# What will Masterplan be after the C&D?



## doctorhook (May 12, 2010)

(EDIT: This thread was originally called "*Masterplan is dead?*")

Masterplan (Masterplan) is a free program that I've recently been introduced to, designed for laying out 4E campaigns. It's pretty damn cool! I haven't used it much yet, but I like it. I think Obryn uses it too. Anyone else? If you haven't tried it, I recommend you check it out.

A few weeks ago, its website was saying something about "a huge new feature" coming in version 9.0. Yesterday, however, version 8.8 was released, along with the message from the developer, "This is the final version of Masterplan."

Speculation is running rampant. Was the developer told to C&D? Does he just not feel like carrying on? Did WotC purchase the rights to Masterplan? (The last one is wishful thinking, I believe.)

Does anyone have any insight into this? More importantly, can anyone with programming savvy help this awesome application to live on? We, the D&D-playing people, would be forever in your debt.


----------



## malraux (May 12, 2010)

I dunno if it matters, but technically using masterplan violates the Terms of Service for DDI; specifically, it is clearly a data mining program.


----------



## doctorhook (May 12, 2010)

malraux said:


> I dunno if it matters, but technically using masterplan violates the Terms of Service for DDI; specifically, it is clearly a data mining program.



That would certainly suggest a C&D notice, I imagine. Assuming that this is what happened, would buying an official license be/have been an option for the developer?


----------



## malraux (May 13, 2010)

I dunno if developing MP violates the Terms of Service, just using it.  More importantly, if the developer received the C&D, the website would be gone.


----------



## AZ_ST (May 13, 2010)

Perhaps it's related to the Obsidian Portal announcement from last month. Development on the stand alone app ends to begin work on a version embedded into Obsidian Portal?


----------



## doctorhook (May 13, 2010)

AZ_ST said:


> Perhaps it's related to the Obsidian Portal announcement from last month. Development on the stand alone app ends to begin work on a version embedded into Obsidian Portal?



You're quite optimistic! But if "data mining" D&DI is the problem, wouldn't this be equally problematic?

BTW, is the "data mining" that Masterplan does any different from the iPhone apps that connect to the Compendium...?


----------



## Markn (May 13, 2010)

Something weird is definately going on.  I was introduced to the program at version 8.4.  Like others wondering, is this announcement the precursor to something good or something bad.  My guess, is that with the quick change of heart, it must be a C&D.  The thing that makes this unique is that Masterplan is free, whereas other sites that I have seen shut down actually charged money for their programs.  

I suspect the real answer will make itself apparent before long.


----------



## darjr (May 13, 2010)

I don't think that a C&D would allow for the continued distribution of the app. I hope it's something positive.

Maybe it's the last 8 version?


----------



## Markn (May 13, 2010)

darjr said:


> Maybe it's the last 8 version?




That occured to me too.  Maybe they are just being cheeky.  But if they are, I imagine it would piss a lot of people off.


----------



## malraux (May 13, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> You're quite optimistic! But if "data mining" D&DI is the problem, wouldn't this be equally problematic?
> 
> BTW, is the "data mining" that Masterplan does any different from the iPhone apps that connect to the Compendium...?




Data mining is loosely defined as going systematically going through all information and saving it all.  The iphone/iplay4e type apps don't save the data, they just pull it up from the server as it's requested.


----------



## doctorhook (May 13, 2010)

malraux said:


> Data mining is loosely defined as going systematically going through all information and saving it all.  The iphone/iplay4e type apps don't save the data, they just pull it up from the server as it's requested.



Ahh, now I understand. I can see why WotC wouldn't want people doing it; if you can save it, you can redistribute it, right?

Thanks, malraux.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (May 13, 2010)

malraux said:


> Data mining is loosely defined as going systematically going through all information and saving it all.  The iphone/iplay4e type apps don't save the data, they just pull it up from the server as it's requested.



<pedantic>Not exactly. Data mining is sifting through a large mound of data, looking for patterns or otherwise useful information.</pedantic>


----------



## malraux (May 13, 2010)

Data harvesting is probably the better word.  Nontheless, data mining is the wording the ToU uses.


> use of any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods; (f) downloading (other than the page caching) of any portion of the Sites, any Site Content, the Services or any information contained therein, except as expressly permitted on the Sites or pursuant to the Services


----------



## Saracenus (May 13, 2010)

How much you want to bet that the developer got scooped up by WotC to fast track the Adventure Tools... Master Plan has done more in less time with less of a team than WotC.

I will bet that he has non-disclosure and can not talk about it until stuff is announced.

My Two Coppers,


----------



## doctorhook (May 13, 2010)

Saracenus said:


> How much you want to bet that the developer got scooped up by WotC to fast track the Adventure Tools... Master Plan has done more in less time with less of a team than WotC.
> 
> I will bet that he has non-disclosure and can not talk about it until stuff is announced.
> 
> My Two Coppers,



[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


----------



## Obryn (May 13, 2010)

I dunno.  I could believe that he's stressed from the pressures of dealing with demanding, entitled idiots like the ones who frequent the Facebook page.  It could be life changes - new job, new relationship...

I doubt it's a C&D - those would result in it becoming un-downloadable.

-O


----------



## doctorhook (May 13, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I dunno.  I could believe that he's stressed from the pressures of dealing with demanding, entitled idiots like the ones who frequent the Facebook page.



If this is because of a tiny handful of obnoxious, ungrateful twits, I swear I'll climb through my computer and do violence to them with their own keyboards.


----------



## Asmor (May 13, 2010)

Just wanted to reiterate that it's clearly not a C&D issue, or else he wouldn't continue distribution. Also, in my limited experience, WotC isn't as litigious as certain companies (Hi, GW! *waves*) and they seem to have some common sense rules about who they go after. In particular, I don't think most at WotC would have a problem with Masterplan because it does require a DDI account to download the data and it's not being sold for profit (compare this to that one website that was doing character sheets with the full text of powers without requiring DDI and, if I recall correctly, did charge for some features).


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

I'm guessing he's about to announce that it's now going to be integrated with Obsidian Portal, and made the cryptic announcement to garner attention for said bigger announcement... It's working. 

Hope I'm not wrong!


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 13, 2010)

I'm not as familiar with Masterplan as I'd like to be; I'm just now getting to the point of evaluating available game planning/assisting apps. But didn't Masterplan grow out of a tile mapper that WotC themselves use and have linked from the D&D website in the past? I know the RPGA has been using Masterplan to layout tactical maps for LFR for a long time. It's not like they've been unaware of this app.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 13, 2010)

Masterplan is awesome.  I hope it continues forward in some form.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2010)

It's kind of one of those programs I want to use but don't, because I haven't used a laptop to run a game, but the program seems awesome. I think I'd have more ability to use a tablet PC then a laptop though, so once the win7 tablet hits the market, I might be using masterplan.


----------



## D'karr (May 13, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> But didn't Masterplan grow out of a tile mapper that WotC themselves use and have linked from the D&D website in the past?




It is not.  Event though it can do some rudimentary mapping, this app is really designed to help the DM track an adventure or campaign.  It also has an initiative tracker that can be used to track combat.  Since it can import directly from the Compendium and Character builder you can have creatures and characters assigned in initiative order.

The real strength of the app is that you can flowchart the adventure and create each encounter entirely on the application.  Monsters, dialog, boxed text, map, etc.  All of it can be tracked in the app.  In addition, it lets the DM track the XP budget for his encounters, and is able to map out the entire campaign as a series of adventures if you so desire.

It's a pretty nifty tool.


----------



## coyote6 (May 13, 2010)

How useful would it be for non-4e, or even non-D&D, games?


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (May 13, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> How useful would it be for non-4e, or even non-D&D, games?




Not very. You'd only be using a small portion of the full functionality of the program (the flowchart and note taking sections), and ignoring all of the other system specific stuff (encounter builder, combat tracker, etc).


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (May 13, 2010)

If true, that's too bad. The adventure tools from DDI are very lacking, and I was just beginning to learn MasterPlan.

If the DDI ever gets to the level it was originally envisioned to be (with a map tool, virtual tabletop, MasterPlan type program), I would definitely subscribe again.


----------



## baberg (May 13, 2010)

Count me in as one of those who just recently found MasterPlan and loves it.  I run a tabletop game but MP makes prepping a whole lot easier (once I worked out an easy way to export to HTML and convert to a Word document that is).

If it's not a legal issue that's preventing him from updating, I hope he puts the code base out as open source so people can continue to improve it.  It's a real shame to lose that kind of work if he's just burnt out (and reading some of the Facebook whiners on his page I can see how he would burn out).


----------



## Obryn (May 13, 2010)

I think the fact that he hasn't made the code open-source, and that he's been completely mum about his reasons, indicates that he's either doing that Obsidian Portal integration, _or_ that there's another deal in the works.

No idea though.  It's all speculation at this point. 

-O


----------



## baberg (May 13, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think the fact that he hasn't made the code open-source, and that he's been completely mum about his reasons, indicates that he's either doing that Obsidian Portal integration, _or_ that there's another deal in the works.
> 
> No idea though.  It's all speculation at this point.
> 
> -O




I'm leaning towards "somebody bought it".  Why?

- Still available for download, so it's not a Cease and Desist from WotC
- Not open sourced, so likely not a case of burnout or a new job
- The announcement of a major feature for version 9, then this stoppage
- No signs of him slowing down previous to this announcement, as of Monday he was still actively replying on his Facebook page

I did notice that the download link on the homepage used to link to the Dungeon Tiles Yahoo group but doesn't anymore, and there's another missing link that I can't recall (I believe last I checked there were 4 entries in the download table, now there are two).  I can imagine whoever bought it would have told him to take down that obvious copyright infringement link as part of the deal.

Again, 100% speculation here.


----------



## doctorhook (May 13, 2010)

baberg said:


> I did notice that the download link on the homepage used to link to the Dungeon Tiles Yahoo group but doesn't anymore, and there's another missing link that I can't recall (I believe last I checked there were 4 entries in the download table, now there are two).



Yeah, I thought there were a couple of library links. Anyone recall what the other one was?

...And where I can download it? I'm reloading everything, since I just reformatted my computer.


----------



## fnwc (May 13, 2010)

I was hoping that Masterplan would move closer to something like MapTools, where I could use it for a digital game table (not a player/gm networked one, but one used at an actual in-person game on a touch surface projection table) to track things like line of sight, fog of war, lighting, and general combat tracking (statuses especially).

Hopefully this isn't the death of Masterplan so much as the birth of something else. Hopefully.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 14, 2010)

fnwc said:


> I was hoping that Masterplan would move closer to something like MapTools, where I could use it for a digital game table (not a player/gm networked one, but one used at an actual in-person game on a touch surface projection table) to track things like line of sight, fog of war, lighting, and general combat tracking (statuses especially).
> 
> Hopefully this isn't the death of Masterplan so much as the birth of something else. Hopefully.




I was hoping the same thing.  I have been playing around with it, and the only thing I would like at this time is a client/server feature for it.  It would replace Maptools at my gametable I think.


----------



## doctorhook (May 14, 2010)

By the way, can anyone tell me how Masterplan compares to Microsoft OneNote (2007)? I know people are using both programs to do similar things for their games, but how does the sheer versatility of OneNote compare to the specific utility of Masterplan, a program designed for exactly D&D purposes?


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (May 14, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> By the way, can anyone tell me how Masterplan compares to Microsoft OneNote (2007)? I know people are using both programs to do similar things for their games, but how does the sheer versatility of OneNote compare to the specific utility of Masterplan, a program designed for exactly D&D purposes?




You can easily do all of the adventure design in OneNote, and better, since you can link things much more easily. But for the encounters themselves, I'd use Masterplan.


----------



## sev (May 14, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think the fact that he hasn't made the code open-source, and that he's been completely mum about his reasons, indicates that he's either doing that Obsidian Portal integration, _or_ that there's another deal in the works.




I'd be disappointed to see Masterplan integrated into obsidian portal.  The documentation at OP is all uncaptioned video and therefore inacessible to the hearing-impaired, and the HTML output from Masterplan in general meets accessibility critera better than the OP website (Web2Access - Products - Obsidian Portal ).

Obsidian Portal's not a disaster -- and from a content-creation standpoint may be even more accessible than Masterplan --  but there's little excuse for moving *backwards* in terms of supporting people's ability to use a tool.



> No idea though.  It's all speculation at this point.



well, at least there's that.


----------



## Mephistopheles (May 16, 2010)

I was just getting around to checking Masterplan out, but the site says that it is currently unavailable and doesn't offer it for download.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 16, 2010)

Mephistopheles said:


> I was just getting around to checking Masterplan out, but the site says that it is currently unavailable and doesn't offer it for download.




WTF? Now that points to a C&D.

EDIT. Link removed. (I guess the admins missed it...)


----------



## firesnakearies (May 16, 2010)

It's weird that not a word of explanation has surfaced for why Masterplan is suddenly gone.

I wonder what the deal is...


----------



## darjr (May 16, 2010)

Yes, I would surely like to know. Anyone with any knowledge could you please double check whatever it is that holds your tongue and see if there is room to provide a wee bit of mercy?


----------



## Pour (May 16, 2010)

I've quickly found this program to be essential in the few weeks I've owned in, and luckily it mostly still is (though when uploading compendium stuff in the future, will we be able to get the newer Dungeon and Dragon material), but I'm really going to miss whatever improvements might have been made to an already incredible tool.


----------



## evildmguy (May 17, 2010)

I am curious, now that it can't be downloaded, what's going on with it.  Good luck to the creator, whatever happens!  

edg


----------



## Obryn (May 17, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> WTF? Now that points to a C&D.



Does it?  I can't find the old link, but that's the worst-case scenario. 

-O


----------



## doctorhook (May 17, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Does it?  I can't find the old link, but that's the worst-case scenario.
> 
> -O



Having been to the page only yesterday and again today, I can confirm that both the download link AND the download page are missing from the Masterplan website. Folks on the Facebook page are discussing it too, but there's no info there.

Do we, the community, have any recourse in this? Can we keep distributing version 8.8 anyway? Can somebody else mess around with the program and start developing it again? I'm aware that if there was a C&D, both of these strategies will be complicated by that.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 17, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Having been to the page only yesterday and again today, I can confirm that both the download link AND the download page are missing from the Masterplan website. Folks on the Facebook page are discussing it too, but there's no info there.
> 
> Do we, the community, have any recourse in this? Can we keep distributing version 8.8 anyway? Can somebody else mess around with the program and start developing it again? I'm aware that if there was a C&D, both of these strategies will be complicated by that.




As for distributing version 8.8 I see no big problem. Once it hits the eMule and torrent networks it will be available for the foreseeable future anyway.

The developer tools are still available on the download page, so someone could mess around with it, I guess.
And just in case the developer tools disappear without any explanation, I've taken the liberty to upload them to Megaupload: *Link removed, it is not a liberty which is yours to take - Admin*


----------



## fnwc (May 17, 2010)

Turns out it *was* a C&D from Wizards. Apparently Masterplan will continue development, but without integration into the Compendium.

I find it silly that Wizards is so short sighted that they would move against something that actively promotes subscriptions to D&D Insider.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 17, 2010)

I hate it when my pessimistic outlook turns out to be well-founded. 

A Quick Update - Masterplan

We should ship several truckloads of common sense to the WotC lawyers. They're in dire need of it.


----------



## darjr (May 17, 2010)

From their facebook page.



> There’s been a lot of speculation about Masterplan in the last week; here’s the official version.
> 
> Last week we received a Cease & Desist email from a lawyer acting on behalf of WOTC, in which she demanded that we shut down Masterplan entirely. As some people have speculated, the lawyer’s main complaint is about Masterplan’s integration with the WOTC Compendium.
> 
> ...




Not cool. It would have been nice to have seen this worked out some other way.


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

I guess thats why we never got the 3rd part of the Compendium API... They don't actually want it used.

That's sad... It's not like it really does much good without a subscription... why block something that will bring them money?


----------



## Obryn (May 17, 2010)

My _hope_ is that, much as with the various power card and character creation sites, this is the prelude to similar WotC software.  I have my doubts, so it's really just a hope and nothing more.

I'm disappointed.  It's a shame.

-O


----------



## malraux (May 17, 2010)

Compendium integration was the major selling feature for me.  The whole point was that it grabbed all the info needed.


----------



## Blastin (May 17, 2010)

Obryn said:


> My _hope_ is that, much as with the various power card and character creation sites, this is the prelude to similar WotC software.  I have my doubts, so it's really just a hope and nothing more.
> 
> I'm disappointed.  It's a shame.
> 
> -O




This is what I was thinking as well.


----------



## davethegame (May 17, 2010)

Obryn said:


> My _hope_ is that, much as with the various power card and character creation sites, this is the prelude to similar WotC software.  I have my doubts, so it's really just a hope and nothing more.
> 
> I'm disappointed.  It's a shame.
> 
> -O




Also color me disappointed. Masterplan clearly is a lot of work, and has tons and tons of devoted fans... As far as I recall, those other sites didn't require DDI. Masterplan required DDI to do all the importing.

Even if there was some kind of encryption problem with the data, it seems like the answer is to tell them that instead of sending a C&D first.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 17, 2010)

Old ladies and tiny kittens would die in droves if I vented my full anger and frustration over WotC and their lawyers right now.

