the terrible mismanagement of the company.

If WotC hadn't stepped up, would someone else have?  Perhaps.  We'll never know for sure, but I can't think of a gaming company at the time who had deep enough pockets to do so (or even now, for that matter).

I can say with 100% confidence that WotC did indeed save the D&D brand.  And if you liked 3rd Edition, then it saved the game too!!


----------



## Dire Bare

Brown Jenkin said:


> This sounds to me like it fell out of favor. You say during your time opinions about it varied. You also say that with hindsight how you (plural) might have implemented it differently. It sounds like those with negative opinions eventually won the battle and that the GSL is the result of making the GSL with those changes that some thought were the problems with the OGL. Definitely sounds like the OGL that we had fell out of favor and the GSL is the what the end result is.




You seem to equate "doing things differently" with "being out of favor".  Doubt I'll change your mind with a strange understanding like that, but Charles is quite clearly saying that the overall consensus during his tenure was that OGL/d20 = good, but let's do things somewhat differently when we get the chance.

Saying the OGL was "out of favor" based on Charles posts is just as ridiculous as claiming that 3rd Edition was "out of favor" (which, of course, some angry fans have claimed).  It's clear (to me at least) that currently, the overall consensus at WotC is that OGL/d20 = good and D&D 3e = good, but that given the chance they wanted to do some things differently, so GSL = better and D&D 4e = better.  Not even remotely "out of favor" or anything of the sort!


----------



## Dire Bare

Scribble said:


> All that poves is Wizards is not in fact a Dingo!




Sigh.  Not all dingoes eat babies.  You should know that!  Don't tar the entire species with your poorly researched ideas based on rumor and myth!

Brian, Dingo Advocate.


----------



## Nikosandros

Dire Bare said:


> It has been a long time, but I'm 98% positive that D&D was no longer being published when WotC bought TSR, for a period of at least several months if not longer.  No official, "We're dropping D&D" announcement, but no new books, no new magazines, no nothing for months.  Was it D&D's "fault" TSR went under as opposed to other factors?  D&D was TSR's flagship product.  It kept TSR alive on life support long after they should have gone under due to the terrible mismanagement of the company.




That's basically my point. TSR was in such a poor shape at the end, thatit was even unable to keep printing D&D. But it wasn't like they stopped printing D&D, because they were unable to sell it. It was because they didn't have the money to pay the printer.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Dire Bare said:


> You seem to equate "doing things differently" with "being out of favor".  Doubt I'll change your mind with a strange understanding like that, but Charles is quite clearly saying that the overall consensus during his tenure was that OGL/d20 = good, but let's do things somewhat differently when we get the chance.
> 
> Saying the OGL was "out of favor" based on Charles posts is just as ridiculous as claiming that 3rd Edition was "out of favor" (which, of course, some angry fans have claimed).  It's clear (to me at least) that currently, the overall consensus at WotC is that OGL/d20 = good and D&D 3e = good, but that given the chance they wanted to do some things differently, so GSL = better and D&D 4e = better.  Not even remotely "out of favor" or anything of the sort!




Not from my personal interpretation of the marketing of 4E. 3E=Bad was what it sounded like to me. The GSL is not doing things better, it is doing things so radicly different that the GSL =/= OGL in any way. But then people differ.


----------



## El Mahdi

tomBitonti said:


> I _think_ that whether the GSL was mandated to Scott is the key question, and in a corporation, a "cadre of suits" is not entirely mythical. Lawyers and managers abound. *That phrase "mythical cadre of suits" seems to sidestep the key argument with a dismissive turn of phrase.*




Yep. It's called _"Spin"_. I was beginning to think I was being overly harsh about something of which it seemed I was the only one seeing it (and therefore doubting myself as to whether it really existed). But apparently I wasn't just shooting at shadows. Won't doubt myself about this again. 

So, of this I'm now sure:

I'm beginning to see a consistent trend of this _"Spin"_ from certain sources.




Also, for clarification purpose:

_In Favor_ means that which is preferred or approved of - as in a GSL would be a preferred course.

_Out of Favor_ means that which is no longer preferred or not approved of - as in the OGL is good, but no longer our preferred course.


So, without the _"Spin"_, and as per the definition of the phrase - the OGL fell out of favor.


(If you don't believe me, look it up ourselves.)


----------



## wedgeski

El Mahdi said:


> _In Favor_ means that which is preferred or approved of - as in a GSL would be a preferred course.
> 
> _Out of Favor_ means that which is no longer preferred or not approved of - as in the OGL is good, but no longer our preferred course.



Oh good _grief_.


----------



## CharlesRyan

tomBitonti said:


> In a corporation, a "cadre of suits" is not entirely mythical.  Lawyers and managers abound.  That phrase "mythical cadre of suits" seems to sidestep the key argument with a dismissive turn of phrase.




I think you're making my point for me, but from the other side. It's the people who assume a "cadre of suits" are mandating the decisions of the hardworking custodians of D&D (Brand and R&D) which is dismissive. Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.

Let me further illustrate my point by talking about the WotC legal department. When I was at WotC, my 2-year-old daughter was best friends with the WotC legal department's 2-year-old daughter. My family and I went to the Woodland Park Zoo with the WotC legal department on Saturdays. I still consider the WotC legal department a personal friend and look forward to a chat on the rare occasions I'm back in Seattle.

So even when you look beyond the individuals you know, who deserve both the credit and the occasional blame that goes with their non-minion status, the "cadre of suits" is still a boogeyman. Yes, there are stakeholders at WotC, as in any organization, beyond the immediate decision-makers, and yes, some of those are lawyers and managers. But they're still individuals who love what WotC does and are only trying to contribute. Amalgamating them into some vague corporate evil doesn't really advance any conversation here on ENWorld, and simply isn't accurate.

Look, I'm not saying that I know who was responsible for the direction of the GSL, or any other decision made at WotC in the past three years. (In fact, let me specifically say the opposite: I don't!) What I am saying is that segregating WotC's decisions into those made by "real" people and those made my a vague cloud of "corporatrons" shifts any conversation out of the realm of substantive discussion and into the world of fiction. And if you base your opinions on a belief in this mythical cadre, your opinions just aren't reflective of reality.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Brown Jenkin said:


> You say during your time opinions about it varied. You also say that with hindsight how you (plural) might have implemented it differently.




But opinions varied since day 1.

And what major, groundbreaking initiative has ever been perfectly implemented the first time? There's virtually nothing I've ever done in my entire life, no matter how successful, that I can't look back on with the benefit of hindsight and say "if I ever do that again, I'll make a few changes." Why would the OGL be different?

Clearly, with the GSL, WotC has taken the open D&D license in a somewhat different direction. But, as xechnao cogently pointed out, it's a different time, a different edition, and a different context. No matter how happy one might be with the OGL, it might not be the right licensing model for the times for a variety of reasons (many of which might be entirely invisible to us, the outside observers).

My point is just that "fell out of favour in the Hasbro era" is simply too strong a statement to be accurate, no matter how "true" it might have become on the internet. If you think you're in a better position than me to know, then you're wrong.

(I'll also point out that the OGL was created and implemented in the "Hasbro era." I think this ties into my other point that many people have a kneejerk associate of negatives with corporate meddling.)


----------



## CharlesRyan

El Mahdi said:


> Yep. It's called _"Spin"_.




Talk about sidestepping with a dismissive turn of phrase!


----------



## Jeff Wilder

CharlesRyan said:


> Clearly, with the GSL, WotC has taken the open D&D license in a somewhat different direction.



Seriously, Charles?  You're really going with that?


Jeff


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Jeff Wilder said:


> Seriously, Charles?  You're really going with that?




180 degrees is somewhat different.


----------



## Plane Sailing

CharlesRyan said:


> Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.




And let me just say, those people deserve _way_ more than 1hp each


----------



## CharlesRyan

Jeff Wilder said:


> Seriously, Charles?  You're really going with that?






Wulf Ratbane said:


> 180 degrees is somewhat different.




I would say a 180-degree change would be to not issue _any_ open license, to actively fight anyone attempting to make D&D-compatible products, and perhaps even return to the sort of fan-hostile stance of TSR.

None of us have seen the final GSL, so I for one am not prepared to definitively characterize it. Certainly not with hyperbole. So, yes, I'm comfortable with "Clearly . . . a somewhat different direction."


----------



## Brown Jenkin

CharlesRyan said:


> I would say a 180-degree change would be to not issue _any_ open license, to actively fight anyone attempting to make D&D-compatible products, and perhaps even return to the sort of fan-hostile stance of TSR.
> 
> None of us have seen the final GSL, so I for one am not prepared to definitively characterize it. Certainly not with hyperbole. So, yes, I'm comfortable with "Clearly . . . a somewhat different direction."




There is a final GSL out there. It is official. Scott keeps saying they are revising it but no such revision has been released, therefore we have a GSL that is the way it is right now. If you want to say it isn't final, then it never will be because like the OGL and the d20STL they are still able to be changed. 

My question now would be, which license do you prefer currently, the OGL or the GSL (as they both currently stand). I am not asking for your take on what is in WotC best interests or why they chose what they chose, just which license do you personally prefer.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

CharlesRyan said:


> So, yes, I'm comfortable with "Clearly . . . a somewhat different direction."



Okay.  I guess I'm somewhat bemused, then.


Jeff


----------



## Scott_Rouse

You guys should fork this conversation this is no longer about the OPs subject.

You'll have a lot more GSL stuff to talk about very soon.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Scott_Rouse said:


> You guys should fork this conversation this is no longer about the OPs subject.



No need for a fork; it's done.


Jeff


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scott_Rouse said:


> You guys should fork this conversation this is no longer about the OPs subject.




It does relate because it is about WotC's change in direction from the 3E OGL days back to seeming TSR days of C&Ds. The change in direction seems noticeable. By the way any desire to name who in particular is responsible for the GSL like Ryan Dancey took credit for the OGL. That way we can stop talking about nameless suits and instead focus on whoever is responsible for writing the GSL like Charles Ryan would prefer.  From what you have said previously, you can make suggestions about changes, but you do not have the authority to actually approve changes.



Scott_Rouse said:


> You'll have a lot more GSL stuff to talk about very soon.




Wolf! Wolf! I'm sorry but the GSL revision has been 1-2 days away since Gen Con. Claims of soon are ringing hollow.


----------



## xechnao

Brown Jenkin said:


> My question now would be, which license do you prefer currently, the OGL or the GSL (as they both currently stand). I am not asking for your take on what is in WotC best interests or why they chose what they chose, just which license do you personally prefer.




You are asking Ryan here but I can still offer my opinion. My answer to your question would be that it depends on what effect it would have to the whole market. As it is I prefer the GSL than the OGL because the OGL drove the rpg market away from I wanted it to be -I wanted more innovative games and ideas to choose from -the fact that brand power restricted the development of game systems and mechanics has left me with a bitter taste. 