I really wish this company suffers the consequences of their stupidity.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 17, 2010)

And this is exactly why the vast majority of us developers won't touch anything to do with 4e with a 10' pole.


----------



## Mephistopheles (May 17, 2010)

Masterplan doesn't encrypt the data it grabs from DDI so I can understand WotC taking issue with this feature (although somehow I doubt the response would have been any different regardless). It would be nice, however, if companies dealing in products that are community driven could understand that responding to the creativity and innovation of their community with something other than blunt legal weaponry may be a worthwhile investment.


----------



## mudbunny (May 18, 2010)

From my understanding (and I have heard nothing from WotC about this), MasterPlan allowed you to *download* the compendium to your HD and save it, and then share that library with other people, and that ability to download it and then share it with others who might not be subscribers is/was the problem.

I am going to be poking The Powers That Be to try to get something official out of them about this.


----------



## Scribble (May 18, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> From my understanding (and I have heard nothing from WotC about this), MasterPlan allowed you to *download* the compendium to your HD and save it, and then share that library with other people, and that ability to download it and then share it with others who might not be subscribers is/was the problem.
> 
> I am going to be poking The Powers That Be to try to get something official out of them about this.




Well, that would make sense then.

Perhaps 9.0 will still let you get info from the compendium but not let you share it.


----------



## doctorhook (May 18, 2010)

fnwc said:


> I find it silly that Wizards is so short sighted that they would move against something that actively promotes subscriptions to D&D Insider.



I perhaps shouldn't say this, but my D&DI subscription has lapsed, and thus I have no access to the compendium currently. And yet, after reformatting my laptop last week, and after reloading Masterplan version 8.8, I was able to download a massive collection of library files for it from a certain website. From those files, my new copy of Masterplan was suddenly equipped with the stat blocks of every official monster in 4E as of last month, including even the stat blocks of monsters from RPGA adventures Dungeon Magazine. I never paid for access to those, and yet I had it.

Now, the files I downloaded and imported into my copy of Masterplan weren't created by me -- but they _*were*_ mined from D&DI by someone else's copy of Masterplan, someone who must also have had an active D&DI subscription when they did it. After Masterplan collected the data, it was just a matter of that person copying the library files and posting them somewhere online, where anyone could download them.

So, on this basis, I understand why WotC doesn't approve of Masterplan in its current form. 



Oldtimer said:


> Old ladies and tiny kittens would die in droves if I vented my full anger and frustration over WotC and their lawyers right now.
> 
> I really wish this company dies a painful death.



That's harsh. Seriously.

Anyway, I'm an optimist. I'm happy to hear that Masterplan is alive and kicking! I'm mildly bummed that we won't have such simple integration for Masterplan anymore, but I'm also confident that it's just a matter of time before an alternative is found. I don't endorse piracy, but I do like Masterplan -- I just want it to have monsters.


----------



## Nightson (May 18, 2010)

I'm pretty sure it was already brought up in this thread, but data mining the compendium is something that's been not okay since the very start according to WotC.  Now honestly, I have a pretty low regard for what exactly companies may want in general, but I can't say I'm shocked or angry that WotC followed up on a policy it's had in place since the start that Masterplan knowingly violated.


----------



## frog (May 18, 2010)

I just wish that there was a version that supported 3.5 or Pathfinder...


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

frog said:


> I just wish that there was a version that supported 3.5 or Pathfinder...




Paizo would likely be easier to work with it is true.


----------



## frog (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Paizo would likely be easier to work with it is true.




The creator could probably make a pretty good side income off of it if he got on the good side of the Pathfinder fans. As one of them I am practically BEGGING for some campaign management software for 3.5/Pathfinder.


----------



## AllisterH (May 18, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Paizo would likely be easier to work with it is true.




I wouldn't agree with that....

Paizo hasn't released EVERYTHING into the OGL and this is what Masterplan did.


----------



## doctorhook (May 18, 2010)

frog said:


> The creator could probably make a pretty good side income off of it if he got on the good side of the Pathfinder fans. As one of them I am practically BEGGING for some campaign management software for 3.5/Pathfinder.



Truth is, us 4ons are begging for it too. And perhaps worse, we've been promised it before, only to have it either snatched away from us, or never materialise at all...


----------



## frog (May 18, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Truth is, us 4ons are begging for it too. And perhaps worse, we've been promised it before, only to have it either snatched away from us, or never materialise at all...




I think that ALL of us have been in this situation...from the start of 3e.


----------



## Wicht (May 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I wouldn't agree with that....
> 
> Paizo hasn't released EVERYTHING into the OGL and this is what Masterplan did.




What would you need that has not been released? Deity information?


----------



## darjr (May 18, 2010)

Masterplan for 3.5/Pathfinder? Very cool. Actually I could see it for other editions as well.

I think that part of master plans elegance is the 4e adventure delve style, but I think that could be useful for pathfinder and AD&D adventures... I'd dig it.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 18, 2010)

Ughhh.  When are companies going to learn.  

They create an API, post how to get information out of DDI and then wonder why people are using it?

The only thing that should have happened is them stopping the export of DDI material.

But, my guess is that they are working in a tool or 2 that does what MasterPlan does.  So they kill the competition.

I get WHY they are doing it.  They just have to be careful with what they are doing.  They are going push whatever dedicated fans (the kind that actually create helpfull things) they have left over to Pathfinder.


----------



## Scribble (May 18, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> Ughhh.  When are companies going to learn.
> 
> They create an API, post how to get information out of DDI and then wonder why people are using it?
> 
> ...




Well, without seeing the C&D letter, and I'm sure part of it is that it can't be shown, then we really have no idea what part they objected too... Once MP 9 is out we might have some more info. I'll reserve my judgments then.


----------



## malraux (May 18, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> Ughhh.  When are companies going to learn.
> 
> They create an API, post how to get information out of DDI and then wonder why people are using it?
> 
> ...




It wouldn't be that hard to dynamically load the info from the server that masterplan currently caches locally.  It would slow things up slightly, but still make the program workable and within the limits of WotC's ToU.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 18, 2010)

malraux said:


> It wouldn't be that hard to dynamically load the info from the server that masterplan currently caches locally. It would slow things up slightly, but still make the program workable and within the limits of WotC's ToU.





We will have to see what happens.  Ever since Apple successfully had the court agree that copying includes RAM, it is anyones guess at this point.

I never used any of the export features, but if there are issues with sharing the data, it is the users problem.

Just like I could share my DDI stuff with anyone I want (and people DO, just check for a torrent).

We shall see how this plays out.  My bet is that the next Adventure Tool is a Campaign or Encounter Builder that has smiliar features.


----------



## Kafen (May 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well, without seeing the C&D letter, and I'm sure part of it is that it can't be shown, then we really have no idea what part they objected too... Once MP 9 is out we might have some more info. I'll reserve my judgments then.




Yeah, I might start back into 4e. If it turns out that WOTC is trying to kill good software. It would force me to turn completely away from 4e. I am taking a wait and see approach at this point.


----------



## malraux (May 18, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Yeah, I might start back into 4e. If it turns out that WOTC is trying to kill good software. It would force me to turn completely away from 4e. I am taking a wait and see approach at this point.




Not to be a WotC cheerleader, but what MP was doing was allowing for an easy way to share a huge amount of the DDI compendium information.  I can understand why WotC would look down on such an app.  That's a big distinction from a program like iplay4e which integrates with the DDI, but only does so "live", ie it gets all the info as needed from the server without storing it or allowing sharing.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 18, 2010)

malraux said:


> Not to be a WotC cheerleader, but what MP was doing was allowing for an easy way to share a huge amount of the DDI compendium information. I can understand why WotC would look down on such an app. That's a big distinction from a program like iplay4e which integrates with the DDI, but only does so "live", ie it gets all the info as needed from the server without storing it or allowing sharing.




Actually no, it wasn't. The only way (from what I have read) to share your DDI information was to directly copy a file. 

In fact, on their forums they actively encouraged people to buy DDI. 

When all is said and done though, I don't see how WotC did not know about the feature. There is a thread on their own forums by the developer from last year and there is talk that DDI developers actually used the software (and some people even said that those developers said they could do better). 

From everything I read, they are being held accountable for what a few users chose to do. It would be no different if those same people chose to input everything by hand or cut and paste everything and then share it. 

If I where a developer, I would pay very close attention - especially if the next tool that is released shares some of the same functions as MasterPlan does.


----------



## malraux (May 18, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> Actually no, it wasn't. The only way (from what I have read) to share your DDI information was to directly copy a file.




Right, it makes it easy to share the data from the compendium.  Certainly its hard to do accidentally, but that isn't what I said.


----------



## MrMyth (May 18, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> From everything I read, they are being held accountable for what a few users chose to do. It would be no different if those same people chose to input everything by hand or cut and paste everything and then share it.




Sure, but the concern may be with how easy it made it to share the contents of DDI. WotC seems to have much less of a problem with something like IPlay4E, which actively connects to it during use, but doesn't datamine and store the information outside the Compendium.


----------



## darjr (May 18, 2010)

The software doesn't seem dead. I still wish that it had been handled without the hammer that is a C&D. I'd wager that the developers would have changed it if asked.

From their post it sounds like they are taking out the download and trying to do something else. The C&D letter does suck.


----------



## doctorhook (May 18, 2010)

I'm going to change the title of the thread to reflect the new developments.


----------



## malraux (May 18, 2010)

darjr said:


> The software doesn't seem dead. I still wish that it had been handled without the hammer that is a C&D. I'd wager that the developers would have changed it if asked.




A C&D is the asking.  It's just the legalese way of politely asking.  If the MP developers felt they were in the right, they can ignore the C&D.


----------



## Obryn (May 18, 2010)

Well, Version 8.8 works pretty smoothly and bug-free.  I have no qualms about using it forever, with the compendium data I've already downloaded through my own DDI account.  We'll see if it continues to be workable after the monster format changes - maybe, maybe not!  But a good backup of the directory should do the trick.

-O


----------



## rjdafoe (May 18, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Sure, but the concern may be with how easy it made it to share the contents of DDI. WotC seems to have much less of a problem with something like IPlay4E, which actively connects to it during use, but doesn't datamine and store the information outside the Compendium.





I will wait and see what the next Adventure Tool is going to be. On the DDI General forum there was a "soon" (whatever that is) answer at some point as to when the next Adventure Tool will be announced.  It will be interesting if it overlaps with MasterPlan.


----------



## darjr (May 18, 2010)

I dunno, I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just agree to disagree, but I do see your point about a C&D being 'corporate' polite.

I think that if I had to be logged in to DDI live to use it It wouldn't be a big deal for me.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 18, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> We will have to see what happens.  Ever since Apple successfully had the court agree that copying includes RAM, it is anyones guess at this point.




That wasn't Apple.  It was Blizzard.  I followed the cases closely.  Psystar was "ignored" by Apple until the Blizzard/Glider WoW botting case made the RAM/copy precedent.  Apple filed suit within a week or so of the Blizzard ruling.

Yes this off-topic.


----------



## Shemeska (May 19, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> I will wait and see what the next Adventure Tool is going to be. On the DDI General forum there was a "soon" (whatever that is) answer at some point as to when the next Adventure Tool will be announced.  It will be interesting if it overlaps with MasterPlan.




The answer of "soon" has been lingering for a year or more on various topics.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (May 19, 2010)

Wow, this thread peaked my interest in master plan. A program that does some of the stuff WoTC promiced DDI would do 2 years ago? All I have to do is find a copy, and I'm golden!
I got my Fractal mapper to do the maps WoTC promiced, 
I got my OpenRPG for the virtual table WoTC promiced
I got The character and monster builder (Yay WoTC coming through!)
Now I need the encounter builder WoTC promiced... This looks like it!
*begins hunting the internets for a copy that must be there*


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

I am sad and angry about this.  All the king's horses and all the king's men at Wizards of the Court can't bring out the much-touted suite of DM digital aids that they promised years ago and have been presumably working on for years now, so they have to shut down the excellent efforts of community members who are making the game easier to run and play for many people, at no profit to themselves.

I guess it's understandable that WotC has to constantly lay off their highly-talented creative staff . . . they need to pay for more lawyers, after all!


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> I am sad and angry about this.  All the king's horses and all the king's men at Wizards of the Court can't bring out the much-touted suite of DM digital aids that they promised years ago and have been presumably working on for years now, so they have to shut down the excellent efforts of community members who are making the game easier to run and play for many people, at no profit to themselves.
> 
> I guess it's understandable that WotC has to constantly lay off their highly-talented creative staff . . . they need to pay for more lawyers, after all!



The only advice I can give you is that life is more pleasant when you try not to be so cynical.

My fingers are crossed that someday soon, there will be awesome online tools. It's always been true before: if you wait long enough, something else cool is bound to come along. Just like Masterplan did, and the Character Builder, and RPGTools, for example. Time and technology are on our side.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

malraux said:


> Not to be a WotC cheerleader, but what MP was doing was allowing for an easy way to share a huge amount of the DDI compendium information.  I can understand why WotC would look down on such an app.  That's a big distinction from a program like iplay4e which integrates with the DDI, but only does so "live", ie it gets all the info as needed from the server without storing it or allowing sharing.




What is the distinction between the two programs on a license level? Both extract the information to an offsite file. The only real distinction is the method of file transfer and file storage. Little Bobby aka my almost done character does not see a difference. Both Mastermind and iPlay4e offer modern content delivery though the browser gui on some level. 

Anyway, my point is that I am wary of making time for a game system that actively discourages people from playing it - the side effect of hounding people for actually making the software for your game players. After the whole GURPS thing, I am not keen on buying books from a company that does it. And, the truth is that I am thinking about getting into 4e. So, stuff like this is a factor for myself. *shrug* I am sure some people can make an edition war bit out of it, but it's purely personal choice for myself.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> What is the distinction between the two programs on a license level? Both extract the information to an offsite file.




No, iplay4e doesn't save anything (ignore lower level issues like browser cacheing.  MP does.  Huge difference.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

Once you upload a file, you can export, link, print out sheets, and do tons of stuff. The point being - the data is stored on a third party server. The only difference is only the method of transfer.


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think it's quite the same. Above, you're just saving a character file, which has in it the data for the tiny handful of powers your character has.

In contrast, Masterplan can download, archive, and review the entire catalogue of monsters available in the compendium. 

The main difference seems to be the volume of the downloaded content, which is an order of magnitude larger in Masterplan's case.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Sure, but the concern may be with how easy it made it to share the contents of DDI. WotC seems to have much less of a problem with something like IPlay4E, which actively connects to it during use, but doesn't datamine and store the information outside the Compendium.




No data mining is being performed by Masterplan.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I don't think it's quite the same. Above, you're just saving a character file, which has in it the data for the tiny handful of powers your character has.
> 
> In contrast, Masterplan can download, archive, and review the entire catalogue of monsters available in the compendium.
> 
> The main difference seems to be the volume of the downloaded content, which is an order of magnitude larger in Masterplan's case.




Oh,  I agree there is a quantity and scope difference. However, the point about Mastermind being an archive suite while other sites like iPlay4e are not storage sites is a false one. Both software options store data. iPlay4e stores data in Character Builder files and sql format while Mastermind locks them the .library format. On a technical level, both suites store data. The quantity is beside the point.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I don't think it's quite the same. Above, you're just saving a character file, which has in it the data for the tiny handful of powers your character has.
> 
> In contrast, Masterplan can download, archive, and review the entire catalogue of monsters available in the compendium.
> 
> The main difference seems to be the volume of the downloaded content, which is an order of magnitude larger in Masterplan's case.




It doesn't even have the data for the powers.  It has the name of the power.  The text of what it does is still stored on the DDI server.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> No data mining is being performed by Masterplan.




What do you call going through and cataloging every element of database in your own format.


----------



## mudbunny (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Oh,  I agree there is a quantity and scope difference. However, the point about Mastermind being an archive suite while other sites like iPlay4e are not storage sites is a false one. Both software options store data. iPlay4e stores data in Character Builder files and sql format while Mastermind locks them the .library format. On a technical level, both suites store data. The quantity is beside the point.




But the Character Builder files don't contain the text of the powers or anything like that. The Character Builder program does that. And iPlay4E doesn't store any of the "fluff" data either. It provides links to the compendium entry.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

malraux said:


> What do you call going through and cataloging every element of database in your own format.




It's called information retrieval or any number of other terms, but not data mining. Data mining is a technical term with a specific definition. Masterplan does no data mining.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> But the Character Builder files don't contain the text of the powers or anything like that. The Character Builder program does that. And iPlay4E doesn't store any of the "fluff" data either. It provides links to the compendium entry.




However, the point about data storage is my point - both suites store the data. If you want to say that iPlay4e is hotlinking the data and using WOTC's bandwidth, I agree with you. The fact that both suites store some data is still present. The amount of data is beside the point once you start firing off C and D letters at people. I am not fond of that license model. Players tend to get upset when the easy buttons are all broken. It is why I am watching this one. If WOTC is going to start doing this to software devs...  *shrug* I am expressing my worry.  Players like cool toys and I want my toys.


----------



## mudbunny (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> However, the point about data storage is my point - both suites store the data. If you want to say that iPlay4e is hotlinking the data and using WOTC's bandwidth, I agree with you. The fact that both suites store some data is still present. The amount of data is beside the point once you start firing off C and D letters at people.




The difference is that iPlay4e, if you no longer have a DDI subscription, no longer provides you with the information from the compendium (assuming the power is not in the free stuff that everyone has access to.) Masterplan allowed you to download the compendium data and then continue to access it, even after your subscription had ended.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> It's called information retrieval or any number of other terms, but not data mining. Data mining is a technical term with a specific definition. Masterplan does no data mining.




Regardless of the exact technical term, its clear that MP replicates a rather large portion of the DDI database.  Getting hung up over obscure terms is beside the point.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> The difference is that iPlay4e, if you no longer have a DDI subscription, no longer provides you with the information from the compendium (assuming the power is not in the free stuff that everyone has access to.) Masterplan allowed you to download the compendium data and then continue to access it, even after your subscription had ended.




It is a difference. The length of data storage and scope of data storage is not an aspect of the GSL. Anyway, people are getting upset about it. I made my point. Data storage is data storage. *shrug* 

Heh, I know the license people recall the GSL topics at WOTC. Yes? Software issues is the long time complaint. So, I hope nobody gets sore about it. If the hundreds of posts throwing thousands of words in countless walls of text can't get WOTC to change the policy. There is no need to get upset over it.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

malraux said:


> Regardless of the exact technical term, its clear that MP replicates a rather large portion of the DDI database.  Getting hung up over obscure terms is beside the point.




Admin note: rudeness isn't cool - see my note later in the thread. 

Your ignorance of the term doesn't make it obscure. It's a ubiquitous term that some people, having heard it, assumed they knew what it meant and started using it themselves despite having no idea what it means. 

It's not besides the point at all, it was precisely *my* point, which is the only point I care about. Masterplan was repeatedly accused of data mining in this thread. They were not.


----------



## Obryn (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> However, the point about data storage is my point - both suites store the data. If you want to say that iPlay4e is hotlinking the data and using WOTC's bandwidth, I agree with you. The fact that both suites store some data is still present. The amount of data is beside the point once you start firing off C and D letters at people.



It's not the amount of data or a binary data/no-data issue; it's the kind of data, I think.

If iplay4e downloaded the Compendium and stored power information locally, I believe they would have gotten a C&D.

-O


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

Kafen said:


> It is a difference. The length of data storage and scope of data storage is not an aspect of the GSL. Anyway, people are getting upset about it. I made my point. Data storage is data storage. *shrug*




iPlay4e doesn't store anything beyond what is reasonable enough to qualify as web caching according to the TOS AFAIK.

It doesn't really matter though. WotC can selectively pursue what they feel is a violation of the TOS. More importantly I'm certain they could find pretext to shut down Masterplan (or force them to remove certain features) even if Masterplan was following the letter of the TOS (which they were not).


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> Your ignorance of the term doesn't make it obscure. It's a ubiquitous term that some people, having heard it, assumed they knew what it meant and started using it themselves despite having no idea what it means.
> 
> It's not besides the point at all, it was precisely *my* point, which is the only point I care about. Masterplan was repeatedly accused of data mining in this thread. They were not.




Take it up with WotC.  Data mining is the term they use in the ToU.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

Obryn said:


> It's not the amount of data or a binary data/no-data issue; it's the kind of data, I think.
> 
> If iplay4e downloaded the Compendium and stored power information locally, I believe they would have gotten a C&D.
> 
> -O




Agreed, I think we are seeing the practical application of their 'fansite' policy in action more than a 'legit' C&D application. Basically, I think somebody at WOTC thinks Mastermind is competition and invoking the GSL limits. If they went by the strict GSL terms, the iPlay4e 'website' could not even store the character data much less export a native format of a product for which  they do not have license. Although, I could see WOTC 'fansite policy' in this case coming back to bite them if they allow a third party website without a license to distribute files in their format - trademark wise. If they choose to selectively enforce the license while ignoring sites like iPlay4e, I would have no trouble citing this as  an example of them not defending their trademark.



guivre said:


> iPlay4e doesn't store anything beyond what is reasonable enough to qualify as web caching according to the TOS AFAIK.
> 
> It doesn't really matter though. WotC can selectively pursue what they feel is a violation of the TOS. More importantly I'm certain they could find pretext to shut down Masterplan (or force them to remove certain features) even if Masterplan was following the letter of the TOS (which they were not).




Agreed, however... If WOTC chooses not to enforce their trademark file format on the iPlay4e site, I wonder if they can stop software companies from adopting it. Masterplan might be able to expand on this aspect if WOTC loses their trademark to the file format.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> It's not besides the point at all, it was precisely *my* point, which is the only point I care about. Masterplan was repeatedly accused of data mining in this thread. They were not.



It should be clear from the context what was meant by the term.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

malraux said:


> Take it up with WotC.  Data mining is the term they use in the ToU.




And Masterplan is not violating that portion of the agreement. It's not a difficult concept to follow. They are breaking other portions, but not that one.

WotC doesn't set definitions for the computing industry. The fact that they incorrectly use the term is just evidence of their lack of competence when it comes to the digital world. It doesn't change the meaning.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> It should be clear from the context what was meant by the term.




It doesn't matter what WotC "meant" by the term. That portion of the agreement prohibits data mining, which has a specific meaning. They don't get to make up definitions and they certainly don't get to use verbiage in a legally binding document incorrectly and expect it to hold up.

Furthermore it's NOT clear as they go on to define what some of you think it means. What is clear is that someone that had little idea of what they were talking about threw a clause into the agreement that shouldn't have been in there.


----------



## Asmor (May 19, 2010)

For the time being, things aren't actually going to be much different.

He'll release 9.0. Compendium stuff will be disabled, but...

...8.8 is still out in the aether, easy enough to obtain if you don't have it.

Further, there's no reason to think he'd get rid of the concept of libraries, and no reason to think he'd get change the way libraries are handled.

Put that together and what it means is you use 8.8 to download new libraries and then just copy them over to 9.0.

Now, the issue is that this is going to degrade as they change things... And in fact, it will degrade very quickly. Just last night I downloaded stuff and several items failed because it couldn't parse the HTML (I'm assuming they were items with monster stat blocks associated with them).

I strongly suspect that WotC's going to be changing their output of monsters to the new format soon, and at that point 8.8 will probably no longer be able to grab the monsters. For me, at least, that's when it will really be "dead."

Of course, there's already a huge wealth of content available for it anyways, so you could definitely play for many lifetimes with what's available.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> And Masterplan is not violating that portion of the agreement. It's not a difficult concept to follow. They are breaking other portions, but not that one.
> 
> WotC doesn't set definitions for the computing industry. The fact that they incorrectly use the term is just evidence of their lack of competence when it comes to the digital world. It doesn't change the meaning.




What would you say they are violating then?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> It doesn't matter what WotC "meant" by the term.



I was referring to the term's use in this thread, actually, by other posters.


----------



## guivre (May 19, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I was referring to the term's use in this thread, actually, by other posters.





As was I originally. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a mistaken use of a phrase. Unless you're afraid of someone actually learning something.

I love internet forums. A simple correction turns in to a multi-post conversation by people desperate to not be wrong.


----------



## malraux (May 19, 2010)

Meh, replace mining with scraping.  I stand corrected.


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> Your ignorance of the term doesn't make it obscure. It's a ubiquitous term that some people, having heard it, assumed they knew what it meant and started using it themselves despite having no idea what it means.
> 
> It's not besides the point at all, it was precisely *my* point, which is the only point I care about. Masterplan was repeatedly accused of data mining in this thread. They were not.






guivre said:


> And Masterplan is not violating that portion of the agreement. It's not a difficult concept to follow. They are breaking other portions, but not that one.






guivre said:


> There's nothing wrong with pointing out a mistaken use of a phrase. Unless you're afraid of someone actually learning something.
> 
> I love internet forums. A simple correction turns in to a multi-post conversation by people desperate to not be wrong.



guivre, in the past few hours you've managed to "crap" a perfectly good thread. Though your points are somewhat relevant to our discussion here, you absolutely could have phrased yourself more civilly in all of these posts. Chicks don't dig guys who berate people over the internet.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

Actually, I really don't mind Masterplan not being able to scrape the Compendium and save everything in there.  As long as I can still import individual creatures I make in the Monster Builder into Masterplan, that's perfectly fine for me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2010)

guivre said:


> As was I originally. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a mistaken use of a phrase. Unless you're afraid of someone actually learning something.




Guivre, this post of yours exemplifies the problem, and doctorhook hits the nail on the head here:



doctorhook said:


> guivre, in the past few hours you've managed to "crap" a perfectly good thread. Though your points are somewhat relevant to our discussion here, you absolutely could have phrased yourself more civilly in all of these posts.




Please make an effort to be civil in your posting habits guivre; make your point without losing your cool.

if you've got any questions about this, feel free to PM or email me.


----------



## wedgeski (May 19, 2010)

I checked this app out briefly to see what it could offer me in terms of improved prep, and I was very impressed. I never really got around to using it in anger though.

However, if the author in any way allowed DDI content to be written to disk and transferred to another user who didn't have a DDI account, he was programming on borrowed time.

We get all agitated over the legal hammer whenever it's used against the community, but it seems to me that the few times Wizards have deployed it, they had a legitimate gripe.


----------



## Kafen (May 19, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> I checked this app out briefly to see what it could offer me in terms of improved prep, and I was very impressed. I never really got around to using it in anger though.
> 
> However, if the author in any way allowed DDI content to be written to disk and transferred to another user who didn't have a DDI account, he was programming on borrowed time.
> 
> We get all agitated over the legal hammer whenever it's used against the community, but it seems to me that the few times Wizards have deployed it, they had a legitimate gripe.




One thing to consider, modern software is modular. The databases are almost always HD driven on that level which involve at least a manual transfer of data files. In this case, iPlay4e involves shifting data through the Character Builder format. Masterplan uses the Libarary format. In order to be successful, Masterplan has to offer that portability through .Library files. Otherwise, we are left with failing platforms that don't deliver the content to modern devices.It's not a good thing when large companies like WOTC hinder the growth of innovation that benefits the player base in general. 

I would support what you say 100% if WOTC had made any attempt to hunt the 'illegal' data files on torrent. Considering that at least two of the big ones host the files - something that they would not do if WOTC asked them to remove the files - on torrent.

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of 4e. So, it is not a personal bit. Some people want to call it a loop hole when people create innovative software. I call it WOTC being irresponsible for their actions. They release the file format for Character Builder and encourage a basic API. Then, they protest when people use it. It's not cool for software developers which is my primary complaint with the whole affair at this point. Why distribute the technology if you plan on stopping people from using it?


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 19, 2010)

Intentionally conflating the very distinct data management strategies of iPlay4e and Masterplan is severely misguided, in my opinion. Data storage is data storage? One strategy permits casual sharing of proprietary data, the other does not.

I haven't used iPlay4e in a few weeks, but as far as I am aware it _reads _(not stores) data from CB character files (which are freely distributable and contain no proprietary data) and writes a copy of them, as well as your personal game data, to Google's cloud data service. I seriously doubt iPlay4e is writing Compendium data to anything but memory, or pulling data off the DDI API on anything other than an incidental basis. This is not even remotely similar to having a large, API harvested dataset written to persistent storage on the local machine.

I very much understand the appeal of Masterplan's previous approach to the DDI API; it allows a lot of functionality and performance that would be awkward or perhaps unfeasible otherwise. If the author can find a way to game the usage terms and maintain existing functionality, then bravo! Here's hoping this doesn't neuter the valuable features already deveoped!


----------



## Dolfan (May 20, 2010)

When I first started my campaign several months ago, I was using my DDI subscription to build my campaign.  I made notes in OneNote, then I looked up monster stat blocks on the compendium, snapshotted them to Photoshop and then copied them to Word where I put together my module to print out and use at the game table.  

When I discovered Masterplan, it was like a dream come true.  I had the ability to completely organize my campaign by using my DDI subscription, I had a clear use of monsters so that I could just research them, then drag them into my encounters, I could run the encounter from the program... it was all ideal.  Now I see this and I just cringe.  

Perhaps it's software piracy that is really to blame here, but decisions like the C&D on Masterplan make my life as a DM harder.  I'm not doing anything illegal here, I'm using my subscription that I pay for to access the monsters and put them into my campaign.  Now, if I wanted to update Masterplan (which I don't), I'd be back to the same old method of encounter creation that took me hours.  

For what it's worth, I emailed WotC to voice my displeasure about this decision.  If they had left me with another option (a tool they created, perhaps) I wouldn't have an issue, but since they've left me with nothing, I feel like the company is cutting off its nose to spite its face.  It's restricting my access to DDI, making it less useful to me.  The response I got was friendly and indicated that they'd pass it along to the appropriate department.  I'm not naive... I don't think my voice (or a hundred thousand voices) would change their mind on things like this, but I figured it needed to be said.  

Here's hoping the next tool is an encounter builder that mimics this functionality.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Intentionally conflating the very distinct data management strategies of iPlay4e and Masterplan is severely misguided, in my opinion. Data storage is data storage? One strategy permits casual sharing of proprietary data, the other does not.




How does iPlay4e not offer exports of data? If you go to my screenshot, you see a data export and a character sheet option in iPlay4e. It is two forms of data export from iPlay4e - the exact same thing you get from Masterplan. The quantity of the data is beside the point. Under the GSL, there is no gray area.

For anybody that develops software for character sheets, it is a huge issue. WOTC is basically targeting one developer while letting people other than that one developer use the data.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> How does iPlay4e not offer exports of data? If you go to my screenshot, you see a data export and a character sheet option in iPlay4e. It is two forms of data export from iPlay4e - the exact same thing you get from Masterplan. The quantity of the data is beside the point. Under the GSL, there is no gray area.
> 
> For anybody that develops software for character sheets, it is a huge issue. WOTC is basically targeting one developer while letting people other than that one developer use the data.




Do you not get that a data file that says "Magic Missile = +12" is completely different from a file that that lists every single monster plus all of its associated power text?  It isn't that there's data, its the nature of the data.  Seriously, open up the character builder file and look at what is there.  There's virtually nothing even in it.  Then open up the masterplan files.  There's everything in them.


----------



## mudbunny (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> How does iPlay4e not offer exports of data? If you go to my screenshot, you see a data export and a character sheet option in iPlay4e. It is two forms of data export from iPlay4e - the exact same thing you get from Masterplan.




Errr. no.

With Masterplan, you click two buttons, and the program automatically goes through the compendium and saves, *to your hard drive*, a large portion of the compendium that you can access at any time in the future, whether you have a current subscription or not.

With iPlay4E, none of the compendium data is saved anywhere. It displays the content of the compendium, but there is no option to save it to your harddrive. In addition, should your DDI subscription expire, you will no longer be able to access the information about the powers.

The two situations are not even close to being the same.



> The quantity of the data is beside the point. Under the GSL, there is no gray area.




Neither developer has, to the best of my knowledge, signed the GSL, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.



> For anybody that develops software for character sheets, it is a huge issue. WOTC is basically targeting one developer while letting people other than that one developer use the data.




Except for the fact that the programs/websites for each developer act in two completely different ways. One that requires a constant subscription to DDI, the other which renders a DDI subscription unnecessary.


----------



## fnwc (May 20, 2010)

One wonders if they had implemented Masterplan to require a current DDI subscription (via logon)  each time they wanted to access compendium library files, we would have seen a C&D.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Errr. no.
> 
> With Masterplan, you click two buttons, and the program automatically goes through the compendium and saves, *to your hard drive*, a large portion of the compendium that you can access at any time in the future, whether you have a current subscription or not.
> 
> ...




Both software applications store data. Both applications offer export of the data. I double dog dare you to tell a judge that they are not the same. 





> Neither developer has, to the best of my knowledge, signed the GSL, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.




WOTC is sending legal threats to people over it. The GSL is is the only record WOTC has to describe its motivations towards the software community. It's extremely relevant.





> Except for the fact that the programs/websites for each developer act in two completely different ways. One that requires a constant subscription to DDI, the other which renders a DDI subscription unnecessary.




I do not have an active DDI account and Little Bobby was made the other day. I posted Little Bobby to iPlay4e without issue.   No active DDI account needed.


----------



## mudbunny (May 20, 2010)

fnwc said:


> One wonders if they had implemented Masterplan to require a current DDI subscription (via logon)  each time they wanted to access compendium library files, we would have seen a C&D.




I highly doubt it. I suspect that version 9 of the program will implement compendium access similar to that found in iPlay4e. And that is an important part that needs to be mentioned. Development of the program is being continued. That indicates that there was only a specific part of the program that was causing the problem. Excise/replace that part with something permitted, and the problem (and thus the need for a C&D) goes away.


----------



## mudbunny (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Both software applications store data. Both applications offer export of the data. I double dog dare you to tell a judge that they are not the same.




Except that the data that they store is not at all the same. iPlay4e doesn't store any of the information from the compendium. No compendium access, you don't get the compendium information on the data.

I just signed myself out from the compendium and clicked on your character. When I click on a power that isn't from L1-3 from PHB1&2 (which are freely available to view, DDI subscription or no), I get the following on the iPlay4e character sheet:






Notice that where it would normally display the power, it says you need to sign in to see the info. That right there is 




> WOTC is sending legal threats to people over it. The GSL is is the only record WOTC has to describe its motivations towards the software community. It's extremely relevant.