Having said that let me hypothesize. If I wanted to make money out of the D&D brand -as a licensee- I would prefer the best deal that could help me achieve such a thing -if there were the viable conditions for myself as a 3pp to make money out of the D&D brand as it stands the moment of the deal. If I wanted to support the game I like I would support as a fan I am the game I like. If I wanted to make money doing this I would see how such a thing could be achieved -at its origins Rolemaster was an effort of sorts, but I could be wrong here as memory does not help-nevertheless you can see my point. If I wanted Wotc to make the best out of its brand I would prefer the license that Wotc knows that is the best for its current situation -certainly they would have more clues about it than I do.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Scott_Rouse said:


> You'll have a lot more GSL stuff to talk about very soon.




I will be very surprised if there is anything in the NG version of the GSL that surprises me enough to talk about it.


----------



## catsclaw227

Brown Jenkin said:


> It does relate because it is about WotC's change in direction from the 3E OGL days back to seeming TSR days of C&Ds. The change in direction seems noticeable. By the way any desire to name who in particular is responsible for the GSL like Ryan Dancey took credit for the OGL. That way we can stop talking about nameless suits and instead focus on whoever is responsible for writing the GSL like Charles Ryan would prefer.  From what you have said previously, you can make suggestions about changes, but you do not have the authority to actually approve changes.



I am curious why we should find "someone to blame" as if the decision to move from OGL to GSL was some kind of terrorist attack where we need to know who was responsible.  

It was a corporate business decision, probably made in a room by,  you know, real people trying to find a happy medium between the OGL and no open license.  There might have been gamers and "suits" (who are people, too, you know) all trying to find out what would be good for the company and still allow 3PP to make products.  I don't envy that group of people their task...

For whatever reason, the OGL was deemed not beneficial to WOTC.  It's possible that you can blame Fast Forward Entertainment for that.... ugh... not a single decent book out of their whole library...  

"ewwww, I got FFE on my OGL."  

Bad medicine...


----------



## DaveMage

catsclaw227 said:


> For whatever reason, the OGL was deemed not beneficial to WOTC.  It's possible that you can blame Fast Forward Entertainment for that.... ugh... not a single decent book out of their whole library...
> 
> "ewwww, I got FFE on my OGL."
> 
> Bad medicine...




LOL!

Actually, I think they had two that were fairly well received: Orcfest (an introductory module for beginners) and Dangerous Creatures (a monster manual that was written, IIRC, by freelancers such as Bret Boyd).   But 2 out of 40 or so is not exactly a high batting average. 

(Edit - the name of the FF monster book is "Deadliest Creatures Tome".)


----------



## Brown Jenkin

catsclaw227 said:


> I am curious why we should find "someone to blame" as if the decision to move from OGL to GSL was some kind of terrorist attack where we need to know who was responsible.
> 
> It was a corporate business decision, probably made in a room by,  you know, real people trying to find a happy medium between the OGL and no open license.  There might have been gamers and "suits" (who are people, too, you know) all trying to find out what would be good for the company and still allow 3PP to make products.  I don't envy that group of people their task...
> 
> For whatever reason, the OGL was deemed not beneficial to WOTC.  It's possible that you can blame Fast Forward Entertainment for that.... ugh... not a single decent book out of their whole library...
> 
> "ewwww, I got FFE on my OGL."
> 
> Bad medicine...




If you read my post I did not assign the knowledge as blame. I asked Scott who was responsible for the GSL, like Ryan was for the OGL. I asked because Charles Ryan wanted us to stop talking about nameless suits. The point I was getting at, in addition to actually wanting to know the info, was to give WotC the opportunity to name someone in charge of the GSL so that we can stop referring to nameless suits as Charles wants. Unless WotC answers this then we have no other option but to continue to refer to the GSL as being the creation of nameless suits. If WotC believes the GSL is as great as they say and even better than the OGL surely someone is willing to take credit like Ryan Dancey did for the OGL.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Brown Jenkin said:


> If you read my post I did not assign the knowledge as blame. I asked Scott who was responsible for the GSL, like Ryan was for the OGL. I asked because Charles Ryan wanted us to stop talking about nameless suits. The point I was getting at, in addition to actually wanting to know the info, was to give WotC the opportunity to name someone in charge of the GSL so that we can stop referring to nameless suits as Charles wants. Unless WotC answers this then we have no other option but to continue to refer to the GSL as being the creation of nameless suits. If WotC believes the GSL is as great as they say and even better than the OGL surely someone is willing to take credit like Ryan Dancey did for the OGL.





Assign responsibility to me.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Thank you Scott.


----------



## Scribble

Scott- I don't know if you've answered this before, but are you able to give us any background on the how/whys of the GSL?

What went into brainstorming the GSL? (What were the reasons behind it?)

What caused you to determine the OGL was no longer viable in the end? 

Was the option to still release the game under OGL, but with a stronger STL document (like maybe tying the IP stuff to the STL but leaving the mechanics OGL) an option at all?


----------



## Ourph

Scribble said:


> What caused you to determine the OGL was no longer viable in the end?




I'm not Scott, but I believe Linae gave a fairly succinct answer to this here on ENWorld a few months before she was let go.  She said (paraphrasing) "We want people to support the new game".

If WotC had simply continued to use the OGL, they couldn't have encouraged publishers in that direction as strongly as they can with a new license.


----------



## Dire Bare

Scott_Rouse said:


> Assign responsibility to me.






DM Magic said:


> Morrus would make a killing by selling pitchforks and torches on this site.




I wonder if Scott's compensation includes hazard pay!!!  I can picture The Rouse suiting up in his _protection suit +5 vs flame and hyperbole_ before visting ENWorld!!


----------



## catsclaw227

Brown Jenkin said:


> If you read my post I did not assign the knowledge as blame. I asked Scott who was responsible for the GSL, like Ryan was for the OGL. I asked because Charles Ryan wanted us to stop talking about nameless suits. The point I was getting at, in addition to actually wanting to know the info, was to give WotC the opportunity to name someone in charge of the GSL so that we can stop referring to nameless suits as Charles wants. Unless WotC answers this then we have no other option but to continue to refer to the GSL as being the creation of nameless suits. If WotC believes the GSL is as great as they say and even better than the OGL surely someone is willing to take credit like Ryan Dancey did for the OGL.



Fair enough, though I disagree that finding out who the specific individual responsible has value.  In my previous post, I may have been projecting my concern for the resulting nerd-rage fueled witch hunt that may occur if we named names.

I prefer to just say it was WOTC that made the change and leave it at that.  Not because it's safer to blame an entity and not single out an individual (that may or may not be a fellow gamer and member of our community),  but more because decisions like this usually come after much disagreement and haggling and conference room arguments.  And the final decision has an unknown hidden backstory, much like the ocean exposes only the tip of an iceberg.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Dire Bare said:


> I wonder if Scott's compensation includes hazard pay!!!  I can picture The Rouse suiting up in his _protection suit +5 vs flame and hyperbole_ before visting ENWorld!!





Don't need it when there is an ignore function


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Scribble said:


> Scott- I don't know if you've answered this before, but are you able to give us any background on the how/whys of the GSL?
> 
> What went into brainstorming the GSL? (What were the reasons behind it?)
> 
> What caused you to determine the OGL was no longer viable in the end?
> 
> Was the option to still release the game under OGL, but with a stronger STL document (like maybe tying the IP stuff to the STL but leaving the mechanics OGL) an option at all?




I'll put these answers in my memoirs but for now I am not gonna talk about it


----------



## Jack99

Scott_Rouse said:


> Don't need it when there is an ignore function


----------



## Scribble

Scott_Rouse said:


> I'll put these answers in my memoirs but for now I am not gonna talk about it




right on. I was just curious.

Dude, your memoirs should totally have a picture of you in that crazy emroidered shirt on the back of the dust jacket.

Also a refference to part 2 comming soon...


----------



## El Mahdi

Dire Bare said:


> I wonder if Scott's compensation includes hazard pay!!! I can picture The Rouse suiting up in his _protection suit +5 vs flame and hyperbole_ before visting ENWorld!!




I know there's a tradition for the White House Press Secretaries of passing on a "Flak Jacket" to eachother.

Maybe Scott should start the same thing for D&D Senior Brand Managers?


----------



## Primal

Dire Bare said:


> I wonder if Scott's compensation includes hazard pay!!!  I can picture The Rouse suiting up in his _protection suit +5 vs flame and hyperbole_ before visting ENWorld!!




No, no, he has his dreaded army of clones that are effectively well-disguised Shield Guardians... And staying in his underground lab and creating even *more* of them is the primary reason why GSL is delayed (I *think* I saw someone say that Mordain Fleshwarper is actually modeled after Scott).


----------



## CharlesRyan

catsclaw227 said:


> It was a corporate business decision, probably made in a room by,  you know, real people trying to find a happy medium between the OGL and no open license.  There might have been gamers and "suits" (who are people, too, you know) all trying to find out what would be good for the company and still allow 3PP to make products.




Bingo!


----------



## CharlesRyan

Brown Jenkin said:


> I asked because Charles Ryan wanted us to stop talking about nameless suits.




Well, to be honest, my agenda is a lot broader.

I abhor cynicism. Especially groundless cynicism. Especially especially groundless cynicism that is presented as authoritative fact by people who _have no actual insight_ into the matter at hand. Especially especially especially "authoritative fact" that becomes "accepted truth" on the internet, even by people who aren't particularly cynical by nature.

Whenever the old "WotC would have done [the thing I like], but the lawyers/Hasbroids/coporate suits wouldn't let them" routine is trotted out, it pushes all of my buttons. It tells me you're basing some or all of your opinion on a cynical, Dilbertian preconception of how things work in business.

See my earlier comments on the WotC legal department, and catsclaw227's cynicism-free supposition about how the GSL might have come about. As someone who's been there, I can tell you that whenever you invoke the mythical "suits" in your post, you might as well type "I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT" in 24-point type at the top of your post.

So rather than wanting you to stop talking about "nameless suits," per se, what I'd _really_ like is for everyone to step away from the preconception based on Dilbert cartoons, and instead approach the conversation from the perspective that decisions are made by reasoning people attempting to balance a number of legitimate factors.


----------



## Sammael

You must really hate Scott Adams, then...


----------



## CharlesRyan

I love Dilbert. I also love Get Fuzzy, but it doesn't inform my views on the behaviour of my cat and dog.


----------



## wedgeski

Scott_Rouse said:


> I'll put these answers in my memoirs but for now I am not gonna talk about it



They should be called simply, "Being Rouse".

Can I pre-order the first signed copy please.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

CharlesRyan said:


> I abhor cynicism.



I think you're misreading people's underlying mindset on this pretty spectacularly, Charles.

People aren't blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because they're cynical.  People are doing it because _they_ don't _want to blame the WotC employees they know and like_ from EN World.  I guess that's not the opposite of cynical, but it's sure not "somewhat" the same.

(They're also blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because nobody else will admit who's to blame.  It's all well and good for Scott Rouse to say, "The responsibility is mine," but when everybody who's been following the GSL saga has also heard him say he's passed it up the ladder and it's "waiting on Legal" and so on, "The responsibility is mine" doesn't ring quite authentic.  And regardless, "responsibility" and "blame" aren't synonymous.)


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> People aren't blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because they're cynical.  People are doing it because _they_ don't _want to blame the WotC employees they know and like_ from EN World.  I guess that's not the opposite of cynical, but it's sure not "somewhat" the same.