Not really, If you haven't signed the GSL, you don't need to comply with it.



> I do not have an active DDI account and Little Bobby was made the other day. I posted Little Bobby to iPlay4e without issue.   No active DDI account needed.




You don't need a DDI account to use iPlay4e. You can upload stuff no problem. But without a DDI account, the powers part doesn't show you the powers info.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Both software applications store data. Both applications offer export of the data. I double dog dare you to tell a judge that they are not the same.




Umm, data is a very nebulous word.  WotC isn't going to put a C&D on Microsoft, even through MS sells software that lets you save and store data, yet by your logic they should (or at least that it would be consistent of WotC to do so).  Or hey, itunes lets me download data, i bet that also infringes.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

malraux said:


> Umm, data is a very nebulous word.  WotC isn't going to put a C&D on Microsoft, even through MS sells software that lets you save and store data, yet by your logic they should (or at least that it would be consistent of WotC to do so).  Or hey, itunes lets me download data, i bet that also infringes.




Actually, Itunes has copyrighted data. DRM FTW, eh?  Software rules generally don't cover data in the US which forces WOTC cease and desist letters to invoke the GSL as the nearest defense for claiming the data under the terms of the software. I am pretty sure the companies in question are not signing onto the Wizards terms as an entity. So, data is the only word that applies.



mudbunny said:


> Except that the data that they store is not at all the same. iPlay4e doesn't store any of the information from the compendium. No compendium access, you don't get the compendium information on the data.
> 
> I just signed myself out from the compendium and clicked on your character. When I click on a power that isn't from L1-3 from PHB1&2 (which are freely available to view, DDI subscription or no), I get the following on the iPlay4e character sheet:
> 
> ...









> Not really, If you haven't signed the GSL, you don't need to comply with it.




Yet, what is WOTC going to claim the data with in the US if it does not choose the GSL? If it wants to try arguing ownership of data open to scraping tech, I would love to see it try. With the entire mood of the topic aside, I would love WOTC to try to make the claim for humor value alone. You can't give people an API, allow them access to data, and blame a third party with a straight face. It's the legal version of Apple suing a guy for downloading a song he is buying from their store - the choice in music player at this point is beside the point. The software company that merely offers a service giving you usage of data that you pay for is reasonably secure - Masterplan is not hosting any of the shared files. All violations occur on the user level which is an enforcement issue for WOTC.





> You don't need a DDI account to use iPlay4e. You can upload stuff no problem. But without a DDI account, the powers part doesn't show you the powers info.




Agreed, they distribute the data, however. In terms of a legal threat. WOTC stands a greater chance of action against iPlay4e as a site that hosts data under the recent torrent cases in the US. Unless WOTC can show that Masterplan intends for end users to distribute illegal library files through its own network, I would bet my last dollar on Masterplan winning the case.

Generally speaking, I look forward to seeing what happens. I might actually finish my 4e online suite for my own site if Masterplan forces WOTC to open the data/file format.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Actually, Itunes has copyrighted data. DRM FTW, eh?  Software rules generally don't cover data in the US which forces WOTC cease and desist letters to invoke the GSL as the nearest defense for claiming the data under the terms of the software. I am pretty sure the companies in question are not signing onto the Wizards terms as an entity. So, data is the only word that applies.



So itunes does steal from WotC with its data feature or not?  By your logic, any program that saves data infringes on WotC's IP.  (ie, this is why your point about iplay4e is wrong.  Either there's a difference in different types of data/save files, or every single program that saves is a problem for WotC).









> Yet, what is WOTC going to claim the data with in the US if it does not choose the GSL? If it wants to try arguing ownership of data open to scraping tech, I would love to see it try. With the entire mood of the topic aside, I would love WOTC to try to make the claim for humor value alone. You can't give people an API, allow them access to data, and blame a third party with a straight face. It's the legal version of Apple suing a guy for downloading a song he is buying from their store - the choice in music player at this point is beside the point. The software company that merely offers a service giving you usage of data that you pay for is reasonably secure - Masterplan is not hosting any of the shared files. All violations occur on the user level which is an enforcement issue for WOTC.



I don't think you understand the GSL.  For anything electronic (except for ebooks), the GSL doesn't apply.  Moreover, the GSL only applies to signatories.






> Agreed, they distribute the data, however. In terms of a legal threat. WOTC stands a greater chance of action against iPlay4e as a site that hosts data under the recent torrent cases in the US. Unless WOTC can show that Masterplan intends for end users to distribute illegal library files through its own network, I would bet my last dollar on Masterplan winning the case.
> 
> Generally speaking, I look forward to seeing what happens. I might actually finish my 4e online suite for my own site if Masterplan forces WOTC to open the data/file format.




What data does iplay4e host that wizards would care about?  It doesn't tell you anything other than the names powers and items.


----------



## mudbunny (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Yet, what is WOTC going to claim the data with in the US if it does not choose the GSL? If it wants to try arguing ownership of data open to scraping tech, I would love to see it try.




My guess is that they are not claiming the data. (Keep in mind that as far as I know, no-one outside of WOtC and the developers of Masterplan have seen the C&D.) My guess is that the C&D was over Masterplan providing a way for users to (a) automatically download the data of a large part of the compendium; and (b) easily share the information with other Masterplan users, giving them (the other masterplan users) the data from the compendium, even if they had never had a DDI account.



> With the entire mood of the topic aside, I would love WOTC to try to make the claim for humor value alone. You can't give people an API, allow them access to data, and blame a third party with a straight face.




You can if the person writing a program to use the API does so in a manner which goes against the ToS of the service accessed by the API.



> It's the legal version of Apple suing a guy for downloading a song he is buying from their store - the choice in music player at this point is beside the point.




Actually, I think that it would be closer to Apple suing a guy who had made a plug-in for the App Store that allowed you to download music in a manner which stripped the DRM from the music. (back when iTunes music automatically had DRM applied to it.)



> The software company that merely offers a service giving you usage of data that you pay for is reasonably secure - Masterplan is not hosting any of the shared files. All violations occur on the user level which is an enforcement issue for WOTC.




But WotC has the right to ask Masterplan to stop providing a program that enables users to trivially violate theie ToS. (Keep in mind that a C&D order is a request, not an order. Someone can, if they feel that they are in the right, ignore a C&D and take their chances with the lawyers.)



> Agreed, they distribute the data, however. In terms of a legal threat. WOTC stands a greater chance of action against iPlay4e as a site that hosts data under the recent torrent cases in the US.




Except that iPlay4e doesn't host any of the compendium data on it;'s site. Not to mention that it doesn't provide you access to the compendium data unless you have an active DDI subscription.



> Unless WOTC can show that Masterplan intends for end users to distribute illegal library files through its own network, I would bet my last dollar on Masterplan winning the case.




There isn't going to be a case. The guys from MP are complying with the request. However (IANAL), if it did go to court, WotC would have a strong argument that the program was designed for the sole purpose of extracting data from the compendium and packaging it in a way so that the user no longer needed to use the DDI service to get at the Compendium, unless there are other websites that Masterplan could be pointed at to extract information from automatically.



> Generally speaking, I look forward to seeing what happens. I might actually finish my 4e online suite for my own site if Masterplan forces WOTC to open the data/file format.




Have you ever looked at the output of a character builder file?? It is a plain-text file and has *no* power data in it. It references the compendium.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

malraux

Heh...if you want to chase the data path  Itunes is the worst possible thing you can bring up for your side of things. If you recall, France had a bit of spat with Apple over DRM on the issue. The US pretty much ignored it until the Mininova case. On top of the Scribd.com case, you find a hefty bit of law defining hosting companies and end users. Unless you can trace a direct service/data path from the Masterplan program to the torrents hosting 'illegal' content, you are fighting an uphill battle in US courts. 



The GSL defines the scope of concern that WOTC has for its general content. The lack of actual software guidelines is pretty amusing. It either suggests the GSL as a guide for WOTC to show 'how' they are protecting their trademark it provides for the fansite kit which says... So, I am using what WOTC has out - they leave a very big void to play around in.

From the fan site kit...just for laughs... We can look at that part.

"Use of Non-Public Information Prohibited. You may not publish, display, exhibit or use any information about products (including any photographs, game text, rules, or drawings of such new products or their prototypes) that has not already been released to the general public by Wizards or that Wizards has otherwise expressly authorized for release to the collector community. "

Even if you suggest that Masterplan users are using that content, there is no reason to link the actual torrents with the Masterplan software. 


"# You may not make content from the Wizards website (audio-visual materials excluded) available through your own site if such use entails Wizards hosting such content for you on Wizards' website. For example, you may not make available on a Fan Site any content from Wizards' Web site in a frame, mirror, Iframe, widget, nor may you link directly to a wallpaper file hosted on Wizards' website. " 

Let's hope that iPlay4e can continue linking to items.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> My guess is that they are not claiming the data. (Keep in mind that as far as I know, no-one outside of WOtC and the developers of Masterplan have seen the C&D.) My guess is that the C&D was over Masterplan providing a way for users to (a) automatically download the data of a large part of the compendium; and (b) easily share the information with other Masterplan users, giving them (the other masterplan users) the data from the compendium, even if they had never had a DDI account.




If they are taking that route, they need to nerf the API development now - by removing the forum posts on it. I hope the other programmers take note of how WOTC is treating people for using it. In strictly coder terms, it's irresponsible and destructive of WOTC to both encourage an  API and send threats.



> You can if the person writing a program to use the API does so in a manner which goes against the ToS of the service accessed by the API.




Only if the party is at fault




> Actually, I think that it would be closer to Apple suing a guy who had made a plug-in for the App Store that allowed you to download music in a manner which stripped the DRM from the music. (back when iTunes music automatically had DRM applied to it.)




In this case, the music aka data from WOTC does not have DRM. It's an open XML file. They can't even pretend that they tried to protect the data by 1990 standards in the US.  





> But WotC has the right to ask Masterplan to stop providing a program that enables users to trivially violate theie ToS. (Keep in mind that a C&D order is a request, not an order. Someone can, if they feel that they are in the right, ignore a C&D and take their chances with the lawyers.)




Making a case for it is a far cry from a right... I would chance the lawyers. I deal with the data business on a daily basis and know the data laws enough to say 'go for it' to WOTC. Without a serious software usage policy, it defaults to one of three things. The GSL, fansite policy, or law. Without people signing things, the first two serve as guides for intent and the latter part protects a software vendor from the actions of its end users.





> Except that iPlay4e doesn't host any of the compendium data on it;'s site. Not to mention that it doesn't provide you access to the compendium data unless you have an active DDI subscription.




They host data which is not open to the public. In my example with Bobby. He is level 6/7 - that is not free information. It is paid content. Technically, I am violating the fansite policy.



mudbunny said:


> There isn't going to be a case. The guys from MP are complying with the request. However (IANAL), if it did go to court, WotC would have a strong argument that the program was designed for the sole purpose of extracting data from the compendium and packaging it in a way so that the user no longer needed to use the DDI service to get at the Compendium, unless there are other websites that Masterplan could be pointed at to extract information from automatically.




Correct. However, they would have to show ownership of that data transfer from Masterplan to the general public. Unless there is a transfer of property, there is no Harm.





> Have you ever looked at the output of a character builder file?? It is a plain-text file and has *no* power data in it. It references the compendium.




It is XML, and yes - if you go by fan site guidelines, the linking might be illegal. Not likely, you can't even link an RSS feed according to the fan site rules. So, the only real thing left is data laws which side with software vendors on the issue. Otherwise, you would have people suing M$ for hackers using a windows platform to hack them.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 20, 2010)

Seriously? I'm not sure any effort at offering clarity and accuracy is worthwhile or appreciated at this point, so I'll *try* to keep this short.

_Masterplan_ and _iPlay4e_ are neither books or fansites (strictly speaking), and thus the GSL and fansite policies are irrelevant in every way, shape, and form. Neither of these applications engage or use any of the license materials from those two agreements, so those agreements do not apply. The only _public_ WotC agreement relevant to these apps are the DDI terms of use.

When you create a character in the DDI Character Builder application, you can save this character in a .dnd4e format file. This file does not contain *any* proprietary data, and you are free to distribute these files and the data contained therein any way you'd like. This is by design. _iPlay4e_ allows you to upload this file to the google cloud, and subsequently download this very same file to another location. _iPlay4e_ also allows you to interact with that file data through its web application interface. WotC does not care about LittleBobby.dnd4e, or what happens to the data it contains.

Everytime you interact with proprietary DDI data through a third party application (which WotC clearly *does* care about), the app has a couple of ways of facilitating this. The app can require you to log into DDI with your account credentials _every single time_ you consume that data, or it can hit DDI once, copy that proprietary data locally in some persistent form, and then simply use that local copy for your future consumption needs. The advantages of the second approach potentially include improved performance and features. One of these methods explicitly follows the DDI terms of use, and the other is possibly up for debate. Guess which one each app in question uses.

Asserting that WotC is arbitrarily interfering with one fan application over another because they 'do the same thing' is a complete misrepresentation of the facts based on how I understand these apps to work.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Asserting that WotC is arbitrarily interfering with one fan application over another because they 'do the same thing' is a complete misrepresentation of the facts based on how I understand these apps to work.




Seriously. 

WOTC's only defense that is could muster is its intent to defend its data and trademark. And, iPlay4e stores data in direct violation of the fan site policy. The GSL avoids it which forces WOTC into the realm of data laws. Once you reach that point, the simple fact that WOTC allows sites like iPlay 4e to link data in direct violation of its stated fansite policy suggests that it's cheery picking which sites it targets as far as 'intent' goes which speaks volumes once you get to court.

To specifically speak to your claim that iPlay4e only allows non-proprietary data, it is false. I am hosting a character with levels above the free tier on iPlay4e after letting my DDI sub run dry. iPlay4e is now exactly where the file sharing groups stands in the law - the front of a gun barrel. Masterplan only provides software which places enforcement of data rights on the burden of WOTC. If you seriously think that iPlay4e - a site hosting data which WOTC claims as its own under the DDI terms in addition to linking to WOTC data which the fansite terms explicitly prohibit- is safer than a software suite that scrapes data from the cache/end user for a pay service, you are mistaken. The scraping and data collecting software suites have many laws to protect them from companies like WOTC. To be exact, WOTC is entering into the modern world of data storage. 

The only legit claim they would have is that Masterplan is copying the data into a third party storage system. On this level, the trouble for WOTC starts when they provide it as a pay service which provides for reasonable manipulation of the data in modern devices. There is nothing in the terms of service in DDI that prohibits the caching and storage of data on the end user level because WOTC can't make that claim. The data belongs to the end user at that point due to payment for services. The end users only lose the rights to that data after they stop their sub. So, the blame for this action rests solely on the handlers of the data at this point under the law unless WOTC can prove that Masterplan is supporting the transfer/mass distribution of that data which it does not. Thus, it becomes a matter of enforcement which involves them going after torrent users. People should be urging WOTC to go after the file sharing people  - not the software companies. If people are looking to 'cheer' something, it is the point they need to consider.

But hey, I only know American law on the point. I'm sure that Brits along with French have entirely unique laws on the issue. However, WOTC is a US company. American laws provide protection to software companies up until they become a third party to violations of the data the theft laws. In this case, Masterplan openly encourages people to join DDI. Also, they do not host library files. You would have a hard time finding a judge that sides with WOTC at this point inside the US. 

You are falling into the trap that many people fall into. You confuse what people 'think' with what the courts rule. Until the courts remove protections from software companies for the actions of end users, the only points you score will be rep points on the forum with the WOTC fans. The judges have to take into account reasonable use and existing data laws which firmly protect companies like Microsoft from people that want to sue because 'their operating system sucks' or 'the hacker used a known security hole to hack my system!'. Sure, Masterplan is not an uber giant with big pockets, but they have the same protections. I have no doubt that WOTC would be refused if they ever send anything like that letter to M$. It's unfortunate that Masterplan is giving into them.


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> I have no doubt that WOTC would be refused if they ever send anything like that letter to M$. It's unfortunate that Masterplan is giving into them.




So then... you've actually seen whatever the C&D letter was?


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> So then... you've actually seen whatever the C&D letter was?




Just what Masterplan posted, however....  If the AG and entire US Govey can't find a loophole in the data protection laws, you will have a hard time convincing me that WOTC is going to do it. The laws are firm. Until Masterplan goes into the business of hosting torrents and directly hosting .library files, they are safe from everything but the monetary costs of defending their case.

*inserts legal disclaimer etc...*

As a side note, I deal mostly with data and run into all kinds of people. Most are pretty tame about such things like data talk. I love the fact that DND players get emotional over it. It speaks well for the hobby. Once the passion dies, there is no reason to muck with it.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Fan site policy or GSL don't matter in these cases.  Its odd that you keep bringing them up.  The character builder files (ie what iplay4e shares) don't contain anything that violates WotC's IP.  Clearly MP library files do.  one type of data is not identical with another.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

malraux said:


> Fan site policy or GSL don't matter in these cases.  Its odd that you keep bringing them up.  The character builder files (ie what iplay4e shares) don't contain anything that violates WotC's IP.  Clearly MP library files do.  one type of data is not identical with another.