They are all Wotc employees in a certain sense. All of them are supposed to work for the good and benefit of Wotc. Unless you mean that "the suits" may possibly want to "tank" Wotc for some reason I cant see where your point is.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

xechnao said:


> They are all Wotc employees in a certain sense. All of them are supposed to work for the good and benefit of Wotc. Unless you mean that the suits may possibly want to "tank" Wotc for some reason I cant see where your point is.



You've overlooked what we writers call a "restrictive clause."


----------



## CharlesRyan

Jeff Wilder said:


> I think you're misreading people's underlying mindset on this pretty spectacularly, Charles.
> 
> People aren't blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because they're cynical.  People are doing it because _they_ don't _want to blame the WotC employees they know and like_ from EN World.  I guess that's not the opposite of cynical, but it's sure not "somewhat" the same.




Jeff, you may be right, but I'll counter with a couple of my perceptions:


First, the suits are almost always invoked in a context of bitterness.
Second, it may seem charitable to deflect blame, but as I've posted already, doing so can seem tantamount to saying the _individuals_ have no actual power or responsibility. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I was in the Big Chair, I found that subtext a bit insulting.



> (They're also blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because nobody else will admit who's to blame.  It's all well and good for Scott Rouse to say, "The responsibility is mine," but when everybody who's been following the GSL saga has also heard him say he's passed it up the ladder and it's "waiting on Legal" and so on, "The responsibility is mine" doesn't ring quite authentic.  And regardless, "responsibility" and "blame" aren't synonymous.)




This is exactly my point: You're taking a perfectly reasonable statement and turning it into "proof" of an imagined corporate structure you actually know nothing about.

The GSL is a contract. _Of course_ the legal department has to buy into it--what sane entity would enter into a binding contract without the support of their legal advisors? Certainly, when I ran my own business, my lawyer wrote or at least reviewed every contract. That didn't change the fact that I was responsible for those contracts and the business and strategy they represented.

It's also a major strategic decision. _Of course_ there are people--peers and up the chain of command--who have a vested interest in the strategy and who's buy-in is important. That's true in any business or organization with more than three people.

So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't _actually_ be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.

I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Jeff, I've been meaning to ask: Why are you up posting on EN World at what must be 4:00 AM your time?


----------



## Jeff Wilder

CharlesRyan said:


> So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't _actually_ be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.



From where I'm sitting, the fact that you got what you quoted from what I actually said reveals a serious need to reread what I said.

I didn't state or imply any conclusions on my part at all, except that "the responsibility is mine" and "it's now out of my hands and in others' hands" are very, very understandably viewed as contradictory.

(To answer your question, I work nights.  Well, I _try_ to work nights.)


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> You've overlooked what we writers call a "restrictive clause."



Pardon? You were trying to make a point up there and if I understood it correctly it was about the protection of an employee while trying to "defend" your interests against who he was working for. And I said that I fail to see the meaning of this "protection". You cant see such employee as one that works for your interests and the interests of who he is representing here if you intend that such interests are in conflict. Unless you are suspecting that the interests of who the employee is representing are against the interests of the employee.


----------



## xechnao

Jeff Wilder said:


> I didn't state or imply any conclusions on my part at all, except that "the responsibility is mine" and "it's now out of my hands and in others' hands" are very, very understandably viewed as contradictory.




Yes, here you' ve got a point here the way you put it. But perhaps Scott was explaining technical procedure in the second phrase rather than political intent and responsibility? In this case it is not viewed so much contradictory. Not so understandably.
My opinion is that they share responsibility, Scott included. You wanted to distinguish roles here, to put him in a role against the rest of his group. Why? 
Nevertheless his position may indeed indicate some hierarchy and such hierarchy assumes that he takes responsibility against the public. And in this case what Scott said should be intended as explaining hurdles of technical procedure.


----------



## Maggan

CharlesRyan said:


> I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.




I don't think you're overreacting. 

But rather than cynicism I think one of the reasons people do this is because as gamers get to know (at least sort of know) the actual people behind the game, such as Mike Mearls, Scott Rouse et. al. it gets increasingly difficult to rant and rail against them and still retain sympathy from your peers, i.e. other gamers.

But when ranting and railing against unnamed suits, you can say just about anything, and be just about as offensive as you want to be, since you can't really be called on it like you would if you directed the attack against a named person, who might be a member of our community, and a personal real life friend of several other people here.

So to vent, I think it is an easy way out to blame The Man and his army of Grey Men in Suits, because then you can really let loose.

Maybe corporate cynicism is part of it, maybe Dilbert is to blame. Mostly I think it's a convenient way of venting.

/M


----------



## DaveMage

Re: Cynical thoughts/suits

I can understand why people get angry and blame "suits" rather than *people* in instances such as when WotC lays off staff that folks here admire.  It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).

So while there are certainly *people* behind decisions like the OGL/GSL, there are also (the same?) people behind the decision to make the layoffs.  

There is also the disconnect that fans have with regard to the secretly-kept numbers (sales figures, revenue expectations, etc.) and sometimes deceptive/insulting (or what is perceived to be deceptive/insulting) market-speak originating from people at WotC which puts up a barrier as well.

Since it's unlikely that fans will ever get transparency in all that they desire to know (or a thorough explaination every time something happens that they don't like), it's understandable that they conclude that since things didn't go the way they wanted (or think they should) that those behind the decisions are idiots, and using the term "suits" to define these people makes it easier because it's not personal.


----------



## DaveMage

CharlesRyan said:


> Whenever the old "WotC would have done [the thing I like], but the lawyers/Hasbroids/coporate suits wouldn't let them" routine is trotted out, it pushes all of my buttons. It tells me you're basing some or all of your opinion on a cynical, Dilbertian preconception of how things work in business.




Charles - did you read the press release that came out after the latest round of layoffs?  The quote from the WotC CEO was about as Dilbertian as it gets.

To wit (from here):

Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in.  “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said.  “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms.  The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”


----------



## billd91

xechnao said:


> They are all Wotc employees in a certain sense. All of them are supposed to work for the good and benefit of Wotc. Unless you mean that "the suits" may possibly want to "tank" Wotc for some reason I cant see where your point is.




They may all be WotC employees, they may all want WotC to do well. But I think a lot of people refer to the nameless suits because they see them as different sorts of employees than the creative R&D sorts. And they are. They are, compared to designers with by-lines on products, nameless to the consumers of WotC's products.

Whether or not they actually wear suits, they are assumed to be the middle and upper management, accounting, legal, etc. The further implication of the people using the term is that these are the employees most focused on WotC as a business venture rather than as a creative venture, in no small part because that's what their roles at the corporation focus on. Running the business, not game design. They may need to run the business-side of things effectively to enable the game design to flourish, but their focus and practices are insulated from the nature of the end product. They'd do many of the same things whether WotC was publishing games or cookbooks in protecting the IP, researching effective marketing tactics, running the HR department, and so on.

That's what I figure people mean when they talk about nameless suits. And comments about Dilberteque views of the world aside, different job roles produce different views and interests in the practice of the business even if all roles want the business to succeed. And you can see it in plenty of other corporate bodies as well, not just game publishers like WotC. People assume that these "nameless suits" at WotC and Hasbro have their say on the way WotC runs their business and have few other ways to express it since we barely know who any of these people are and their decision processes are part of the inner workings of WotC and generally not appropriate for WotC employees to share.

So what do you expect people to do when they want to complain or comment on decisions that they suspect come out of levels of WotC structure aside from R&D?


----------



## billd91

CharlesRyan said:


> So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't _actually_ be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.
> 
> I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.




What I see is talk about two different sorts of responsibility.
Scott is responsible for policy and fallout because it's his job to be responsible for it with the people who want to use the license and brand for their own 3rd party products. He's the go-to guy for questions and communication.

But is he the person who makes the decisions on the nature and tenor of the policy? Is he the author of the terms in the GSL compared to previous licensing? That's another form of responsibility in this case. It may not be official job description but all ideas come from *somebody* (or some collective of somebodies). And Scott may not have been that somebody and may only have limited influence over them. In other words, he's official responsible to the company and the customers, but he may not be responsible for the content.


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> There is also the disconnect that fans have with regard to the secretly-kept numbers (sales figures, revenue expectations, etc.) and sometimes deceptive/insulting (or what is perceived to be deceptive/insulting) market-speak originating from people at WotC which puts up a barrier as well.




Oddly enough, we never see people ranting against Paizo, Goodman Games or Green Ronin regarding this matter. Last I checked, neither of those companies reveal anything about their sales. Why the constant double standards. I mean, we all know that WotC is not allowed, because they are are part of Hasbro. But how about the others? Shouldn't fans of other companies have the same disconnect? Or maybe that is just it. Fans do not have these disconnects. People who do not like WotC think of it as secretly-kept figures and insults, while the fans realize that marketing and non-public sales figures are just a part of any modern multi-million dollar company.


----------



## billd91

Jack99 said:


> Oddly enough, we never see people ranting against Paizo, Goodman Games or Green Ronin regarding this matter. Last I checked, neither of those companies reveal anything about their sales. Why the constant double standards. I mean, we all know that WotC is not allowed, because they are are part of Hasbro. But how about the others? Shouldn't fans of other companies have the same disconnect? Or maybe that is just it. Fans do not have these disconnects. People who do not like WotC think of it as secretly-kept figures and insults, while the fans realize that marketing and non-public sales figures are just a part of any modern multi-million dollar company.




Perhaps because there is very little commentary in general about Paizo, Goodman Games, or Green Ronin sales. 

By contrast, there's a lot of commentary about WotC 4e sales (both positive and negative) and virtually none of it backed up by any real data other than a comment about early sales exceeding expectation. Naturally, people want to try to win this debate and want data with which to do it.


----------



## helium3

Admiral Caine said:


> They were complete powercards based upon the PHB. It had a rather neat functionality: You could "build" a deck of power cards by selecting just the ones you needed. The site would then generate a document that would allow you to print out the power cards you had specifically selected.
> 
> I am neither approving or condemning, but as far as design, layout, and function, it was a pretty neat site.




So you copied the flavor text directly?


----------



## xechnao

billd91 said:


> <snip>
> 
> So what do you expect people to do when they want to complain or comment on decisions that they suspect come out of levels of WotC structure aside from R&D?




What does complaining about the OGL and GSL has to do whith this? How can you say that R&D has a different view regarding the current licensing policy of the company they work for than the "business" department? And where do you put Scott Rouse in this?

If people want to complaint they must complaint to Scott. What I have seen is "thank you Scott you are great and go fight the suits". This fails to make any sense to me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> Charles - did you read the press release that came out after the latest round of layoffs?  The quote from the WotC CEO was about as Dilbertian as it gets.
> 
> To wit (from here):
> 
> Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in.  “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said.  “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms.  The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”




I realize those are big words (and I'm not saying that to be condescending, it could certainly be written more simply) but every word in that statement has real meaning.

It's not  masquerading behind big words. It's good business, being occluded by big words.

"We want to focus on Magic Online and D&D Insider, and the best way to do that was to outsource that development. It will also position us better in the future to bring an online experience to other brands."


----------



## xechnao

DaveMage said:


> Re: Cynical thoughts/suits
> 
> I can understand why people get angry and blame "suits" rather than *people* in instances such as when WotC lays off staff that folks here admire.  It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).
> 
> So while there are certainly *people* behind decisions like the OGL/GSL, there are also (the same?) people behind the decision to make the layoffs.




Layoffs are sad for the economic suffering they cause on people. I not only understand the outrage but I also support it. But what the hell does this have to do with the licensing policy? Why try to involve the one with the other? Licensing policy is a business plan that mostly has to do with the hobby -I expect hobby people to have a bigger say than lawyers for example. Layoffs are something that has to do with capital accounting.


----------



## Jack99

billd91 said:


> Perhaps because there is very little commentary in general about Paizo, Goodman Games, or Green Ronin sales.
> 
> By contrast, there's a lot of commentary about WotC 4e sales (both positive and negative) and virtually none of it backed up by any real data other than a comment about early sales exceeding expectation. Naturally, people want to try to win this debate and want data with which to do it.




That's odd. I can't seem to read a thread without hearing about the supposedly huge increase in sales Paizo has had since 4e was announced/launched. Yet, the only evidence is comments from Paizo people (Mona mostly) saying that their sales have increased. No one seems to questions them. Now, do not get me wrong. If Mona says Paizo sales have increased, I do belive him. I just think a lot of people (not pointing my finger at DaveMage nor you) apply double standards to this debate. 

And regarding the many comments about 4e sales. Well, they usually start by a negative, meaning that someone claims (usually based on how his left foot hurt last morning) that 4e has tanked and Hasbro will soon be selling the D&D brand. Then yes, some of us point out that there is some information out there that say otherwise. I believe that I have yet to see a thread started (or a discussion for that matter) with the positive angle, that 4e sells enormously well. Then again, I am getting old, and there are so many threads here, I might either be forgetting one, or have missed one.

Cheers


----------



## Scribble

Charles, I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure I agree with your string so to speak...

I'm not sure the cynicism stems from the attribution of the acts to a nameless entity known as "The Suits."I think that yeah, it tends to crop up when things are looked at from the side of cynicism, but I don't know if it creates it. (Maybe that's not what you're saying?) I think maybe like Maggan says, it does help facilitate it. It's easier to attribute negative motives to nameles groups. (Ala the Illuminati.) 

Personaly I agree with you about cynicsm though. It's just not my style to be a cynic.

I look at a situation like the GSl and my thoughts are generaly along the lines of: "Well, someone at Wizards (Scott?) thought the GSL was a good way to allow 3pp to  produce material in support of  D&D that wil also help boost the sales of D&D." 

I've seen others, however, with a much more cynical view. "The GSL was designed to undermine the OGL and get rid of competition."  Saying "The Suits" disliked the OGL seems like a way of supporting this claim. 

I'm not going to tell people the non cynical way of viewing things is the "right" way, but I am confused about the cynical view... It just seems like a whole lot more effort and work would have to go into creating something that actively tries to undermine other people's work... As opposed to just creating soemthing you hope will help sell your own.

In my experience the majority of people in this world don't want to put more effort into soemthing then is really needed...


----------



## CharlesRyan

DaveMage said:


> It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).




There's nobody on Earth who has more justification for cynicism in this regard than me. If I can look beyond it, so can anyone else on these boards.


----------



## DaveMage

Jack99 said:


> Oddly enough, we never see people ranting against Paizo, Goodman Games or Green Ronin regarding this matter. Last I checked, neither of those companies reveal anything about their sales. Why the constant double standards. I mean, we all know that WotC is not allowed, because they are are part of Hasbro. But how about the others? Shouldn't fans of other companies have the same disconnect? Or maybe that is just it. Fans do not have these disconnects. People who do not like WotC think of it as secretly-kept figures and insults, while the fans realize that marketing and non-public sales figures are just a part of any modern multi-million dollar company.




Jack - I'm not saying WotC should be expected to share numbers - I understand why they do not.  I'm just saying that it causes the problem.  I don't have an answer on how to solve it.


----------



## DaveMage

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I realize those are big words (and I'm not saying that to be condescending, it could certainly be written more simply) but every word in that statement has real meaning.
> 
> It's not  masquerading behind big words. It's good business, being occluded by big words.
> 
> "We want to focus on Magic Online and D&D Insider, and the best way to do that was to outsource that development. It will also position us better in the future to bring an online experience to other brands."




It's the fact that it wasn't said more simply which makes it "Dilbertian" (is that a new word?).  I'm not (in this case) commenting on its accuracy.


----------



## DaveMage

xechnao said:


> Layoffs are sad for the economic suffering they cause on people. I not only understand the outrage but I also support it. But what the hell does this have to do with the licensing policy? Why try to involve the one with the other? Licensing policy is a business plan that mostly has to do with the hobby -I expect hobby people to have a bigger say than lawyers for example. Layoffs are something that has to do with capital accounting.




Charles was commenting on the cynical nature of people and the "suits" issue and I was following that tangent.  Probably could have forked it - sorry.


----------



## DaveMage

CharlesRyan said:


> There's nobody on Earth who has more justification for cynicism in this regard than me. If I can look beyond it, so can anyone else on these boards.




I can appreciate that, but you have one advantage over most of the rest of us in that you worked there, so you have an understanding that we lack with regard to the internal workings and corporate culture of the company.\



Edit - and yes, I realize I need to learn how to use the multiquote button.


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> Jack - I'm not saying WotC should be expected to share numbers - I understand why they do not.  I'm just saying that it causes the problem.  I don't have an answer on how to solve it.




Yeah I know. It was more of a rhetorical tangent. I should probably have forked it.



DaveMage said:


> Edit - and yes, I realize I need to learn how to use the multiquote button.




Press the multi-quote button on the posts you wish to quote, and then finish by pressing New Reply  et voila!


----------



## tomBitonti

CharlesRyan said:


> I think you're making my point for me, but from the other side. It's the people who assume a "cadre of suits" are mandating the decisions of the hardworking custodians of D&D (Brand and R&D) which is dismissive. Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.




I wholly agree.  The referent "suits" is pejorative, and must be avoided in civil and reasoned discussion.

If I may put this back onto the track that I find most interesting: First, I do believe that many people, when viewing the GSL, are astonished, and, after working through their initial reaction, come to wonder how the GSL came about.  Second, to provide a partial answer to my own question, I am willing to accept that the GSL arose _in part_ as an _inevitable consequence_ of fundamental features of 4E and its productization.  However, while that sense of consequence is useful for further analysis, one's wonderment is not diminished, but is transformed into a new question: What reasoning went into the choice of features for 4E, and how it has been turned into a product.  In addition, if the GSL is _in part_ an inevitable consequence, that leaves features of the GSL which are free choices.  For example, allowance for change and for termination, and the prohibition of product lines that support different versions of the product.  The question in regards to these features remains: What thinking went into the selection of these choices?  And: Who came up with these ideas?

Further, this allows a new question to be asked: When the features of 4E (and its productization) were selected, what thought was put into the consequences, such as to the GSL.  I can think of at least one other consequence which I find worthy of note.  That is, the decision to maintain a strong online presence, including a database, character, monster, and encounter builders (not all there, but the obvious extension of current work), and power cards as a product, all lead to a suppression of similar efforts by the fan community.   Now, while copyright provides a mechanism for that suppression, the fan community seems to be served with many fewer products than might otherwise be available.  I find at least arguable the notion that allowing fan created utilities, or even allowing for for profit items, and to use them as a farm for best-of-breed ideas, might be a better model to follow.  In the case of for profit items, I do not see how WotC should not have a strong competitive advantage in this area.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## carmachu

Jack99 said:


> That's odd. I can't seem to read a thread without hearing about the supposedly huge increase in sales Paizo has had since 4e was announced/launched. Yet, the only evidence is comments from Paizo people (Mona mostly) saying that their sales have increased. No one seems to questions them. Now, do not get me wrong. If Mona says Paizo sales have increased, I do belive him. I just think a lot of people (not pointing my finger at DaveMage nor you) apply double standards to this debate.
> 
> And regarding the many comments about 4e sales. Well, they usually start by a negative, meaning that someone claims (usually based on how his left foot hurt last morning) that 4e has tanked and Hasbro will soon be selling the D&D brand. Then yes, some of us point out that there is some information out there that say otherwise. I believe that I have yet to see a thread started (or a discussion for that matter) with the positive angle, that 4e sells enormously well. Then again, I am getting old, and there are so many threads here, I might either be forgetting one, or have missed one.
> 
> Cheers




Becuase part of the problem is scale. What would be successful  for Paizo would be a failure for a WOTC product.

If Pathfinder come August, sells say 20K units, its a success. If the MM for 4e sold that many, or even double that, its a failure.

Pathfinder adventure paths was doing well already. If it steady increased since the announcement to release date, it made something doing well to even better.

It would be nice to see some numbers though. But your talking different scales.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Jack99 said:


> That's odd. I can't seem to read a thread without hearing about the supposedly huge increase in sales Paizo has had since 4e was announced/launched. Yet, the only evidence is comments from Paizo people (Mona mostly) saying that their sales have increased. No one seems to questions them. Now, do not get me wrong. If Mona says Paizo sales have increased, I do belive him. I just think a lot of people (not pointing my finger at DaveMage nor you) apply double standards to this debate.



I can see why you might think so, but I think you're overlooking something important.  Wizards has (sadly) established a reputation for deception with regard to 4E and its business practices, beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival, whereas Paizo has an almost unbelievable reputation for being open and up-front with its customers.

So it's hardly surprising that when Paizo says something about its sales numbers, people tend to believe them, but when Wizards makes a public statement, it is doubted.


----------



## malraux

Vegepygmy said:


> I can see why you might think so, but I think you're overlooking something important.  Wizards has (sadly) established a reputation for deception with regard to 4E and its business practices, beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival,




False.  The fans have a habit of taking misquotes out of context, but the in context original quotes have all shown to be very fair and accurate.


----------



## Maggan

Vegepygmy said:


> beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival




First I've heard of such a thing. A source or a quote to elucidate me perhaps?

/M


----------



## malraux

Maggan said:


> First I've heard of such a thing. A source or a quote to elucidate me perhaps?
> 
> /M




I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote.  I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.


----------



## Knight Otu

malraux said:


> I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote.  I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.




The one discussed by delericho in this thread?


----------



## cangrejoide

Vegepygmy said:


> So it's hardly surprising that when Paizo says something about its sales numbers, people tend to believe them, but when Wizards makes a public statement, it is doubted.




The difference is WOTC is a big company and everyone cares, Paizo small and not many people care.


----------



## malraux

Knight Otu said:


> The one discussed by delericho in this thread?




That sounds like it.  I don't have searching ability, but I recall a large number of similar threads popping up, being filled with outrage until the actual quote was found, then a bunch of apologies as the quote showed that WotC was always honest on the matter.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

malraux said:


> That sounds like it.  I don't have searching ability, but I recall a large number of similar threads popping up, being filled with outrage until the actual quote was found, then a bunch of apologies as the quote showed that WotC was always honest on the matter.