I bring them up because they indicate intent on the part of WOTC to protect their label. It limits and highlights the failings of their TOS more than anything. 

My lil' Goblin has tons of violations in it. It lists information that is not open to the public through the demo version of the character builder. The violation is present even if the format is different. The only difference between the state of the data is that iPlay4e provides an online host to information which I have no right to own while Masterplan uses that data at home. It brings the violation back to the end user on both accounts.  Masterplan users should in theory delete the library files once their DDI account expires. The ones that are sharing them are the people that WOTC needs to be hounding - not the software vendor. The side note is that iPlay4e is a third party to the continual violation with online storage while Masterplan places the full burden of the DDI account status on the end user.


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Just what Masterplan posted, however....  If the AG and entire US Govey can't find a loophole in the data protection laws, you will have a hard time convincing me that WOTC is going to do it.




Well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't seen the C&D letter, so how can any of us try to convince anyone else whether or not whatever claim WoTC is making would be upheld in court or not?  We don't have any idea what those claims are!


----------



## doctorhook (May 20, 2010)

Suffice to say, we're getting off topic. Thanks to everybody for the info about the legal issues of 4E 3rd party software.* However, it should probably be discussed in another thread from now on. (*Thank you, Kurtomatic, for the concise explanation. I have to wait before giving you XP again...)

Masterplan is now posting on some newfangled thing called "Twitter" () as Masterplan_4E. Among the news:

Masterplan v9.0 *will* allow you to still use libraries from previous versions of Masterplan. (Presumably you won't be able to download them directly from D&DI anymore, however.)
In response to the question, "When are you going to upload v9?" Masterplan responded, "It won't be long!" yesterday morning.
Two days ago, the first new added feature for v9.0 was finished.
The "first pass" at the v9.0's headline feature was finished yesterday. Masterplan is inviting people to guess what that feature is.
So, if nothing else, it definitely sounds like Masterplan is still on track. Any guesses on that new headline feature?


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't seen the C&D letter, so how can any of us try to convince anyone else whether or not whatever claim WoTC is making would be upheld in court or not?  We don't have any idea what those claims are!




I agree with you on the technical level, but the only way WOTC is going to going to break through the laws in regards to that Design Pattern involves Masterplan altering its core design. It's why people design around it. You can build a suite, invest thousands of hours into it, and defend it from the random acts of ends users. 

I hope the letter involves a cookie going to them as a deal maker, myself. If it turns out to be simple malice... It's not good PR for WOTC.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> My lil' Goblin has tons of violations in it.




No.


----------



## Kafen (May 20, 2010)

malraux said:


> No.




You know this is not personal for me, right? I am not attacking 4e. It's all technical. If you can make a level 15 psion goblin with the demo Character Builder and import it into iPlay4e without using  any books, I will admit you guys have a valid point. You say the DDI terms make such characters legal on iPlay4e. Prove it  *basic conditions: no DDI account, no books, and no ToS in question other than the ones present in the demo Builder* It's a fair test of the theory that you guys have going. 





Anyways,  enough forum warrior stuff... I hope they take the chance to branch out from this and look at Pathfinder. I could handle the change, and it is good to see them active.


----------



## malraux (May 20, 2010)

Kafen said:


> You know this is not personal for me, right? I am not attacking 4e. It's all technical. If you can make a level 15 psion goblin with the demo Character Builder and import it into iPlay4e without using  any books, I will admit you guys have a valid point. You say the DDI terms make such characters legal on iPlay4e. Prove it




No, the point is that you can't use a level 15 psion goblin CB file to do anything.  You won't know what the powers do, you won't know what the items do, how the class works, etc.  That's why the file itself is legit, because its useless without the DDI or the books.  Downloading the file doesn't give you anything other than the names of powers, items, and feats.  Of course, you can get the names and levels from DDI without a subscription anyway.

Contrast that with MP.  Without the books or DDI, you'll be able to have all the monsters.  Not just their names, but their entire stats.  or the full description of magic items.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 20, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Everytime you interact with proprietary DDI data through a third party application (which WotC clearly *does* care about), the app has a couple of ways of facilitating this. The app can require you to log into DDI with your account credentials _every single time_ you consume that data, or it can hit DDI once, copy that proprietary data locally in some persistent form, and then simply use that local copy for your future consumption needs. The advantages of the second approach potentially include improved performance and features. One of these methods explicitly follows the DDI terms of use, and the other is possibly up for debate. Guess which one each app in question uses.




Hi,

Aren't temporary copies made in the course of transmitting data, including temporary caches, considered fair use?

There are so many example of where "playing" or "presenting" data requires copies of that data as a normal part of using that data.  You would otherwise get in trouble for something as simple as caching data for a window which is hidden behind another, or, say, caching the data for a page that is currently not the active page in firefox.

Also, isn't the quantity and purpuse of the copy of data which made very very important as to whther the copy is allowed under fair use?  My understanding is that the quantity and purpose of the copy is entire relevant to the decision -- to the point of being presented in a listing of fair use guidelines used in court decisions?

What that is to say, if MasterPlan retains a copy of information which was downloaded from DDI for longer than is necessary for efficient immediate use of the data, that would seem to easily be of a different character than a very temporary cache of the data that was retained only so long as the data was immediately in use, especially if the cache data was removed fairly quickly following the immediate use.

Also, speaking in terms of "data" where the data includes copywritten text seems to be to speak incorrectly.  Calling something "data" while omitting the attached copyright seems to be (fairly egregiously) missing a main issue.

This is not to say that having Masterplan removed from use is providing the maximum immediate utility to 4E players.  On the one hand, having Hasbro acquire the tool would seem to be win-win, if the tool creates and Hasbro could come to some accommodation.  (On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath for that.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 21, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Seriously.



LOL, what the hell! One more time, with this time _feeling_. 



Kafen said:


> .., iPlay4e stores data in direct violation of the fan site policy.



First, there is *no such thing* as a WotC "fan site policy". Its a complete 'misoverestimation' of the fansite kit. The licensed D&D fankit is nothing more than a public contract; a license agreement that says if you use any of the assets contained in the kit, you also agree to abide by the rules of the license. EN World is undoubtedly a D&D fansite. I'm willing bet lunch money that EN World violates the fansite kit agreement in a multitude of ways, yet Morrus has nothing to worry about from WotC. Since EN World does not use any of the fankit assets, the agreement simply does not apply to the EN World website, and no actual violations exist. In a similar fashion, the official D&D fankit license has absolutely no bearing on _iPlay4e_ or _Masterplan_ for that matter.

Extrapolating the public fankit contract as general WotC legal policy is the Path of Fail.



Kafen said:


> The GSL avoids it which forces WOTC into the realm of data laws. Once you reach that point, the simple fact that WOTC allows sites like iPlay 4e to link data in direct violation of its stated fansite policy suggests that it's cheery picking which sites it targets as far as 'intent' goes which speaks volumes once you get to court.



Dude, now you're just making stuff up! In the case of the GSL, I believe it only applies to print products, and like the so-called fan policy, does not apply to either app in question, or any D&D application. Also, anyone is allowed to link to the Compendium without a specific legal agreement, since DDI authenticates access to its own data. Just like this, OMG! I just linked super-duper copyright hell right there; no worries since DDI challenges your access rights before revealing the illicit text. /whew

Regarding "..its stated fansite policy", please see above.



Kafen said:


> To specifically speak to your claim that iPlay4e only allows non-proprietary data, it is false. I am hosting a character with levels above the free tier on iPlay4e after letting my DDI sub run dry. iPlay4e is now exactly where the file sharing groups stands in the law - the front of a gun barrel.



Hilarity ensues! Okay, I have my PHB, a .7mm mechanical pencil, and my favorite Son of Big Chief. I am creating my new 12th level Elf Ranger. I write down all his stats and the names of all his exploits and feats, but I don't write down the full descriptions of all his power rules, because that would seriously cramp my hand and I can just look 'em up in the Compendium anytime I want anyway. Does my handwritten character sheet violate WotC copyright policy? It clearly has content not available in the free Character Builder demo! If I had instead typed it into Notepad, would that be a problem? How about if I manually typed it out with xml tags, <query>would that be okay?</query>

The .dnd4e file format was carefully designed by WotC devs to only contain the same class of information that I inscribed on my handwritten sheet. For anything else, it links to the Compendium or the CB's local _encrypted_ database. At no time does any .dnd4e file produced by the official CB contain any unlawful carnal knowledge, whether or not I have ever been or will be a DDI subscriber. I can safely attach the CB file for my 30th level Githzerai Monk to my ENW sig, and no one would care. (Seriously, no one! So sad.)

Relax, man; if you think simple character sheets constitute infringement, then you have bigger problems than worrying about _Masterplan_. Save the tinfoil for your leftovers.



Kafen said:


> Masterplan only provides software which places enforcement of data rights on the burden of WOTC. If you seriously think that iPlay4e - a site hosting data which WOTC claims as its own under the DDI terms in addition to linking to WOTC data which the fansite terms explicitly prohibit- is safer than a software suite that scrapes data from the cache/end user for a pay service, you are mistaken. The scraping and data collecting software suites have many laws to protect them from companies like WOTC. To be exact, WOTC is entering into the modern world of data storage.
> 
> The only legit claim they would have is that Masterplan is copying the data into a third party storage system. On this level, the trouble for WOTC starts when they provide it as a pay service which provides for reasonable manipulation of the data in modern devices. There is nothing in the terms of service in DDI that prohibits the caching and storage of data on the end user level because WOTC can't make that claim. The data belongs to the end user at that point due to payment for services. The end users only lose the rights to that data after they stop their sub. So, the blame for this action rests solely on the handlers of the data at this point under the law unless WOTC can prove that Masterplan is supporting the transfer/mass distribution of that data which it does not. Thus, it becomes a matter of enforcement which involves them going after torrent users. People should be urging WOTC to go after the file sharing people  - not the software companies. If people are looking to 'cheer' something, it is the point they need to consider.
> 
> ...



tl;dr

*Admin here. I'm pretty sure you can express your opinion without being rude in the process. Next time please do so; and if this is in any way unclear, PM me after re-reading the Rules. ~ Piratecat*

Sorry, I am out of time and you got real ranty and boring there towards the end. Suffice to say that you have fallen into the trap many wingnuts fall into. You have just barely enough knowledge of certain topics to make you dangerous, and then you attempt to apply that knowledge to other topics about which you are completely unqualified, and insist that only you know what you're talking about.  Of course, it *is* true only you know what you are talking about, since I can't make heads or tails out that word salad you served up in subsequent paragraphs.

In any case, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, since clearly your mind is made up. Just doing my part for any readers who are honestly confused by the DDI.

Cheers!


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 21, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Aren't temporary copies made in the course of transmitting data, including temporary caches, considered fair use?
> 
> ...




I tend to agree that WotC is probably bitching about the level of data permanence that _Masterplan_ is using. Clearly, any application, including your web browser, is caching privileged Compendium data when you use it. That's simply par for the course, and nothing would function without that fair use. The likely crux of the matter is the persistence and portability of the privileged data.

Non-incidental, mass harvesting of Compendium data via the API, plus persisting that data in a portable format, seems to be the likely issues. These also let you do lots of cool stuff! So the question is, can _Masterplan_ keep the toys *and *follow the rules?


----------



## mudbunny (May 21, 2010)

Here is my prediction of what Masterplan will eventually look like.

It will be almost identical to v8.8, but instead of being able to, with two clicks, download significant portions of the compendium, you will instead be presented with a compendium browser that will allow you to filter/sort the compendium. Making adventures would permit you to export those chosen monsters to an adventure file of some sort.


----------



## Kafen (May 21, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## doctorhook (May 21, 2010)

*Kafen*: Please end this discussion about WotC's legalese. I'm putting the onus on you to end this tangent, as you have been the one most responsible for continuing it. Feel free to start another thread if you wish to further discuss that topic. This thread is for discussing Masterplan itself, which you (and others) are no longer doing.



mudbunny said:


> Here is my prediction of what Masterplan will eventually look like.
> 
> It will be almost identical to v8.8, but instead of being able to, with two clicks, download significant portions of the compendium, you will instead be presented with a compendium browser that will allow you to filter/sort the compendium. Making adventures would permit you to export those chosen monsters to an adventure file of some sort.



That's a possibility, as long as it avoids the issues that v8.8 had with downloads.

Personally, I think it's going to be some kind of integration with Obsidian Portal, as was being discussed prior to the C&D.


----------



## Kafen (May 21, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> *Kafen*: Please end this discussion about WotC's legalese. I'm putting the onus on you to end this tangent, as you have been the one most responsible for continuing it. Feel free to start another thread if you wish to further discuss that topic. This thread is for discussing Masterplan itself, which you (and others) are no longer doing.
> 
> That's a possibility, as long as it avoids the issues that v8.8 had with downloads.
> 
> Personally, I think it's going to be some kind of integration with Obsidian Portal, as was being discussed prior to the C&D.




Sure, not a problem... I will share the credit, however. People that go around insulting others like Kurt can take partial responsibility for their actions. If he wants to go around insulting people, he needs to hear about it, too. You are correct in that it is over, however. I am done with it.


*Admin here. Insulting people, or insulting them back, does nothing but drag down a thread. In the future please report problems using the little triangular "!" at the bottom left of every post. ~ PCat*

=====================
Moving on...
=====================

I hope the new suite works with Obsidian Portal. I prefer it the OP for my mobile options. I could live with the letter being cause for a dynamic shift. It would make the whole thing worth the while.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 21, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Yes, you are using .7 lead. It is amusing.



You are certainly right about that; total brain fart! That's what I get for being in a hurry. My bad.


----------



## malraux (May 21, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Here is my prediction of what Masterplan will eventually look like.
> 
> It will be almost identical to v8.8, but instead of being able to, with two clicks, download significant portions of the compendium, you will instead be presented with a compendium browser that will allow you to filter/sort the compendium. Making adventures would permit you to export those chosen monsters to an adventure file of some sort.




That's my prediction as well.  Each item, monster, feat, etc (basically each database entry) has a unique id number associated with it.  Were I to make MP compatible, I'd only store info about each monster ID in the save file and then load, parse, etc each item as it is called.  It would make MP unusable (or not easily usable) off line, but I can't see how WotC would complain then.


----------



## doctorhook (May 21, 2010)

malraux said:


> That's my prediction as well.  Each item, monster, feat, etc (basically each database entry) has a unique id number associated with it.  Were I to make MP compatible, I'd only store info about each monster ID in the save file and then load, parse, etc each item as it is called.  It would make MP unusable (or not easily usable) off line, but I can't see how WotC would complain then.



Remember that library files created by older versions of Masterplan will still be useable by v9.0, though.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 21, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Suffice to say that you have fallen into the trap many wingnuts fall into.



The most well known of which is "Never get into a land war in Asia."


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 21, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> The .dnd4e file format was carefully designed by WotC devs to only contain the same class of information that I inscribed on my handwritten sheet. For anything else, it links to the Compendium or the CB's local _encrypted_ database. At no time does any .dnd4e file produced by the official CB contain any unlawful carnal knowledge, whether or not I have ever been or will be a DDI subscriber. I can safely attach the CB file for my 30th level Githzerai Monk to my ENW sig, and no one would care. (Seriously, no one! So sad.)
> 
> Relax, man; if you think simple character sheets constitute infringement, then you have bigger problems than worrying about _Masterplan_. Save the tinfoil for your leftovers.



Actually just tested it.  Had a friend send me a character sheet for a 10th level Wizard, loaded the demo character builder to my machine here at work.  And it pulled up the character sheet just fine.  All the power cards and all.  No log in or anything.  While I can't level up or change the powers around outside the low level stuff.  It technically violates.  
Technically if I print the character sheets from the full version to PDF and email them to folks all over the place that are part of my personal game, but were requested (i.e. Little Bobby asks me to create a party for him).  It would violate.


Far as Masterplan, I wish them well.  Never saw the product prior to seeing this thread.  Doesn't suprise me much since I don't look for 4e stuff.
I'm betting someone hacks it to make it get the latest out of the Compendium.


----------



## malraux (May 21, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Actually just tested it.  Had a friend send me a character sheet for a 10th level Wizard, loaded the demo character builder to my machine here at work.  And it pulled up the character sheet just fine.  All the power cards and all.  No log in or anything.  While I can't level up or change the powers around outside the low level stuff.  It technically violates.



Wait, WotC's own program is a violation?  That seems kinda non-sensical to me.  


> Technically if I print the character sheets from the full version to PDF and email them to folks all over the place that are part of my personal game, but were requested (i.e. Little Bobby asks me to create a party for him).  It would violate.




Would violate what?  Maybe the ToU of DDI, but I don't think so.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 21, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Actually just tested it.  Had a friend send me a character sheet for a 10th level Wizard, loaded the demo character builder to my machine here at work.  And it pulled up the character sheet just fine.  All the power cards and all.  No log in or anything.  While I can't level up or change the powers around outside the low level stuff.  It technically violates.
> Technically if I print the character sheets from the full version to PDF and email them to folks all over the place that are part of my personal game, but were requested (i.e. Little Bobby asks me to create a party for him).  It would violate.