Which is why all WotC quotes all have to be parsed. The defenders of WotC hate it when that happens, but it is the only way to know if they are really saying what it might apear they are saying.


----------



## Maggan

malraux said:


> I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote.  I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.




At first I thought that, but that was about a year before 4e was released, not "just months before announcing its imminent arrival", so I thought maybe there was something else.

It could also be the misquote from D&DXP about "we've got 3rd edition stuff coming all through 2008", but again, that was six or seven months or so before the announcement.

I guess it's another case of people adopting the stance of "I'm pissed with WotC so I'll misremember some dates and attribute things to them that justifies me being pissed".

That said, vegepygmy is probably right that it is one reason why WotC is not as trusted as other companies, whether it's true or not.

/M


----------



## kristov

No one I know trusts WOTC anymore after the utter catasrophe with the D&D Insider Character Creater/Gametable etc. launch that was suppose to happen day 1 - since all of the ads and books said so. Was pretty obvious they were lying through their teeth about that whole situation.

It is sad to see they are just going to let the lawyers run wild on their fans now - its really a bad PR move by anyone, much less one attacking such a small and dedicated fan base as RPGers.


----------



## dvvega

@kristov:

Disclaimer: I am not a WoTC fanboy, neither do I hate them. They are just another company I buy product from.

Then sadly no one you know lives in the "real world". How many times has Windows been delayed. Or features cut out and added later in a patch. How many times has a computer game been delayed, and delayed, and delayed.

WoTC may truly have intended for the software to go live day 1, however the developers they hired may have had issues which delayed everything. 

There is no way on earth that you can predict and accurately hit a development date with 100% no errors on something large. Look at PCGen who have been developing and developing since 3.0. Their software is still not 100% perfect.

Microsoft, one of the, if not the, most influential companies in the world. Windows Vista was forced onto the public and they themselves have abandoned it for Windows 7. Are you going to rant and rave about them as well. Because Bill Gates has "lied" more times than WoTC supposedly has.

The reality here is that WoTC had an agreement with 3.0/3.5 to let fans use their rules sets with little restriction for their own things: websites, software, saleable product. They do not have the agreement with 4.0. Thus players who do not adhere to the agreement run the risk of being told to stop. Just because your new toy isn't the same as the last toy is no reason to hate the company.

I've said it before: they have a right to defend their copyright.
I've said it before: they were a bit heavy handed in that defence.

D


----------



## Umbran

kristov said:


> Was pretty obvious they were lying through their teeth about that whole situation.




Dude, you need to be really, really careful about accusing people of lying.  Some of those "liars" post here, and making that accusation without actual evidence of malfeasance is rude in the extreme.  

In this case, there is another reasonable explanation - not being a software shop, they had little clue exactly how hard it would be to get the job done, so they promised more than they could deliver.  Given that even those who are in the software business and good at it get their dates wrong, this should not be surprising.  

There's about 17 miles of difference between "lying" and "were wrong".  You may choose to believe the worst of them, but in general you are better served to not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.


----------



## Campbell

I believe Paizo, but I think there's danger in looking at Paizo in isolation. They've become the standard bearer for a lot of folks who ended up not liking the direction WotC went in. I don't think they're really a good company to look at as a general gauge of the market for 3.5 material.

That being said, I expect Pathfinder will do brisk business, and I still have trouble understanding the sales numbers competition some fans of 3e and 4e engage in. I hope both do well. That way fans of 3e and 4e will get what they want.


----------



## dvvega

The whole thing about sales and numbers is bogus, really bogus. Because sales are not measured on people walking in and buying but by orders and stock leaving.

If a brick and mortar store orders a bunch of Pathfinder stuff then Paizo has just made sales. The same goes for WoTC. It doesn't matter if that stock sits in the store doing nothing, gaining dust.

So if people want to really discuss sales numbers, WoTC wins on sheer shipping numbers. But if you want to find out actual end of chain sales, then you will have a tough time finding out.

D


----------



## drothgery

dvvega said:


> Microsoft, one of the, if not the, most influential companies in the world. Windows Vista was forced onto the public and they themselves have abandoned it for Windows 7. Are you going to rant and rave about them as well. Because Bill Gates has "lied" more times than WoTC supposedly has.




A little bit of nitpickery here -- the time between Vista and Win 7 is roughly 'normal' for Windows releases. It's the big gap between XP and Vista that was unusual, and that's largely because XP Service Pack 2 was about the same scale of development effort as a normal release of Windows.


----------



## dvvega

Time spans aside, the discussion is about "lies" and "evil WoTC". The time span differences between Windows versions does not excuse the promises made by MS nor does it excuse their shooting Vista in the foot and telling it to walk.

The point is that attacking WoTC for undertaking to protect their own property is silly to the utmost.

And all the clamour of "fans" and hurting the "fans" is also silly. Since they're still making sales of their products. Why? Because to use those sites one had to already have had a copy of the WoTC rules. And if you've invested in the books already you are likely to buy more of their product.

Of course in the above statement I am ignoring the "illegal PDFs".

And people should remember that the C&D for Ema's site was for 4E material but he decided to stop the whole thing. It was not WoTC's demand for that, it was Ema's decision.

As for the power cards there is no way anyone can argue in favour of copyrighted material being posted for anyone to grab.

D


----------



## Keefe the Thief

dvvega said:


> As for the power cards there is no way anyone can argue in favour of copyrighted material being posted for anyone to grab.




I have been told repeatedly on the internet that if my IP is improved by the fans for the fans, i´d have to suck it up if some site put my IP up for download without my consent. People on the internet tell you all kinds of things.


----------



## dvvega

@Keefe:

LOL ... actually that is highly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the actual laws.

The minute you write something that is saleable or marketable (actually anything but you may not honestly care c.f Blogging) you have the copyright to it. If you allow your material to be used all over the net without actively trying to stop its use then it can be argued that you are giving up your copyright to it.

Satire is something you can do without permission. You may make a satire of something and avoid copyright issues. The most recent situation that comes to mind is song parodies.

D


----------



## Jack99

carmachu said:


> Becuase part of the problem is scale. What would be successful  for Paizo would be a failure for a WOTC product.
> 
> If Pathfinder come August, sells say 20K units, its a success. If the MM for 4e sold that many, or even double that, its a failure.
> 
> Pathfinder adventure paths was doing well already. If it steady increased since the announcement to release date, it made something doing well to even better.
> 
> It would be nice to see some numbers though. But your talking different scales.




I never compared the two. I said that I find it funny how some people question every word from WotC, but accept everything from Paizo at face value.



dvvega said:


> The whole thing about sales and numbers is bogus, really bogus. Because sales are not measured on people walking in and buying but by orders and stock leaving.
> 
> If a brick and mortar store orders a bunch of Pathfinder stuff then Paizo has just made sales. The same goes for WoTC. It doesn't matter if that stock sits in the store doing nothing, gaining dust.
> 
> So if people want to really discuss sales numbers, WoTC wins on sheer shipping numbers. But if you want to find out actual end of chain sales, then you will have a tough time finding out.
> 
> D



No one is discussing wheter WotC or Paizo has more sales. That's an absurd comparison.


----------



## dvvega

Neither was I ... I was indicating how sales figures (quoted by many people in a "what if" sense) are a bogus measurement of success/failure. Many posters comachu for example, have been making "what if" statements using sales figures as proof.

D


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

cangrejoide said:


> The difference is WOTC is a big company and everyone cares, Paizo small and not many people care.




Bingo.


----------



## Jack99

dvvega said:


> Neither was I ... I was indicating how sales figures (quoted by many people in a "what if" sense) are a bogus measurement of success/failure. Many posters comachu for example, have been making "what if" statements using sales figures as proof.
> 
> D




Fair enough mate, I guess I misunderstood your post. No harm I hope.


----------



## dvvega

if you are in a forum and you take offence to people if they misunderstand you really should be there 

So yeah no harm done. Except that if you ever misunderstand me again ... why I'll ... grrr

D


----------



## jdrakeh

FWIW, it's possible that WotC is clamping down on fan publishing altogether as an effort to reign in control of their IP. Earier today, I received word from WotC corporate that I cannot dedicate an issue of my 2-page fanzine to their Lords of Creation property (luckily I checked before assuming that it was okay). 

I'm somewhat disappointed, as they haven't done anything with LoC since acquiring it (and prior to the acquisition, nobody had done anything with it for well over a decade), though I suppose that the "Let's share!" era of gaming had to come to an end some day. It was fun while it lasted and I guess we can at least be thankful we got as much as we did.* 

*Prior to the advent of the OGL and PDF publishing, the common practice amongst publishers was to sit on their old property forever, never allowing it to again see the light of day.


----------



## El Mahdi

jdrakeh said:


> FWIW, it's possible that WotC is clamping down on fan publishing altogether as an effort to reign in control of their IP. Earier today, I received word from WotC corporate that I cannot dedicate an issue of my 2-page fanzine to their Lords of Creation property (luckily I checked before assuming that it was okay). ...




Just curious, what was the basic outline of what you were going to print in your fanzine?  What specifically were they reticent about?

I read your first issue and I really can't imagine anything you could put in a two page fanzine (other than straight copyrighted material) that would bother anyone.

(By the way, cool fanzine.  Nice premise.  I'll have to keep checking back to see what games you pull out of obscurity.)


----------



## jdrakeh

El Mahdi said:


> Just curious, what was the basic outline of what you were going to print in your fanzine?




We didn't get to specifics. 



> What specifically were they reticent about?




Use of the trademark, apparently. 



> (By the way, cool fanzine.  Nice premise.  I'll have to keep checking back to see what games you pull out of obscurity.)




Thanks! That said, issues will be pretty irregular in my keeping with the 'doing it for fun' theme.


----------



## El Mahdi

I have to admit, I find this a little disturbing and foreboding.  I completely understand the actions they took with Ema's and with the powercards site.  But I find this troubling.


----------



## Dire Bare

jdrakeh said:


> FWIW, it's possible that WotC is clamping down on fan publishing altogether as an effort to reign in control of their IP. Earier today, I received word from WotC corporate that I cannot dedicate an issue of my 2-page fanzine to their Lords of Creation property (luckily I checked before assuming that it was okay).
> 
> I'm somewhat disappointed, as they haven't done anything with LoC since acquiring it (and prior to the acquisition, nobody had done anything with it for well over a decade), though I suppose that the "Let's share!" era of gaming had to come to an end some day. It was fun while it lasted and I guess we can at least be thankful we got as much as we did.*
> 
> *Prior to the advent of the OGL and PDF publishing, the common practice amongst publishers was to sit on their old property forever, never allowing it to again see the light of day.




I sincerely doubt that WotC is "clamping down" on fan publishing at all, although the word "publishing" might be somewhat problematic.  When does something cross the line between fan "publishing" and a professional product?  Quality?  Free or at cost? Number of "fans" involved?

Was your article going to simply be about "Lords of Creation"?  Like a review or informational article?  If so, you wouldn't need any sort of permission.

Were you planning on providing game information?  Like new monsters, rules, etc?  I've never heard of Lords of Creation, but I doubt it is an open property at all like the last two editions of D&D.  I would guess that it's not so much that WotC has any "problem" with your desire to publish something for the game, but feels that there would need to be a license involved like the OGL or GSL, and it simply isn't worth their time to work it out.  It's much easier to just say, "No."

Chances are, if you had a "Lords of Creation" fansite that offered new elements for the game, WotC probably wouldn't have even noticed.  And if it was brought to their attention, they probably wouldn't have bothered to do anything about it (although, they of course could and might).  But since you asked, the easiest answer for them was simply, "No, you can't do that."

Hopefully, once WotC finally posts their fansite policy it will cover fansites of games they own the rights to but no longer actively publish.


----------



## jdrakeh

Dire Bare said:


> Was your article going to simply be about "Lords of Creation"?  Like a review or informational article?  If so, you wouldn't need any sort of permission.




A short article, plus a short scenario. See the link in my .sig for Outre Realms, which will take you to the discussion group (it contains a link to Issue 001). 



> I would guess that it's not so much that WotC has any "problem" with your desire to publish something for the game, but feels that there would need to be a license involved like the OGL or GSL, and it simply isn't worth their time to work it out.  It's much easier to just say, "No."




Quite possibly. 



> Hopefully, once WotC finally posts their fansite policy it will cover fansites of games they own the rights to but no longer actively publish.




Yeah, I'm waiting for that but, in the meantime, I felt that the responsible thing to do was ask for permission rather than just do it, cross my fingers, and hope they didn't send me a cease and desist order.


----------



## Dire Bare

jdrakeh said:


> Yeah, I'm waiting for that but, in the meantime, I felt that the responsible thing to do was ask for permission rather than just do it, cross my fingers, and hope they didn't send me a cease and desist order.




Oh, I think you did the right thing.  Like I said, if you had gone ahead and done it without asking, chances are WotC wouldn't have noticed or come after you.  But, of course, they just might have.  Complying with a C&D isn't hard or onerous, but it does make you feel like you wasted your time!  Better to be safe than sorry.

I just don't think it's indicative of a change in their policy towards fansites.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

jdrakeh said:


> FWIW, it's possible that WotC is clamping down on fan publishing altogether as an effort to reign in control of their IP. Earier today, I received word from WotC corporate that I cannot dedicate an issue of my 2-page fanzine to their Lords of Creation property (luckily I checked before assuming that it was okay).
> 
> I'm somewhat disappointed, as they haven't done anything with LoC since acquiring it (and prior to the acquisition, nobody had done anything with it for well over a decade), though I suppose that the "Let's share!" era of gaming had to come to an end some day. It was fun while it lasted and I guess we can at least be thankful we got as much as we did.*
> 
> *Prior to the advent of the OGL and PDF publishing, the common practice amongst publishers was to sit on their old property forever, never allowing it to again see the light of day.




No this has nothing to do with fanzines.

LOC was published by Avalon Hill. Back in those days, rights to games that lay fallow for a number of years often reverted back to the author/designer. This was before work-for-hire contracts. I am not saying this is the case here but it has happened with games like Cosmic Encouter and Titan 

There are any number of reasons why your request was denied (time of our legal staff, potential issues with the rights, etc) but it has nothing to do with a fanzine policy and it is pretty uncool of you to suggest such a thing


----------



## Mark

Scott_Rouse said:


> I am not saying this is the case here (. . .)
> 
> 
> (. . .) but it has nothing to do with a fanzine policy and it is pretty uncool of you to suggest such a thing





Seems like you could find out what the actual problem is before harshing on him about his perceptions.  He's done his part by contacting WotC legal, he got an inadequate response, and he is now being publicly told that you do not know what it is but that it isn't what he suspects it is.  Without you getting an answer from legal it seems just as likely to an outsider that maybe legal might actually believe there is a policy in place to just deny fanzines or publishers any request unless it comes through some other channels or is handled under the GSL.  Seriously, dude.  You could have picked up a phone to legal, find out who made the denial, and then posted by clearing up the problem instead of just slapping down the poor guy who is only doing what many, many fans are likely to do over the coming years and months post-OGL.  That's not the way people have come to believe that you deal with fans, Scott.  From one member of the community to another, don't let us down, please.


----------



## Ourph

Scott_Rouse said:


> There are any number of reasons why your request was denied (time of our legal staff, potential issues with the rights, etc) but it has nothing to do with a fanzine policy and it is pretty uncool of you to suggest such a thing



I have to agree with Mark, you're coming off pretty aggressive toward a post that specifically used non-commital language.  Plus, it seems to me that any fanzine that actually references someone else's IP (as fanzines generally tend to do) might have "potential" issues with the rights and might require time from the legal department to accept or deny. That comes across as a _de facto_ policy, whether you intend it to be or not.


----------



## Fifth Element

Mark said:


> He's done his part by contacting WotC legal, he got an inadequate response



How was it inadequate? "No" is a perfectly good answer to "may I?" when it involves the use of someone else's property.

And jdrakeh did use the situation to suggest that WotC may be clamping down on "fan publishing altogether", which there is no evidence of, at present, as far as I know. Scott_Rouse denied it specifically, to be sure.

If we're calling out Scott_Rouse, we should be calling out jdrakeh as well. He had no reason to suggest this was an indication that WotC are "clamping down" on fan publishing.


----------



## jdrakeh

Scott_Rouse said:


> There are any number of reasons why your request was denied (time of our legal staff, potential issues with the rights, etc) but it has nothing to do with a fanzine policy and it is pretty uncool of you to suggest such a thing




My own inquiry was made with specific with regard to my fanzine. I was told I could not publish an issue of said fanzine dedicated to LoC. The response that I received certainly may have arisen from factors other than an official policy regarding fan works. I merely posited a potential scenario. I didn't _accuse_ you (or WotC) of anything. If you choose to take my post like that, that's on you.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Sorry, I am not trying to be a jerk here. 

FWIW, I did go ask what the situation was before my post, by talking with both the AH Brand Manager and the person who is responsible for replying to the corporate inbox. The answer given to jdrakeh was a short, polite no you may not use this. I did not dig into the reason why we said no beacuse at the end of the day it is none of my business. I can tell you it has nothing to do with "*reign in control of our IP*" or "*clamping down on fan publishing altogether*"

Again not trying to come off like a jerk and I apologize to jdrakeh if it seems that way but I do take exception to someone posting in an already controversial thread the allegation that  


> Originally Posted by *jdrakeh*
> 
> 
> FWIW, it's possible that *WotC is clamping down on fan publishing altogether* as an effort to reign in control of their IP.



 combined with 







> "Let's share!" era of gaming had to come to an end some day. It was fun while it lasted and I guess we can at least be thankful we got as much as we did.*



 is meant to paint us us as being unfair at the least or greedy in the worst. 

Could our "no" answer have explained more? Maybe. Sometimes the person who writes these responses only gets a "no" answer with no detail, herself. Considering she answers hundreds of requests like these a month (myself I get about 5-10 a week) she long ago stopped questioning the answers she gets and just tries to be as polite and understanding as possible with her responses. 

I can appreciate *jdrakeh's* frustration as a fan and I am sorry the answer he got was not what he was hoping for but it's nothing personal and has nothing to do with fan publishing.


----------



## jdrakeh

Mark said:


> He's done his part by contacting WotC legal, he got an inadequate response, and he is now being publicly told that you do not know what it is but that it isn't what he suspects it is.




I didn't actually receive a reason at all. Just a "Sorry, but no." reply. It was actually very polite and I got the impression that the individual whom I was corresponding with was merely passing on an answer from somebody else. 



> You could have picked up a phone to legal, find out who made the denial, and then posted by clearing up the problem instead of just slapping down the poor guy who is only doing what many, many fans are likely to do over the coming years and months post-OGL.




I appreciate the defense but, honestly, I don't think that's in Scott's job description


----------



## jdrakeh

Scott_Rouse said:


> . . .combined with  is meant to vilify us as being unfair at the least or greedy in the worst.




I certainly didn't mean to vilify WotC. If you've followed my posts over the years, you'll see that I frequently defend tight control of IP by publishers as being a positive thing, specifically with regard to rights management. If you don't defend your rights to trademarks and such, you'll lose them. 

With regard to the 'clamping down' comment, I certainly could have phrased that better. FWIW, I spent an hour at the hospital lab immediately prior to making that post. With the 'end of an era' comment, I simply meant to suggest that WotC may be returning to a more standard (and practical) model of rights management in the wake of recent restructuring. 

Again, apologies, if you took my post the wrong way. I did not intend any malice whether you choose to beleive that or not.


----------



## Mark

Ourph said:


> Plus, it seems to me that any fanzine that actually references someone else's IP (as fanzines generally tend to do) might have "potential" issues with the rights and might require time from the legal department to accept or deny. That comes across as a _de facto_ policy, whether you intend it to be or not.





Yup.  As a fanzine (as opposed to a published commercial non-news product or a personal project that would be distributed on the web, for fun or profit), there are certain rights of fair use that come into play.  An offhand "no" to any IP usage seems to exclude that caveat.  For instance, while a feature article that might utilize IP to construct a new game might be off limits, an article on the history of the a property might well be able to use certain IP extensively.  Sure, it isn't WotC legal's obligation to get into the various details of what might be possible to do, but they can certainly be more clear about what is not allowed.  Sadly, as Scott points out, WotC does not have the time or manpower to address over one hundred requests in a month.  Seems to me like doing a little more in advance would probably prevent problems that are inevitible in this era where WotC does not have the OGL to point toward as a pretty solid blanket policy with a vast community helping to keep one another mostly on the straight and narrow.




jdrakeh said:


> I appreciate the defense but, honestly, I don't think that's in Scott's job description





Until there is a fan policy in place, Scott is the face and ersatz fan-question-interface (by virtue of his presence here and about, as it were), particularly when phone calls can only solicit a "Sorry, but no" response.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Scott_Rouse said:


> FWIW, I did go ask what the situation was before my post, by talking with both the AH Brand Manager and the person who is responsible for replying to the corporate inbox. The answer given to jdrakeh was a short, polite no you may not use this. I did not dig into the reason why we said no beacuse at the end of the day it is none of my business. I can tell you it has nothing to do with "*reign in control of our IP*" or "*clamping down on fan publishing altogether*"




Sorry Scott, but that does not help your case any. You asked other people and got the same polite no, which is no problem. But you did not ask why the no response was given. As a result you cannot then say that one reason or another was not the reason either. All you can legitamately say is that those reasons would not be ones for you, but that does not mean it couldn't be reasons for others.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

jdrakeh said:


> I certainly didn't mean to vilify WotC. If you've followed my posts over the years, you'll see that I frequently defend tight control of IP by publishers as being a positive thing, specifically with regard to rights management. If you don't defend your rights to trademarks and such, you'll lose them.
> 
> With regard to the 'clamping down' comment, I certainly could have phrased that better. FWIW, I spent an hour at the hospital lab immediately prior to making that post. With the 'end of an era' comment, I simply meant to suggest that WotC may be returning to a more standard (and practical) model of rights management in the wake of recent restructuring.
> 
> Again, apologies, if you took my post the wrong way. I did not intend any malice whether you choose to beleive that or not.