Interesting result! Thanks for taking the time to try that. 

Nevertheless, it begs the question "who is violating what?" The fact that a demo install of the CB will load, display, and print all the power rules info of a 10th level character is cool, but it is clearly by design on WotC's part. The CB is a first party application. The CB isn't a Compendium API client, it has its own copy of the secret sauce; using a local (presumably encrypted) database to pull the protected data. Its not surprising that the demo installs have all the protected data; if you convert to a subscriber, the CB client simply reflags you as having subscriber access, and _voila_.

Speaking of 'intent', while fair use is sometimes tricky business, the fact that WotC's own first party, free demo software allows you to view and print complete CB character data created by a subscriber means that free distribution of subscriber-created characters is likely not an issue for WotC.

Back to _Masterplan_; I suspect WotC is more sensitive to distrbution of the 4E monster catalog that they are character sheets. My impression of the Adventure Tools is that it's pickier about distributing monsters than the CB is about PCs. I also get the impression that some of _Masterplan's_ best leveraging of the Compendium API was monster data for encounter design.


----------



## fnwc (May 21, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> I'm betting someone hacks it to make it get the latest out of the Compendium.



Apparently Masterplan has an API to allow the development of extensions. It wouldn't surprise me if someone else wrote one for the next version to continue Compendium support.


----------



## Kafen (May 21, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Actually just tested it.  Had a friend send me a character sheet for a 10th level Wizard, loaded the demo character builder to my machine here at work..




Nice find... I heard about the post on a coding forum. There is talk about taking the files apart by some of the crews. I hope it does not disrupt Masterplan if CB has to alter it's code in future versions.


----------



## Piratecat (May 22, 2010)

*Kafen, Kurtomatic, please see my warnings earlier in the thread. I'm glad you've seemed to have worked it out, but we don't need the insult-slinging. If you can't make your point without trying to rip someone a new one, you're better off reporting the post and not replying.*


----------



## Kafen (May 22, 2010)

Yup yup, sorry about that Piratecat.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2010)

Hi,

Can someone say what was the "magic sauce" that made Masterplan as useful as folks are raving about?

Also, I want to point out that one of the rights of a copyright holder is to limit the pace of release of their material.    Think of a band releasing one track every six months, while having a cache of a dozen songs still to release.  As a fan, you may be rather irked, but pacing the release is a key right provided by a copyright.

That means that Hasbro can release tools (that use their copywritten material) at a pace of their choosing.

Now, what would be interesting would be if someone created a new set of classes, powers, monsters, and treasure, that used the basic game rules, but was free of copywritten material.  You might be able to do that using a clean room approach, with a specification team reading the Hasbro D20 material, condensing it into a set of specs, then have a second team create new descriptions based on the specs.

As an aside, when did PirateCat get GREEN text for his name?  (Cool green shade, there.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kafen (May 22, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Can someone say what was the "magic sauce" that made Masterplan as useful as folks are raving about?
> 
> ...




Library files are what people are asking for on the dark side of the internet - data file exports shared by end users on torrent and hosted on file sharing servers. If you dig into the public trackers, most of the traffic centers around the latest release of the torrents from end users. 

It's a good suite - I will use it when I build classes for my 4e western zombie one off game. It fits the campaign managing aspects of 4e speaking for myself on Masterplan.


----------



## doctorhook (May 22, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Can someone say what was the "magic sauce" that made Masterplan as useful as folks are raving about?



It's an encounter builder and campaign builder, tailored to 4E. It's really pretty easy to use (compared to some fanmade tools available). Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to search for the YouTube videos of someone demonstrating the features of it. Alternatively, you could try to find someone who's got a copy of the most recent version to share with you.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 22, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Also, I want to point out that one of the rights of a copyright holder is to limit the pace of release of their material.    Think of a band releasing one track every six months, while having a cache of a dozen songs still to release.  As a fan, you may be rather irked, but pacing the release is a key right provided by a copyright.
> 
> That means that Hasbro can release tools (that use their copywritten material) at a pace of their choosing.



Absolutely. And any other programmer can release his tools, like Masterplan, at a pace of his choosing. That competition might force Hasbro to change their pace. Competition is generally regarded as a good thing.



Kurtomatic said:


> I tend to agree that WotC is probably bitching about the level of data permanence that Masterplan is using. Clearly, any application, including your web browser, is caching privileged Compendium data when you use it. That's simply par for the course, and nothing would function without that fair use. The likely crux of the matter is the persistence and portability of the privileged data.



The crux might be that, but the legality of it is obvious. Masterplan has done nothing illegal and I cannot believe that people imply that and even seem to defend the draconian behaviour of WotC. The program is a tool that allows you to access and use data from a service you are paying for. Copyright only forbids users of that tool to share that data with the public. In no way is the maker of the tool doing anything wrong.

Look up an old courtcase of Sony vs. the entertainment industry regarding the legality of VCRs. If the tool has a legitimate use, it cannot be infringing Copyright in itself. Same thing here.

So WotC is just using its (considerable) legal muscle to bully a small developer. Not cool. I call foul on WotC for this.



fnwc said:


> Apparently Masterplan has an API to allow the development of extensions. It wouldn't surprise me if someone else wrote one for the next version to continue Compendium support.



Way ahead of you.


----------



## mudbunny (May 22, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> The crux might be that, but the legality of it is obvious. Masterplan has done nothing illegal and I cannot believe that people imply that and even seem to defend the draconian behaviour of WotC. The program is a tool that allows you to access and use data from a service you are paying for. Copyright only forbids users of that tool to share that data with the public. In no way is the maker of the tool doing anything wrong.




To the best of my knowledge, no-one outside of WotC and the developer of Masterplan have seen the C&D letter, so claiming that WotC is stating that there is some infringement of copyright is a pretty big guess.

As I stated above, it is my belief (and I have heard no reason from WotC behind the particulars of why they sent the C&D letter) that WotC sent the C&D because MP (a) automates the access and saving of Compendium data; and (b) makes it trivial to share that data with other non-DDI subscribers.

Chances are very good that the next version of Masterplan (which he is working on) will simply have the ability to automatically flip through the compendium and save it all to the users HD removed.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 22, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> The crux might be that, but the legality of it is obvious. Masterplan has done nothing illegal and I cannot believe that people imply that and even seem to defend the draconian behaviour of WotC.



Honestly, I have no idea whether _Masterplan_ is actually infringing on a legal statute-level or not. No clue. So I'm not going to disagree with your assertion. However, as Mudbunny suggested, this could all be a matter of an end-user agreement, which may be problematical itself, but would also be a matter of civil contract law, rather than copyright infringement.

Web service APIs, due to their exposed public nature, always have strings attached. Whether its Amazon or the USPS, when you connect to someone's server to use their interfaces, there will always be some kind of agreement in play.

There is also a difference between white-knighting WotC, and attempting to rationalize their behavior.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 22, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> As I stated above, it is my belief (and I have heard no reason from WotC behind the particulars of why they sent the C&D letter) that WotC sent the C&D because MP (a) automates the access and saving of Compendium data; and (b) makes it trivial to share that data with other non-DDI subscribers.



I'm confused. Outside of copyright infringement, what legal ground can WotC have for their C&D? "We don't like your software"? In this country, I would have told them to go sit on a sharp stick. Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...



Kurtomatic said:


> Honestly, I have no idea whether _Masterplan_ is actually infringing on a legal statute-level or not. No clue. So I'm not going to disagree with your assertion. However, as Mudbunny suggested, this could all be a matter of an end-user agreement, which may be problematical itself, but would also be a matter of civil contract law, rather than copyright infringement.



Masterplan would not need an end-user agreement to be able to offer their tool to the public. I can see no civil contract law being applied between WotC and Masterplan.



			
				Kurtomatic said:
			
		

> Web service APIs, due to their exposed public nature, always have strings attached. Whether its Amazon or the USPS, when you connect to someone's server to use their interfaces, there will always be some kind of agreement in play.



Not if they are public. And not if you just offer a tool that can consume said APIs. If you connect to someone's server through a _public_ API (like when someone reads posts on ENWorld without logging in) or when you publish a tool to connect to a particular API (like when someone produces a Web Browser that can connect to a server over HTTP), you are not bound by any agreement at all.



			
				Kurtomatic said:
			
		

> There is also a difference between white-knighting WotC, and attempting to rationalize their behavior.



Trying to rationalize something irrational and absurd, borders on white-knighting in my book.


----------



## Kafen (May 22, 2010)

Kurtomatic said:


> Honestly, I have no idea whether _Masterplan_ is actually infringing on a legal statute-level or not. No clue. So I'm not going to disagree with your assertion. However, as Mudbunny suggested, this could all be a matter of an end-user agreement, which may be problematical itself, but would also be a matter of civil contract law, rather than copyright infringement.
> 
> Web service APIs, due to their exposed public nature, always have strings attached. Whether its Amazon or the USPS, when you connect to someone's server to use their interfaces, there will always be some kind of agreement in play.





So, you agree with me - it is an end user problem for DDI users.  

Anyways, the matter is a clear one. I suspect cable companies rent out DVRs to keep consumers from using burner able DVRs to record shows as a response to the copyright laws that allow reasonable usage. You can't prevent people from storing the data, but you can encourage them to do it for only a short time.


----------



## Kafen (May 22, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...




No, it is how big companies force small companies to defend legit software in the US. The actual laws provide a secure shelter for developers unless the software developers host/transmit/encourage the distribution of the copyright infringing material. 

The cost of defending the case is where most people find themselves in trouble. It takes a good lawyer around 2,100 dollars to defend this type of case in Virginia with a week worth of work from my own personal experience. Fortunately, the insurance covers most of it.  

Masterplan might not be developing the software under an actual company. So, they might not be able to afford the fight...if they want to fight it. I like the Masterplan software. I hope this does not hurt them on that level. It would be a shame for them to take a hit in the pocketbook.


----------



## malraux (May 22, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> I'm confused. Outside of copyright infringement, what legal ground can WotC have for their C&D? "We don't like your software"? In this country, I would have told them to go sit on a sharp stick. Is that an accepted way to handle competition in the US? You send them C&Ds and tell them to remove their products? What a crazy economy...




C&D's from private persons need not have a legal basis, though SLAAP courts do give a reasonable defense.  But unless its a court issuing the C&D, it's just a letter asking for an action.


----------



## Kafen (May 22, 2010)

malraux said:


> C&D's from private persons need not have a legal basis, though SLAAP courts do give a reasonable defense.  But unless its a court issuing the C&D, it's just a letter asking for an action.




SLAPP is the word, methinks. There is an anti-SLAPP group known as FAP that fights against such bully tactics.


----------



## Asmor (May 22, 2010)

It's not really so much that one particular thing Masterplan was doing was necessarily illegal, but rather (I suspect WotC would argue...) Masterplan itself, like many fan-made tools--including the ones I've made--fundamentally violate WotC's copyright*.

As such, the existence of such fan tools is at the discretion of WotC, and you need to be careful not to do anything that would make them want to exercise their copyright against you.

For the most part, WotC's fairly reasonable. They're not TSR, and definitely not Games Workshop. They at least tacitly allow if not explicitly encourage fan-made tools which serve to enhance the game for their customers. As long as you're not selling the stuff for a profit or doing something which would raise red flags with WotC (and downloading the compendium wholesale was obviously risky in that regard), you should be fine.

*It's worth noting that game mechanics are not copyrightable, and it's questionable whether Masterplan actually does violate WotC's copyrights. It's also rather moot; when a corporation with WotC's funding sends you a C&D, if there's a snowball's chance in hell that they might be in the right, you cease and desist. The law is all well and good, but who's got the resources to fight the battle to prove you're right?


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 23, 2010)

Hmm...

If I offer a web information service (via a HTTP API, for example), I can specify a contract agreement that you have to sign in order for you to access and consume that service. If I think that agreement has been broken, I can take steps to fix the problem, such as terminating access. I could also send you a C&D, which might simply be a formal notice that I think you've busted our contract, and some kind of remediation is in order to stay in agreement.

For example, the US Postal Service offers a free address data API. To use it, you have to apply for an account. Since they don't owe anyone access, they can deny your application if they don't like your answers. You have to jump through some testing hoops to prove your client code works correctly, and you have to agree to a whole bunch of very restrictive usage rules. Since you only get access to the live data with a unique account, they can cut you off at any time if they even think you're breaking the agreement. You cannot access this service without *explicitly* agreeing to these terms.

Now, if I wanted to make it easy for lots of people to use my web service without a lot of up-front red tape, I could simply offer a blanket agreement that says, "Here is my web service and how to connect to it; by using my service you agree to the following restrictions..."

Notice that the actual content of my web service is entirely irrelevant up to this point. The USPS data isn't copyrighted in any way. There is certainly nothing _criminal_ in any of this, unless (maybe) fraud is somehow involved.

In the case of the DDI, WotC never had to implement a web service to begin with. All the DDI features: Character Builder, Adventure Tools, Compendium web page, magazines, etc., would continue to work just as they do now. Everything would be exactly the same, except that third-party apps could no longer access the Compendium database. WotC doesn't owe anybody a web service. The *only* purpose for offering such a public API is so that third party apps such as _iPlay4e_ and _Masterplan_ can exist in the first place. 

WotC wants these apps to exist (otherwise: no API), but they also want to set some boundaries on them and they do have a right to attempt this, for better or worse. The Compendium API is their sandbox and they get to set the rules. It doesn't require copyright infringement or criminal activity for them to attempt enforce those rules. Whether those rules are actually enforcible (or 'fair', or 'good for D&D', or 'fun to use', 'or totally metal', etc.) is another question entirely.



Oldtimer said:


> Trying to rationalize something irrational and absurd, borders on white-knighting in my book.



How did I just know I was going to read that answer? 

I get why people say that, but here is another way of looking at it: its all matter of context. Is WotC Legal rolling a d20 and consulting a random C&D encounter table? If not, then at least _they_ think they have a reasonable basis for taking the actions they take. It may not look rational to you, and their behavior may not make much sense to their customers, but in a publicly-traded corporation, there is usual a method buried _somewhere_ in the madness.

To tie this back to the actual thread topic: in speculating what _Masterplan_ might look like post-C&D, you first have to guess what's in the C&D. To do that, you need to try reverse-engineering WotC's motives and frame of reference. In this way, "rationalizing" means trying to find a context in which their actions might make sense and extrapolating from there. Simply sticking a Snidely Whiplash mustache on a Greg Leads cut-out doesn't contribute much to that effort. Um.., as far as I know, anyway...


----------



## tomBitonti (May 23, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Not if they are public. And not if you just offer a tool that can consume said APIs. If you connect to someone's server through a _public_ API (like when someone reads posts on ENWorld without logging in) or when you publish a tool to connect to a particular API (like when someone produces a Web Browser that can connect to a server over HTTP), you are not bound by any agreement at all.




Not a lawyer, but I don't think that is the case.  In my understanding, a computer with open ports is still private property.  Imprudent, but still private.  (I'm thinking) that for someone to access the port would require an allowance of some sort.

Although, for a private business, (also, just my understanding), if you create a public access, for example, a store, you aren't allowed to prevent access using a number of factors such as race, age, or disability.  (That is an incomplete list.)  You can, however, require a membership, or provide preferential access based on a membership level.

Also, for something like a web site, the site owner is allowed to limit how you navigate and link into the site.  If I remember correctly, there was a decision that noted that forcing users along a particular path had definite commercial value, and that enables lawsuits in regards to controlling access.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kafen (May 23, 2010)

Asmor said:


> *It's worth noting that game mechanics are not copyrightable, and it's questionable whether Masterplan actually does violate WotC's copyrights. It's also rather moot; when a corporation with WotC's funding sends you a C&D, if there's a snowball's chance in hell that they might be in the right, you cease and desist. The law is all well and good, but who's got the resources to fight the battle to prove you're right?




Most states have local groups that fight such cases - the ACLU and local bar association groups can point you to the right places. I see a lot of people in this topic that are scared to face WOTC. The reverse side of that coin is WOTC has the deep pockets to pay damages if there is a clear counter suit. What some people call fear, I call opportunity for a lawyer to make a big paycheck off of a trivial claim. I know several lawyers willing to take that chance. Anyways, the point is that WOTC is not a Space Traveling Megacorp. They are subject to US laws like everyone else.

Masterplan is a good piece of software. Imagine what they could do if they had the funding from a counter claim. I'd look forward to that development. They could afford to bring in people to develop code for a Pathfinder option. Mutants and Masterminds?


----------



## doctorhook (May 24, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Most states have local groups that fight such cases - the ACLU and local bar association groups can point you to the right places. I see a lot of people in this topic that are scared to face WOTC. The reverse side of that coin is WOTC has the deep pockets to pay damages if there is a clear counter suit. What some people call fear, I call opportunity for a lawyer to make a big paycheck off of a trivial claim. I know several lawyers willing to take that chance. Anyways, the point is that WOTC is not a Space Traveling Megacorp. They are subject to US laws like everyone else.



Is Masterplan American?



Kafen said:


> Masterplan is a good piece of software. Imagine what they could do if they had the funding from a counter claim. I'd look forward to that development. They could afford to bring in people to develop code for a Pathfinder option. Mutants and Masterminds?