Thanks. You beat me to the quote, I actually went and edited out the word vilify as it was too harsh.  Sorry we did not get you the answer you wanted, sometimes these old games have messy issues that can't be explained in public. I deal with it regularly on rights for old TSR articles and art. The contracts were poorly written at best and at worst are long gone.

I appreciate the follow up and hope the lab gives you a clean bill of health. 

Group Hug


----------



## Scribble

Mark said:


> Sadly, as Scott points out, WotC does not have the time or manpower to address over one hundred requests in a month.  Seems to me like doing a little more in advance would probably prevent problems that are inevitible in this era where WotC does not have the OGL to point toward as a pretty solid blanket policy with a vast community helping to keep one another mostly on the straight and narrow.




Did you read this part though: 

*LOC was published by Avalon Hill. Back in those days, rights to games that lay fallow for a number of years often reverted back to the author/designer. This was before work-for-hire contracts. I am not saying this is the case here but it has happened with games like Cosmic Encouter and Titan 
*

Seems like there's a possibility that they can't just make a blanket fansite policy. Some games or departments might have special needs. 

I feel for Scott... I'm in account management, one of my jobs is handling an inbox where questions from some of our smaler accounts go. It gets really really busy. Sometimes when that happens the only responce I can give is: "Claim paid correcty- no adjustment needed."

I wish I could give a lengtheir WHY your claim paid correctly responce, but there are too many other issues to deal with. So you're just going to have to trust that I did in fact do my job, and researched your issue.

I think the same is true in this case. He got a responce of no, and he probably just needs to trust whomever sent that response did in fact do their job.

From what I've seen of Scott it seems like he does his job and then some, and still gets slack for it. So I really do feel for him.

Also remember he's the brand manager of D&D not all things WoTC...


----------



## Mark

Scribble said:


> Did you read this part though





Of course.




Scribble said:


> Seems like there's a possibility that they can't just make a blanket fansite policy. Some games or departments might have special needs.





That's why you have a blanket policy to cover most instances and then have the time to more effectively handle special cases rather than having to just throw up your hands and admit you simply cannot address any of them effectively.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Brown Jenkin said:


> Sorry Scott, but that does not help your case any. You asked other people and got the same polite no, which is no problem. But you did not ask why the no response was given. As a result you cannot then say that one reason or another was not the reason either. All you can legitamately say is that those reasons would not be ones for you, but that does not mean it couldn't be reasons for others.




 Fair enough I did not dig in deeper with legal but really that is not my place to question why another brand and/or our legal department did something that does not affect my job/roles and responsibilities. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty it has nothing to do with jdrakeh's zine or a fan publishing policy.

As I tried to explain sometimes these old games have messy issues that can't be explained in public.  So when it comes to permissions sometimes the best answer our legal team can provide it a simple "no" because the time get to root of the issue is too dear and the risk to just say "yes" is not worth it. Saying yes to a use may be a right we can't give.

Similarly, I deal with these issues regularly on requests for usage rights for old TSR articles and artwork. The contracts were poorly written at best and at worst are long gone so we may not know if we own the work outright, had one-time rights, or some version in-between. 

Sometimes a no is all we can give.


----------



## DennisB

I do not know if this stuff has been covered because I just skimmed threw the blog, but i have a few things to say about all this stuff wizards has done this month.

1) In this economic crises, IT is a crime to sell the books at $40 a piece, $20 is a reasonable price and my god, $100 for a deck of cards, cards that are ugly as hell, are generalized, and just plain out suck, they need to go to jail for robbery. they took the idea of the cards from the players that worked so hard to design the cards on here. They did all the work and then Wizards tells them to stop so they can make the money from there idea. That is plain out wrong.

2) The stopping of the PDF Versions of there books is also wrong. for years i had to carry there books sines the release of the 2nd edition and when they announced the PDF version of there books i was estatic, I have bought every book and downloaded there books onto my laptop and it has made my life (and back) much easier. But because of a few butt holes out there wizards has discontinued all PDF sales. First, there is no way i am buying the hard copies, EVER, just thinking about carrying all thoes books again is sending chills up my spine <Shutter> Its not the fans fault that they did not think about protecting there products from getting sent to file sharing, so dont punish the people out there who obtain the books leagely. and second, i did not mind paying the price for the PDF books, but i will not pay that much for the hard copies, if i wanted to pay for a workout, I will use the money at gold's gym. Besides, How is wizards going to stop people from photocopying the books and sending them out there in PDF. If people want to send that information out on the internet then short of tracking down the offender and sueing them there is no way to stop them, sorry but thats the reality of the internet.

I know this is going to tick off some people but this is my oppion and how i feel about what wizards has done


----------



## Filcher

DennisB said:


> I do not know if this stuff has been covered because I just skimmed threw the blog, but i have a few things to say about all this stuff wizards has done this month.
> 
> 1) In this economic crises, IT is a crime to sell the books at $40 a piece, $20 is a reasonable price and my god, $100 for a deck of cards, cards that are ugly as hell, are generalized, and just plain out suck, they need to go to jail for robbery. they took the idea of the cards from the players that worked so hard to design the cards on here. They did all the work and then Wizards tells them to stop so they can make the money from there idea. That is plain out wrong.




Well my argument won't change your mind, but ...

I walk into your kitchen. I make dinner using ingredients from your fridge. Is it okay that I give it away now? 

If no, then we agree. If yes, please give me your home address because I'm hungry.  (You know, economic and all.)


----------



## DennisB

I was not done whith what I was saying earlier, I had to go run and take care of some stuff, but my complaints continues.

3) When D&D 4E came out they also came out with D&D Insider, Had some great ideas so I suscribed, It was suppose to have a dungeon maker and a section to create pics of your characters and NPC's, However thoes programs never showed up, All insider has thats worth anything is the Dragon and Dungeon magizines, and now I am waiting for them to take that away because it is in PDF format then insider will not be worth anything, I feel like I was had and my money was wasted, but wizards does not consider that, any loss they may have lost because of the free sharing of the PDF books they made up with taking our money for a shoddy product in insider. In reality, not sure, but i think we can demand our money back for not getting a product we were promised. I feel like wizards does not have there stuff together over there, not thinking ahead as far as protecting there PDF books, making false promises to the public, and taking the fans ideas and charging outragous prices for there products. 

More of my oppions to come!!!!

Edit: I did forget about the character builder, another good idea that have and i must say it is worth the money, but I still got indider for the map maker and the character image maker.


----------



## Squire James

Hmm... it's hardly "robbery" if you can choose not to buy the product and, say, make your own darn Power Cards.  You have plenty of examples to work from, and making your own for your own use is "fair use" and WOTC would say nothing of it.

I'm aware you did not invent the term, but I dislike the very description of calling something offered for sale as "robbery".  If it costs too much, DON'T BUY IT!  Some argument can be made along those lines if the product is a necessity and a viable substitute is not available elsewhere for a better price, but D&D products do not fit either category.

$40 per Core Book is probably unreasonable, yes, but Amazon.com prices are $66.12 for all 3 books at the time of this message (not so good for individual books, but still lots less than $40).  Yes, it's in stock.  Sometimes it's just a matter of knowing where to look.

Finally, there is NOTHING about being in an economic crisis that implies that a business has a moral obligation to lower their prices!  Businesses may fail in such a crisis if they set their prices too high, but that's THEIR problem, not yours.  It's only your problem if the product DOES sell well but is still priced out of your range... then it's not really the fault of the "economic crisis" anymore, is it!


----------



## DennisB

But if a corperation tells you that they have this great product and fail to deliver that product (in this case the map maker and the character image) and you paied for it and did not get the product, would you not get mad.


----------



## mudbunny

DennisB said:


> But if a corperation tells you that they have this great product and fail to deliver that product (in this case the map maker and the character image) and you paied for it and did not get the product, would you not get mad.




Except no-one has paid for the Visualizer or Game Table yet. Not to mention that they also put up a news article and an ampersand a month before the release telling members that the applications would not be ready at the release of 4th edition.


----------



## Imban

Squire James said:


> I'm aware you did not invent the term, but I dislike the very description of calling something offered for sale as "robbery".  If it costs too much, DON'T BUY IT!  Some argument can be made along those lines if the product is a necessity and a viable substitute is not available elsewhere for a better price, but D&D products do not fit either category.




Yeah, about the only times I complain that businesses are guilty of highway robbery is when they're like... amusement parks that are open in the sweltering heat of summer and charge $4 for a bottle of water because people need it to not die of heatstroke and can't buy it from anywhere else without leaving the park.

There are even arguments that some forms of price gouging in a disaster (basically as long as you still sell all your stock) are acceptable because they distribute the goods to the ones who value them the most, but I've thankfully never had to deal with this myself.

If WotC isn't conspiring to overcharge you for basic necessities (and they're not) or screw you with contracts (and they're not - the can't-unsubscribe-from-DDI debacle was just that Digital River sucks) or acting out of spite (where the price is artificially higher due to their actively wanting to *not* sell it), pretty much any price they charge is a legitimate business decision.


----------



## DennisB

But its been almost a year, How long does it take to make the programs. 
I mean, jeesh, come on, they need to get there act together, and this is not the first time they have done this, they did this when 3ed edition was released, had this great idea for character builder, even had a disk in the players handbook, told everyone that this was a bata form and upgrades will be avaliable soon and had 1 minor upgrade and then nothing. I see a pattern in the way they do things there, they make empty promises they can not keep. Everytime they start getting into the 21st century, they get scared and back off and keep them selves stuck in the 20th century.

As far as there prices, i agree, and it was worth it when the books were in PDF, i was paying for the convience, but no way in hell i am lugging thoes books around again and paying the price they charge for them. The PDF books was worth the price and maybe even a little more, not saying to raise the price.


----------



## mudbunny

DennisB said:


> But its been almost a year, How long does it take to make the programs.




To do it quick and dirty, not long. But to do it well, obviously takes a little longer. IT is pretty clear to anyone, and WotC has said so numerous times, that they overestimated their abilities to produce the tools and underestimated the time it would take to finish the tools. As more tools are released, they are gaining more experience. Not just in programming the tools, but in the development and managing of the tools. And that is where WotC got bit in the rear. They had no experience with the pitfalls, setbacks, etc that a company that does software development day-in and day-out knows about and can plan for. WotC has this for the development of their print line. They are, slowly, surely and *definitely *via the hard way, gaining this in the software development side of things.


----------



## DennisB

Finnaly, someone has a valid explanation of my topics instead of just slamming what i have to say. that i can understand and as long as wizards accept responsability for there lack of releasing  said products


----------



## mudbunny

I think that they have. I also think that they are committed to releasing the various tools on their schedule. And their current schedule is "it will be released when it is ready". Is as much information being released as a lot of people (incluing, I am sure, a lot of WotC staffers) would like to see? No. But I think that is a result of them getting burnt with the tools not being released with the release of 4E. I think that the level of communication *will* eventualy increase, it will just take some time.