Forget that stuff, there's still tons of 4E features to implement. Why should they split their talent across different projects? At most, they should leave room for fans to generate their own alternative rulesets.


----------



## Kafen (May 24, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Is Masterplan American?




I think the site is UK based - going by the website hosting and bits posted to the site. So, WOTC has two 'good' choices. They can use the upcoming Digital Economy Act to sue when it goes into effect next month or the EU copyright courts. Neither option is a good thing for WOTC considering the laws that protect software groups and companies in the EU. Recent cases, Apple in France and Mininova, do a good job of isolating the copyright claims to people transmitting the data. WOTC has very few legal options as long as Masterplan does not distribute the library files under those two systems. WOTC has a 'third not so good' choice that involves a suit in the US with Masterplan operating as an entity in the US through the internet.

It's why I can't see WOTC actually suing them in the EU. Mininova is GUILTY of tens of thousands of violations in the EU, and the only real penalty is the removal of torrents. The worst thing WOTC could do to them in Europe is say. "Remove those library files!!!! Oh wait, you don't host them." *shrug* So, WOTC is not likely to do much outside of the US. And, the US courts protect the software companies from petty lawsuits while allowing the small companies to counter sue for damages. The RIAA would be suing hard drive makers if people could actually sue for such silly things if you need a practical example. You know how easy it is fill a HD with stolen music? Every teenager in America would be named in the lawsuit against the HD makers. Ipod would be hit with a lawsuit every five minutes if you buy into the theory.

Sure, it's all just guess work on our end. However... Anyone that sits down with a lawyer more than once to actually piece together a license for a high traffic item in the digital age goes through the spiel. It's not hard to stay out of trouble for software devs. The only tough choice is opting to defend which is expensive. And, I have no problem pointing to the groups like the ACLU, FAP, and every state level bar association in the US if a large corp is unwise enough to actually sue a small software company under the SLAPP style laws. Lawyers would eat them alive.....and not charge Masterplan a cent because WOTC is a very Deep Pocket to pick. 



> Forget that stuff, there's still tons of 4E features to implement. Why should they split their talent across different projects? At most, they should leave room for fans to generate their own alternative rulesets.




If they had funds from a counter suit, they could split their project and focus on the 4e stuff.  I agree with you, however. They should focus on 4e. It would be cool to get a Pathfinder version and MnM 3e version,still. It would not hurt my feelings to see it.


----------



## Asmor (May 24, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Masterplan is a good piece of software. Imagine what they could do if they had the funding from a counter claim. I'd look forward to that development. They could afford to bring in people to develop code for a Pathfinder option. Mutants and Masterminds?






doctorhook said:


> Forget that stuff, there's still tons of 4E features to implement. Why should they split their talent across different projects? At most, they should leave room for fans to generate their own alternative rulesets.




Because nothing excites you for supporting a game like a protracted legal battle against its creator?


----------



## doctorhook (May 24, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Because nothing excites you for supporting a game like a protracted legal battle against its creator?



Ugh... touche'. 

I'm not sure why we're still talking about the legality of that C&D. Is it that important to anybody here? I guess the thing that really bugged me is the idea that a 4E-based program should sue the makers of 4E, and use the proceeds to make non-4E-based software; as a 4E fan, I think that's a bloody horrible idea.


----------



## Kafen (May 24, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Because nothing excites you for supporting a game like a protracted legal battle against its creator?




Two points... I support the developers of third party software for the first point. I develop software that consumes hundreds of hours of my time which makes it personal on some level. If the general community does not show its concern over bully tactics over free software, what is the point in defending _any_ software on the practical level. The people advocating the idea that software developers need to smile and take the hit merely because WOTC is 'big' are hurting the entire gaming community by feeding the climate of fear. As reasonable developers, Masterplan deserves the protection of the community if you like their software and want to continue using it. On the second point, I have no pity for WOTC if they send out letters to Masterplan people when enforcement involves WOTC sending out letters to the torrent sites targeting the copyright infringing material. It is a legal step toward judicial barbarianism of the 1930s and 1940s for software developers to let big companies get away with it in silence. The chilling effect on innovation is huge with a message that does not speak well for the industry. 

So yes, I get excited when people cheer a large corporation for using scare tactics to hurt the gaming industry. The truth is that I suspect people are treating this like an edition war topic which it is not. It is not about 4e versus The World. If you go to the Masterplan site, the hot topic is the legal aspect. It has nothing to do with Edition War pride and gaming system fights at this point. It's about good software that is under attack by a large company which affects the entire gaming industry. 

Masterplan is moving on, though. So, the edition war pride stuff is a moot point. The license debate is beside the point. WOTC is going to take its bloody nose for this one and Masterplan is going forward to version 9.0 which means everyone wins. Heck, even the pirates win. Public trackers place the torrent sharing traffic at 30x the data traffic since I spotted this one on the Yoko Critic. It's the real lesson we take from this bit - big companies can bully little ones, but pirates are going to steal the data once they hear about it.



doctorhook said:


> I'm not sure why we're still talking about the legality of that C&D. Is it that important to anybody here? I guess the thing that really bugged me is the idea that a 4E-based program should sue the makers of 4E, and use the proceeds to make non-4E-based software; as a 4E fan, I think that's a bloody horrible idea.




Most because it is the hot topic of the day on Facebook and the Masterplan site. The forums, too. *shrug* Anyways, I never said they should turn away from 4e. Why not increase their user base at a critical time in their development?


----------



## MrMyth (May 24, 2010)

Kafen said:


> The people advocating the idea that software developers need to smile and take the hit merely because WOTC is 'big' are hurting the entire gaming community by feeding the climate of fear. As reasonable developers, Masterplan deserves the protection of the community if you like their software and want to continue using it.




Are... many people really arguing that Masterplan should take the hit simply because WotC is 'big'? I thought most people on that side of the argument were there because they genuinely feel Masterplan's former library system infringed on WotC's IP and that WotC was perfectly reasonable taking action against them. 

Even beyond that, I also think members of the community are perfectly capable of liking Masterplan's software and wanting to use it without wanting it to allow for trivial acquisition and sharing of the full contents of DDI. There shouldn't be a requirement that the community protects Masterplan simply _because_ it is the small fish, any more than the community should cater to WotC for being the big one.


----------



## Kafen (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Are... many people really arguing that Masterplan should take the hit simply because WotC is 'big'? I thought most people on that side of the argument were there because they genuinely feel Masterplan's former library system infringed on WotC's IP and that WotC was perfectly reasonable taking action against them.
> 
> Even beyond that, I also think members of the community are perfectly capable of liking Masterplan's software and wanting to use it without wanting it to allow for trivial acquisition and sharing of the full contents of DDI. There shouldn't be a requirement that the community protects Masterplan simply _because_ it is the small fish, any more than the community should cater to WotC for being the big one.




He who controls the spice?
Who has the funds to fight it? 

You have at least a dozen people supporting those arguments. *shrug* 

I agree with you on the second point in that there should not be a requirement on both sides, but it would be nice to know that Masterplan gets _some_ support from the people that use it.  So, I have no problem suggesting that people keep Masterplan on their list of concerns.


----------



## Scribble (May 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> There shouldn't be a requirement that the community protects Masterplan simply _because_ it is the small fish, any more than the community should cater to WotC for being the big one.




I do always find this point interesting. People have a tendency to simply call anything the "big guy" does bullying.

Having not seen the C&D I can't really comment on whether or not they actually ARE being bullies, but still I don't think people should jump to conclusions either way.

After all, the people who write the software, and support the DDI for WoTC are people too, and have also spent probably hundreds of hours working on their own software- I'm sure it's kind of personal for them as well.

Again having not seen the C&D, it could be they ARE bullying... But just jumping to that conclusion because one group is big, and another small? That's kind of contrary to our whole basic foundation.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 24, 2010)

My only problem with this is that it is now, during the time of when a new tool should be very close to being announced.  If that tool is something to compete with Master Plan, then we really know what was behind it.

Also, I find it hard to not trust the deveper when he said the C&D explicitly stated to kill the whole software.  he said they specifically pointed out what they did not like, but the C&D was to stop deveoping Master Plan - not to change it so it doesn't do it anymore.  

All they had to do to stop what Master Plan does was to implement something on their side.  A C&D letter does not stop the content that is already out there (if any) anyways.  

Like I said, we shall see what happens as time goes on.  If he releases v9, he may get another letter, or something more serious.  There really is a reason why he is asking for lawyers advice after all.


----------



## Markn (May 24, 2010)

I suspect that Wizards sent the C&D now because Masterplan was suddenly getting a lot of exposure.  I was introduced to it only a month ago.  The number of new users since then has exploded greatly as far as I can tell.  Suddenly the new buzzword in 4e is Masterplan and it reaches the ears of WotC.  They look into it further, also aware that some of their own people use the program and thus feel they need to close the exploit to DDI access.  Whether this coincides with a soon to be released app is besides the point.  They are simply protecting themselves here.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (May 24, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> My only problem with this is that it is now, during the time of when a new tool should be very close to being announced. If that tool is something to compete with Master Plan, then we really know what was behind it.
> 
> Also, I find it hard to not trust the deveper when he said the C&D explicitly stated to kill the whole software. he said they specifically pointed out what they did not like, but the C&D was to stop deveoping Master Plan - not to change it so it doesn't do it anymore.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure its just a macro
Copy/paste email adress
initiate C&D macro
Send email


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 24, 2010)

Jimi Hendrix said:
			
		

> Purple haze all in my eyes. Don't know if it's day or night. You've got me blowin, blowin my mind. Is it tomorrow or just the end of time?




Wow, is it hot and stuffy in here, or is it just me? Maybe it's just me. I probably just need an ice-cold beverage... 

HYPOTHETICAL

Given that a fan-written Compendium API client has woken the grumpy bears at WotC, which action results in a better outcome for the D&D community? 

A. Formal snailmail nastygram is sent to specific projects that requires those developers to modify their app in order to appease the capricious WotC overlords.​B. WotC simply shuts down the Compendium web service API.​Please note that option B always occurs before option C...

C. Plucky fan devs don capes and eyepatches, hit the lotto crushing the faceless corporation in court.​..rendering Option C entirely moot. WotC can shut down the API tomorrow, and its first-party applications will function normally. Does that sound draconian? Actually, the third-party fan apps would only be midly inconvienenced. iPlay4e is largely a creature of the Character Builder; as long as the CB is updated regularly and its XML output is available, iPlay4e continues to rock the character management space. Loss of Compendium links annoys users, but core functionality is maintained. Likewise, Masterplan's encounter planning shtick is a creature of Adventure Tools; as long the Monster Builder is updated regularly and its XML output is available, users simply have to export the monsters individually for import into Masterplan (much the way the CB/iPlay4e works now).

The API is thus merely a convienence for all parties: WotC gains by encouraging consumption of Compendium data and thus subcriptions; the fan apps get a direct query pipe for users to access subscription data, integrating the Compendium into their application interface. I would be shocked (SHOCKED!) if anyone ever makes an actual legal filing of any kind about the Compendium API. I think WotC would just shut it down before came to that (see: PDF Apocolypse).


----------



## wedgeski (May 24, 2010)

Kafen said:


> The people advocating the idea that software developers need to smile and take the hit merely because WOTC is 'big' are hurting the entire gaming community by feeding the climate of fear.



"judicial barbarianism", "chilling effect on innovation", "climate of fear". Do you think such rhetoric helps or hinders the discussion?

I too am a software developer. I've ploughed hundreds or thousands of hours, over many years, into personal projects, some of which I've released, the vast majority of which sit half-finished on a repository somewhere.

But I tell you what: if I consider something a likely candidate for community release, I have the bloody good sense not to tread the grass on someone else's lawn, and not to write code which is against the word or spirit of whatever license(s) I'm using. The guy(s) behind Masterplan should have known better.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 25, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> My only problem with this is that it is now, during the time of when a new tool should be very close to being announced.  If that tool is something to compete with Master Plan, then we really know what was behind it.
> 
> Also, I find it hard to not trust the deveper when he said the C&D explicitly stated to kill the whole software.  he said they specifically pointed out what they did not like, but the C&D was to stop deveoping Master Plan - not to change it so it doesn't do it anymore.
> 
> ...



There are sensible concerns here, but I think the biggest risk for anyone regarding legal action from WotC would be copyright or trademark infringement. They've clearly shown willingness to pursue those issues in court and with law enforcement. I have no idea what kind of risk Masterplan has in that regard.

C&Ds are written by lawyers, not software developers, so I'm unsurprised the demands may have been made in a hamfisted way. Still, that is pretty disconcerting, and sometimes incompetence is as scary as malice; I agree that's something to watch.

WotC making changes on their end to solve the problem is great in theory, but very non-trivial in practice. Currently, the Compendium API only identifies clients by individual subscriber accounts. They really don't want to be closing subscriber accounts based on client functionality. The API is currently setup in a very developer-friendly way. Messing with that risks making the API too hard to use. Its a tricky bit of risk management.

If they really try to entirely shutdown a fan project for non-IP reasons, and only because it competes in the same space as a new first-party tools app, teh internets will burn! Another bit of tricky risk management. Bleh. The blowback for just shutting the API down wouldn't be nearly as bad.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> "judicial barbarianism", "chilling effect on innovation", "climate of fear". Do you think such rhetoric helps or hinders the discussion?
> 
> I too am a software developer. I've ploughed hundreds or thousands of hours, over many years, into personal projects, some of which I've released, the vast majority of which sit half-finished on a repository somewhere.
> 
> But I tell you what: if I consider something a likely candidate for community release, I have the bloody good sense not to tread the grass on someone else's lawn, and not to write code which is against the word or spirit of whatever license(s) I'm using. The guy(s) behind Masterplan should have known better.




It helps and it's honest - the alternatives paints WOTC in far less flattering terms when describing their actions if it ever gets to the legal level. Plus, they are mild, and Scribble is spot on with his bit on moderation. I am not calling them names and the terms fit.

Your last point highlights why the climate of fear and penalty to innovation is an important factor to keep in mind. Masterplan is not part of WOTC. Why should a developer 'know' better than to use an API that a company puts out? The end users are at fault for sharing data - not Masterplan. It's a real life example of the chilling effect in action. If you are wary of even considering it, why would a young coder with a realllllllly good idea even want to put it into code after reading about veteran coders afraid to use an API? *shrug* EDIT: I'll add that anyone in the UK should be really wary of the chilling effect with the Digital Economy Act set to go into action. Software vendors are going to be under heavy attack from anyone that knows how to _accuse_ people of copyright violations.

Anyways, it's worth fighting the good fight even if some people get grumpy over it.


----------



## MerricB (May 25, 2010)

Asmor said:


> *It's worth noting that game mechanics are not copyrightable, and it's questionable whether Masterplan actually does violate WotC's copyrights.




Although game mechanics are not copyrightable, the _expression_ of those mechanics is. If Masterplan just prints the exact text from the compendium, that's a breaking of copyright.

The point about games mechanics not being covered by copyright means that if you write your own language to describe the mechanics, you're clear. (Assuming the mechanics haven't been patented). 

Cheers!


----------



## mudbunny (May 25, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Although game mechanics are not copyrightable, the _expression_ of those mechanics is. If Masterplan just prints the exact text from the compendium, that's a breaking of copyright.
> 
> The point about games mechanics not being covered by copyright means that if you write your own language to describe the mechanics, you're clear. (Assuming the mechanics haven't been patented).
> 
> Cheers!




Given that the mechanics for most of the powers are just variations of 1d20+ modifiers vs a target number, and that things like this have been around for decades, I am quite certain that they would not get patented in most countries that have a somewhat competent Patent Office.


----------



## MerricB (May 25, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Given that the mechanics for most of the powers are just variations of 1d20+ modifiers vs a target number, and that things like this have been around for decades, I am quite certain that they would not get patented in most countries that have a somewhat competent Patent Office.




I'm making a general point here with applicability to Masterplan; I'm quite sure the D&D mechanics are not patented. 

Cheers!


----------



## AllisterH (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Anyways, it's worth fighting the good fight even if some people get grumpy over it.




I'm not sure how this can be seen as a "good fight" for Masterplan..

If, what we suspect is true, that the C&D order is because Masterplan allows the copying of the database and thus allowing users to bypass the login access, I'm not sure WHY we should be seeing this as bullying of Masterplan...

Especially given that iplay4e and other programs haven't had C&D orders directed at them...


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm not sure how this can be seen as a "good fight" for Masterplan..
> 
> If, what we suspect is true, that the C&D order is because Masterplan allows the copying of the database and thus allowing users to bypass the login access, I'm not sure WHY we should be seeing this as bullying of Masterplan...
> 
> Especially given that iplay4e and other programs haven't had C&D orders directed at them...




Oh? 

Ema's Sheet
http://www.emass-web.com/ or this one with the details Ema's Charsheets Killed by WotC - Giant in the Playground Forums

Powercards bit, too
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...desist-letter-d-d-4th-edition-powercards.html

Fighting to stem the tide!  I joke about it, but there is a serious edge to it if you actually enjoy using the API. WOTC just needs to release a real fansite policy to work with the API at this point.


----------



## AllisterH (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Oh?
> 
> Ema's Sheet
> http://www.emass-web.com/ or this one with the details Ema's Charsheets Killed by WotC - Giant in the Playground Forums
> ...