{Disclaimer, I am VCL for the DDI forums, and am fairly optimistic about the future of DDI and the tools)


----------



## DennisB

Like i said, it is just disapointing that it is still a year after the initial release date and there is not even a beta version out.


----------



## mudbunny

From my discussion swith WotC Community Management, they are disappointed as well. However they are now, lilke I mentioned above, looking more at getting a great program out when it is ready, as opposed to an OK program out now. If the upcoming tools show the skill and polish of the Compendium and Character Builder, I think it will be worth the wait.


----------



## DennisB

I hope so.

This PDF thing to me was the icing on the cake for me, and no I will not be buying the hard copies, i was keeping up with the releases in PDF and if they do decide to strat releasing the PDF's again, i dont think i can catch up with the releases, i was looking forward to the arcane and divine powers handbooks but i guess i will be living with dissapointment as well as wizards of the coast, because I will not try to catch up when they do release them back to PDF so in turn, they have lost a costomer for life.

I will just be playing with the materials i have.


----------



## Obryn

DennisB said:


> IT is a crime to sell the books at $40 a piece, $20 is a reasonable price and my god, $100 for a deck of cards, cards that are ugly as hell, are generalized, and just plain out suck, they need to go to jail for robbery.



If they went to your wallet and took the money, that is robbery.

If they put a product on the market that is more expensive than you would like, you have the option not to buy it and have not been robbed.



> they took the idea of the cards from the players that worked so hard to design the cards on here. They did all the work and then Wizards tells them to stop so they can make the money from there idea. That is plain out wrong.



There were power card templates in the original character sheet packet, and power cards used by playtesters.  Power cards were not invented by the community.



> 2) The stopping of the PDF Versions of there books is also wrong.



I think it's a questionable business decision, but casting it as a moral issue is iffy at best.

-O


----------



## Imban

mudbunny said:


> I think that the level of communication *will* eventualy increase, it will just take some time.




Bollocks. We'll either get a longwinded explanation out of the blue of everything that went wrong explaining why it had to be cancelled, or they'll release it out of the blue and then probably hike the DDI subscription price like they said they would back before these things started their coming out never.

I think we will likely see the tools eventually, and expect all of them except the Game Table to be well-received, but the "level of communication" is not going to increase.


----------



## DennisB

By the time they do release them, 5th edition will be released


----------



## Shemeska

mudbunny said:


> Except no-one has paid for the Visualizer or Game Table yet.




Except some people are subscribing to the DDI before their release on the assumption that they'll be out eventually in order to lock into the current pricing scheme. In fact I seem to remember this being a selling point for longer subscriptions along the lines of 'Buy now and lock in this low low price long term so you'll save money if the price goes up as more features are rolled out.'

The longer WotC doesn't say anything about the status of the various bits of vaporware for the DDI, they're still locking in people for up to a year of subscription payments by the implication that by paying for that subscription they'll save money in the event that vaporware actually gets released at which point the subscription prices would presumably get raised.

They might have completely stopped development on the VTT, Visualizer, and Dungeon Builder, but so long as they don't make any announcement, they stand to benefit financially based on earlier promises, even if they never get realized. Based on that alone, they really do owe it to people to state definatively if any of those projects are even still in development. They don't have to provide estimates for release, but just an admission if they have or have not cancelled them. And it needs to be addressed in public, by the people in charge of the DDI, not secondhand by volunteers who might have heard something by someone inside WotC who isn't remotely part of those projects.


----------



## Maggan

Shemeska said:


> 'Buy now and lock in this low low price long term so you'll save money if the price goes up as more features are rolled out.'




And after that, they've released the Character Builder and expanded the Rules Compendium.

So they're already adding to the content, without charging long-term subscribers more.

/M


----------



## mudbunny

People asked for an announcement?


----------



## DennisB

Thats along the lines of what i have been saying, this is a multi million dollor corperation and they are fretting about some pirating of there books but they keep lying to us to keep getting more money for a product they dont have, so, I say why stop PDF when it balances out, I just want them to keep the PDF going. It is only fair, stoping the pirating can be fixed real easily, just have the name of the buyer watermarked on the PDF and if it is sent to a turrent then finding out who it was that sent it out will be easy and it will discurrage people from sending it to the net for free web sharing. There is many ways to prevent this from happening. So why should I keep paying for a subscription for something i am not getting, they have gotten enough of my money, and until they return the PDF's in short order then they will get no more money and from what i have read on other blog sights from people that get the PDF's as well, they feel the same way.....


----------



## The Little Raven

DennisB said:


> But its been almost a year, How long does it take to make the programs.




It's funny how non-programmers seem to think they know more about programming schedules and development than actual programmers.



> It is only fair, stoping the pirating can be fixed real easily, just have the name of the buyer watermarked on the PDF and if it is sent to a turrent then finding out who it was that sent it out will be easy and it will discurrage people from sending it to the net for free web sharing.




You seem to be unaware of the fact that any form of copy protection, including watermarks, can be broken rather easily by pirates, because they devote a whole lot of time to doing so.



> So why should I keep paying for a subscription for something i am not getting,




Because the subscription is for services they currently offer, all of which are available. You're lamenting about paying for something that subscribers are not being charged for.


----------



## DennisB

well raven they should of not set a date and keep pushing back and back and back and people would not be upset


----------



## Dumnbunny

The Little Raven said:


> It's funny how non-programmers seem to think they know more about programming schedules and development than actual programmers.



As a developer, I have some sympathy for what you're saying here. However, my sympathy is tempered by the fact that the VTT is nearly a year overdue. I hope this doesn't become Wizards' Duke Nukem Forever.


The Little Raven said:


> You seem to be unaware of the fact that any form of copy protection, including watermarks, can be broken rather easily by pirates, because they devote a whole lot of time to doing so.



Correct. What's more, watermarks can be defeated with no breaking required, just an anonymous, pre-paid credit card and an anonymous, open wifi network. In other words, stopping the pirating can not be fixed real easily.


----------



## DennisB

Well then, they found out about the guys out there in poland, just go after the piraters and let the honest people get the products they want, they have shown that they can find them and sue them, let them be the exsample to everyone else, dont make the loyal honest people suffer. I was looking forward to the upcoming releases of many of the new rules and class expansion. I mean in about a month we will see the new books anyways in PDF, people will photocopy the new books so why not just make a profit of them now. it just makes no sense to me that they are doing this, punishing the majority of honest gammers because of a few dishonest ones.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

DaveMage said:


> Re: Cynical thoughts/suits
> 
> I can understand why people get angry and blame "suits" rather than *people* in instances such as when WotC lays off staff that folks here admire. It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).
> 
> So while there are certainly *people* behind decisions like the OGL/GSL, there are also (the same?) people behind the decision to make the layoffs.
> 
> There is also the disconnect that fans have with regard to the secretly-kept numbers (sales figures, revenue expectations, etc.) and sometimes deceptive/insulting (or what is perceived to be deceptive/insulting) market-speak originating from people at WotC which puts up a barrier as well.
> 
> Since it's unlikely that fans will ever get transparency in all that they desire to know (or a thorough explaination every time something happens that they don't like), it's understandable that they conclude that since things didn't go the way they wanted (or think they should) that those behind the decisions are idiots, and using the term "suits" to define these people makes it easier because it's not personal.





Ok Page 27 of 31. And through it all there has been a few great points on both sides.

But now for the real... There is only ONE WAY to truly make your voice heard to a large corp like WotC/Hasbro. If you don't like what they are doing , STOP BUYING THIER PRODUCTS!!!!! If you don't like what they are doing stop buying books, cancel your D&DI accounts, etc. I wonder how long it would take things to get done or changed if a few million people did that? 

But the sad reality to this scenario is WotC/Hasbro probably don't care about that either. Because they have already made their money by selling to the shops that carry their product lines. So in the end you just hurt the little guy.

Because honestly we can all sit here and rant or vent or place blame all day and nothing will truly change. Nothing in life happens until you take action.

I'm sure we would all like to see things happen in a different way and we all hope that us as fans could just say "hey do this..." and just have it happen, but that isn't the way corporate America hears it consumers. It hears them through it's bottom line. And remember it is actually the shareholders that really make these decisions because WotC/Hasbro are public companies. So you can blame the suits all day or even real people. But it is the shareholders that will truly drive the decisions.

I as a member of this corporate world know this all to well. If sales are good then why should a company care about naysayers, if sales are in the tank then there is a reason to care. But at least I don't have shareholders to care about just the real consumers.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

The Little Raven said:


> It's funny how non-programmers seem to think they know more about programming schedules and development than actual programmers.




Ok so here is a responce from an actual software programmer.

Myself and one other person have been able to design, write and code a full featured and customizable character management system, maybe you have heard of it (HeroForge) and it took us less than a year do. We are now only weeks away from having to the masses. So nobody can tell me that WotC hasn't had time to do the same since they knew about their 4e way before we did. They have had ALOT of time to get their tools done. I mean the Game Table was pretty solid already from what I saw at D&D XP 2008.

The whole non-programmer/programmer arugment is valid but even the non programmer has a clue when it comes to the programmers saying one thing and getting another. It can be done on schedule, and still be awesome. Especially if you have the money to pay people to do it. And you can't say that WotC doesn't have the money to get it done. Heck we even offered to help work on it and wanted to be a part of it at D&D XP 2008. We met with Scott Rouse and had a sit down to try and work WITH WotC on the project. So I know for a fact that they had and still do have options to get the tools done. 

I will not make any assumptions to why they aren't getting it done. But the reality is that they just haven't yet.

As much as I feel that WotC has the right to protect their IP, I also feel we as the consumers deserve options. If all you had to eat was apples all day how are you to know if a banana would be better? 

But in the end it doesn't really matter why WotC chose to go the route they did, in the end we all have to deal with it and keep on playing D&D or change game systems. In the end it is OUR choice as a community what we play. 

I for one love D&D but also play other games, but even though I don't like the path that was taken I have chosen to still support the game and the company. It isn't the people like Scott Rouse, who is just doing his job, that we need to blame. It is us the consumer that continue to buy the products they sell. The true bottom line is that we are truely to blame. What right do we have to buy the product just to complain about it, but yet keep buying it? If you go to a resturaunt and get bad service or bad food, why keep going there? And if you do, do you really have the right to complain?

We can rant and vent on this board until 10th edition and nothing will change until WE change it.


----------



## Harr

The Little Raven said:


> It's funny how non-programmers seem to think they know more about programming schedules and development than actual programmers.




I am a programmer. By profession. I know all about programming schedules and development. And guess what? A year overdue is still a year overdue. You aren't intimidating anybody my friend  

Although it's funny how some people think that ambiguity and posturing can actually serve to make any sort of point.

Edit -> Aside from which, what you're actually implying here is that WotC's very own programmers and IT managers are the ones who don't know anything about programming schedules themselves, since they were the ones who drafted the schedule on which the whole marketing campaign was based, gave promises and assurances that all would be done on time to the other departments, and then failed so badly to keep to it in the first place. You think that's normal for a programming team? Sorry but that's amateur hour, all the way. If it was going to take more than a year *as scheduled*, then the programming team would have said _"Hey guys, this is going to take more than a year, just so you know."_

So who is it that doesn't know anything again?


----------