All of which involve whole sale copying of text from the PHB and distribution.

WOTC has gone after people who have only violated their IP in a big way.

Posting entire sections of the PHB and the compendium gets a C&D. 

Something that requires you to have the books/DDI access gets ignored by WOTC.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> All of which involve whole sale copying of text from the PHB and distribution.
> 
> WOTC has gone after people who have only violated their IP in a big way.
> 
> ...




You hope it gets ignored. The difference is not  a small one. If WOTC had a clear usage policy, devs could code without getting shut down.

Anyways, you said. 'Especially given that iplay4e and other programs haven't had C&D orders directed at them...' Masterplan makes number three. 

Also, the date of the Powercard shutdown is not far from the date of the official release of the WOTC Powercards. If they release a suite similar to Masterplan any time soon... *shrug* I know some posts speak to the timing issue in the Powercard topic. Let's hope it's all chance on the dates.


----------



## wedgeski (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Anyways, it's worth fighting the good fight even if some people get grumpy over it.



I agree. Yet I think you should choose your battles, and this is not one of them.

We both know *I'm not talking about using the API*. The API is out there, documented (although it was never completely documented on that blog, if I recall? and the blog itself has since died?). Clearly WotC has no problem with people using it.

The issue is the distribution of Compendium content in an unprotected format, which MP made trivial. This is not WotC stifling innovation, this is WotC protecting content which it feels -- quite reasonably -- that people should pay for before being able to enjoy.

Can you not see that distinction?


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> I agree. Yet I think you should choose your battles, and this is not one of them.
> 
> We both know *I'm not talking about using the API*. The API is out there, documented (although it was never completely documented on that blog, if I recall? and the blog itself has since died?). Clearly WotC has no problem with people using it.
> 
> ...




I see the the distinction on the first two, but I disagree with the third instance in regards to Masterplan. I think the WOTC lawyers are using the C&D letter to avoid going after the torrent users which takes extra work in this case because the two previous companies did not fight the letters. Both sites are hosting the data in the first two instances. So, they know they have to fold. Masterplan itself does not host any of the infringing content. True, the software collects it. But, the end user controls it, pays for the information, and distributes it without input from Masterplan. I can't speak for the Powercards, but I know Ema's site. The hosting of the data and scope of copyright infringing material provides a clear case for them as active third party in the process. Powercards seems to provide the same link by offering cards online and storing the data from what people have in posts in the topic.

Also, I agree that the API is beside the point on many levels. The real issue is content. However, I think WOTC is overreaching when it goes after Masterplan for the above reasons. It's why I label this one a bad deal for Masterplan. The reasonable enforcement action is for WOTC to send letters to the file sharing hosts, torrent hosts, and people sharing the copyright infringing material. 

Another also bit, I agree with you on the protected format rule on many levels. However, I think WOTC is shooting itself in the foot with the existing API. They allow full open format with XML for character info while trying to fight the scraping technology. As long as a software developer places the choice to illegally distribute copyright infringing material on the end user, WOTC is going to find it tough to claim a distinction in civil court between reasonable usage of scraping technology for a current DDI user and the illegal actions of a DDI user violating the terms of the TOS by distributing the files. 

I believe WOTC's biggest problem is the fact that they encourage users to use the API while not providing a sound basis for coders. If I had to make a good faith argument for Masterplan, I would point out; the lack of a clear policy regarding fansites, the continuing hosting of character data which is outside the scope of both the DDI terms and API limits in iPlay4e with high level characters which WOTC permits to exist, and the failure of WOTC to maintain the existing API limits in a clear/concise manner that is consistent with modern law. Both the US and the EU provide a very clear standard on what it takes to violate copyright when it comes to filesharing. WOTC has the money to keep up. It is entirely reasonable for WOTC to have a clear API and fansite policy for dealing with developers at this point.

So yeah, I agree with you on the first two letters, but I disagree with the third one. *shrug* It's all theory in the end. Masterplan is giving into them, but the effect on the community is anything but encouraging. At this point, the only real message that WOTC has for software people is..."We might not shut you down. Hey! Take our word for it."  I have some google stuff that I want to do for my 4e zombie western thing. Do I want to even try a release? Not really... Even if WOTC never bothers me, I know that they are targeting people that are operating in good faith without providing a clear set of rules to develop software. 

I hope no hard feelings...and all that  For me, I just hate to see a piece of software that I find useful shut down because a few WOTC lawyers choose not to fire off a few letters at the people sharing torrents and hosting files. I am all for protecting copyrights - just do it like everyone else y'know.  It's why we have laws.


----------



## wedgeski (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> I hope no hard feelings...and all that  For me, I just hate to see a piece of software that I find useful shut down because a few WOTC lawyers choose not to fire off a few letters at the people sharing torrents and hosting files.



No hard feelings at all.  I don't think we're ever going to agree, but I do see your point of view.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> No hard feelings at all.  I don't think we're ever going to agree, but I do see your point of view.




*inserts giddy happy face and all that* You live in the UK. I live in America. If we ever agree on copyright law, I would immediately run out and find a lawyer that does international law to scold us both.


----------



## malraux (May 25, 2010)

And what if the C&D was stop using a data scraper or we'll turn off your DDI account?  Clearly the ToU forbid using a data scraper, so WotC if free to turn off the guy's DDI info.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 25, 2010)

malraux said:


> And what if the C&D was stop using a data scraper or we'll turn off your DDI account?  Clearly the ToU forbid using a data scraper, so WotC if free to turn off the guy's DDI info.



That would indeed be an excellent solution if it worked that way. 

However, the Compendium API only authenticates the individual end user, not the client software or its author. I could write a Compendium query app without even having a DDI subscription; although that would be a bitch to test, lol. Anyone downloading my app would have to supply their own account info to access the subscription data.

Now they could look on the server for accounts that appear to show a data harvesting usage pattern, and 'ban' _those_ accounts, but talk about an ugly headache and bad press. Yeesh.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

malraux said:


> And what if the C&D was stop using a data scraper or we'll turn off your DDI account?  Clearly the ToU forbid using a data scraper, so WotC if free to turn off the guy's DDI info.




Data Scraping in itself is not illegal. Feist (spelling?) Publications has a recent case where it goes into it. The interesting point in that case is that it allows data scraping - the limits are in direct relation to the creative aspect under US copyright law. In that light, I think the users of Masterplan are in clear violation of the law when they retain data after their DDI accounts expire. Masterplan only provides active DDI account users the ability to scrape the information.

Scraping: Data theft is scaling up - SC Magazine US This covers the brief version. 

If they apply a secondary standard in cutting off an active DDI account, I hope the DDI ToS has a "do whatever we like clause".  



As a side note.... Feist does not assign guilt on the usage of scraping technology which is why I would side with Masterplan in a court case. WOTC has to somehow convince a US court that the copyright clause allows them to regulate the actions of a third party software vendor, in regards to its usage of legal scraping technology, with no binding contract to WOTC while the simple solution is for WOTC to change it's DDI terms of use and enforce its claims.


----------



## malraux (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Data Scraping in itself is not illegal. Feist (spelling?) Publications has a recent case where it goes into it. The interesting point in that case is that it allows data scraping - the limits are in direct relation to the creative aspect under US copyright law. In that light, I think the users of Masterplan are in clear violation of the law when they retain data after their DDI accounts expire. Masterplan only provides active DDI account users the ability to scrape the information.
> 
> Scraping: Data theft is scaling up - SC Magazine US This covers the brief version.
> 
> ...




I didn't make a claim that MP was doing something illegal.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

malraux said:


> I didn't make a claim that MP was doing something illegal.




*is aware* I said that I hope they have a "Do what we want clause" in the DDI ToS if they ever go that route, too. The answer does not make sense unless people know that scraping is legal.  


The last bit occurs to me as I drink my steaming hot coffee on this fine day.


----------



## mudbunny (May 25, 2010)

That's why the DDI ToS has a clause that refers to placing an undue burden or load (not the exact words, as I don't feel like digging up the ToS) upon the Compendium servers.


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 25, 2010)

Exactly. I mentioned USPS earlier because their data has no ownership implications whatsoever, but there are strict usage limits anyway. For example, you are limited to 5 addresses per transaction, and every single transaction must be the incidental result of an end-user clicking a link (or other manual, ad-hoc, user-driven action). They want to assist e-commerce websites, but they are not offering a free geocoding service. If they even suspect you are submitting 'scripted' queries, your account can get cancelled lickity-split.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> That's why the DDI ToS has a clause that refers to placing an undue burden or load (not the exact words, as I don't feel like digging up the ToS) upon the Compendium servers.




Cool, it just makes me wonder why WOTC is going after Masterplan even more since that further places the burden on the end users. Time will tell...


----------



## Saracenus (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Cool, it just makes me wonder why WOTC is going after Masterplan even more since that further places the burden on the end users. Time will tell...




Kafen,

IAMNAL (look it up folks if you don't know the acronym). If I take your view for a moment and the author(s) of Master Plan (MP) did the same and let's say for the sake of argument MP wins. So, you have struck a blow for the rights of coders everywhere...

Now we flip this over to WotC side of things and they just lost this case, what are they going to do? If their PDF policy is any indication, they kill the API and cut off 3rd party links to the compendium. WotC has no compunctions about defending what they see as their content by any means necessary.

In essence, you win the battle but lose the war.

Now you and I both know that some guy coding this project on his own for no money isn't going to take on Hasbro's sharks (the one's with the big, pointy, legal teeth). It's a moot point.

I am pretty sure that the coder was unwilling to poison the well even if he was in the right (and I don't necessarily agree that he was in the right).

My two coppers,


----------



## mudbunny (May 25, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Cool, it just makes me wonder why WOTC is going after Masterplan even more since that further places the burden on the end users. Time will tell...




A couple of reasons as far as is my guess:

1 - MP, as a result of its design, automates the downloading/saving of the Compendium Contents.
2 - As a result of the downloading/saving, people who do not have (or never had) a valid DDI subscription can obtain access to the Compendium data.
3 - As a result of the downloading/saving, an undue burden is placed upon WotC servers to deal with the requests. As more people hear about MP, the load would increase to the point where people with non-ToS breaking requests might not be able to access the Compendium.
4 - It can be argued (whether it is true or not is a different question) that MP was designed with a view to facilitate the sharing of WotC information to those who do not have an up-to-date DDI subscription. That this would be less viable if there were other libraries out there that MP could be pointed at that permitted automated downloading/saving of their data.

Now this is all moot as the developer has stated that he is removing the part of MP that resulted in the C&D letter being sent.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> A couple of reasons as far as is my guess:
> 
> 1 - MP, as a result of its design, automates the downloading/saving of the Compendium Contents.
> 2 - As a result of the downloading/saving, people who do not have (or never had) a valid DDI subscription can obtain access to the Compendium data.
> ...




Agreed, it is moot. The aftermath is worth considering on the other hand. WOTC can clean up its API and DDI terms.  It would never get to the fine print if WOTC were to put up a clear usage policy. Masterplan devs are clearly fans of the game and do not want to hurt it.

I would love to talk about point 4, actually. I am curious to see how you would link Masterplan to the ex-DDI users transmitting the information under copyright. In all of this, I don't see where people are bridging the gap between Masterplan and the torrent sharing people on a legal level. As far as I know, Masterplan goes out of its way to encourage DDI subs with its onsite posts. So, the target audience is clearly people with active subs. 



Saracenus said:


> Kafen,
> 
> IAMNAL (look it up folks if you don't know the acronym). If I take your view for a moment and the author(s) of Master Plan (MP) did the same and let's say for the sake of argument MP wins. So, you have struck a blow for the rights of coders everywhere...
> 
> ...




Agreed, it is why I always work with people and all parties in my entertainment media disputes over content. You can usually come out with a win-win arrangement. As the one awful movie suggests... "Show me the money!" People want to be paid in the business world. Cease and Desist letters are sooooo early 90s.



> Now you and I both know that some guy coding this project on his own for no money isn't going to take on Hasbro's sharks (the one's with the big, pointy, legal teeth). It's a moot point.
> 
> I am pretty sure that the coder was unwilling to poison the well even if he was in the right (and I don't necessarily agree that he was in the right).
> 
> My two coppers,




Good coppers. Yes, it is a moot point and I fully agree on the poison well bit. 

Personally, I go under a LLC which allows me to defend against these type of things. Masterplan...not so lucky, I think. *shrug* I just want people to know that groups like FAP, the ACLU, and your local bar association in the US help fight these type of laws in the US. Software companies have options -whatever size. And, you can afford it if you run with insurance. 




EDIT: It is worth noting that I only support Masterplan as an innocent party. The people sharing the files are breaking copyright. Adds his own IAMNAL disclaimer...


----------



## mudbunny (May 25, 2010)

@Kafen - Check your PM.


----------



## Kafen (May 25, 2010)

*looks* 

...and bringing the topic back to potential fun stuff. 



> -Plot Flowchart
> Masterplan allows you to organise your adventure using a simple drag-and-drop flowchart view, which indicates when the party is likely to level up.
> 
> -Combat Encounters
> ...




Where is there left for Masterplan to go without a Compendium Integration feature?


----------



## mudbunny (May 25, 2010)

My suspicions - It will have the same type of Compendium Integration that iPlay4E currently has, possibly with the ability to download/save individual pages that is *not* automated, in that the user would have to manually choose the page, choose to save it and save it while choosing the name.


----------



## malraux (May 26, 2010)

Kafen said:


> *is aware* I said that I hope they have a "Do what we want clause" in the DDI ToS if they ever go that route, too. The answer does not make sense unless people know that scraping is legal.
> 
> 
> The last bit occurs to me as I drink my steaming hot coffee on this fine day.




But the ToU specifically calls out scrapping already.  What is there to add?


----------



## doctorhook (May 26, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Where is there left for Masterplan to go without a Compendium Integration feature?



For one thing, it could get smoother. It's silky-soft compared to most such campaign planning tools, but it's still not as good for some aspects of campaign planning as good ol' Microsoft OneNote. The child of OneNote and Masterplan could be The King of All D&D Tools.


----------



## Kafen (May 26, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> The child of OneNote and Masterplan could be The King of All D&D Tools.




If the child spoke Pathfinder and MnM 3e, I would crown the child king for at least a day.  I like the one note aspect, too. 

*wonders if his existing campaign will import well at the end of the month*


----------



## doctorhook (May 26, 2010)

Kafen said:


> If the child spoke Pathfinder and MnM 3e, I would crown the child king for at least a day.



Haha If that was all he spoke, I'd cast him out as useless to me.


----------



## mudbunny (May 26, 2010)

According to @Masterplan_4E (on Twitter)

"Looks like version 9 will be available by the end of the week."


----------



## Kafen (May 26, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> According to @Masterplan_4E (on Twitter)
> 
> "Looks like version 9 will be available by the end of the week."




Masterplan posted that it would be up for download by the end of the month on Facebook, too. No post on the dev blog, yet.


----------



## Scribble (May 26, 2010)

I'ma bet that it: 

1. Will probably still link to the compendium in some way.

2. Might even let you save that Data.

If so, then it just won't let you export that data and import into another copy of Masterplan.

If not, then I bet it will just save the data links, so every time you open masterplan it know WHAT data you want just not what it is (so if you have an account you can get the info, but if not you can't.)


----------



## carmachu (May 27, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Old ladies and tiny kittens would die in droves if I vented my full anger and frustration over WotC and their lawyers right now.
> 
> I really wish this company suffers the consequences of their stupidity.





Given the OGL to GSL fiasco, folks cant really be suprised by GW....er WOTC not wanting to share or have applications tha work with their products. Despite the fact their DDI game table device is way behind schedule from promise.


----------



## mudbunny (May 27, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Given the OGL to GSL fiasco, folks cant really be suprised by GW....er WOTC not wanting to share or have applications tha work with their products. Despite the fact their DDI game table device is way behind schedule from promise.




You *are* familiar with iPlay4e, right??


----------



## carmachu (May 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> You *are* familiar with iPlay4e, right??



  Right. Along with other products. But thats not a WOTC product, what they promised 2 years ago....


----------



## mudbunny (May 27, 2010)

But it *does* access the compendium.


----------



## MrMyth (May 27, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Right. Along with other products. But thats not a WOTC product, what they promised 2 years ago....




You said WotC doesn't want products that share or access the Compendium. Iplay4E does just that, and WotC has no issues with it because it does so without letting people easily acquire the full contents of DDI without a subscription.


----------



## doctorhook (May 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> You said WotC doesn't want products that share or access the Compendium. Iplay4E does just that, and WotC has no issues with it because it does so without letting people easily acquire the full contents of DDI without a subscription.



*We presume WotC has no problems with it, as it hasn't received a C&D yet and its sins seem much less egregious. That said, Masterplan was around for a while before it got a C&D. While it's unlikely that iPlay4E hasn't been noticed by WotC yet, it remains possible that WotC could change still its mind about iPlay4E.

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## malraux (May 27, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> *We presume WotC has no problems with it, as it hasn't received a C&D yet and its sins seem much less egregious. That said, Masterplan was around for a while before it got a C&D. While it's unlikely that iPlay4E hasn't been noticed by WotC yet, it remains possible that WotC could change still its mind about iPlay4E.
> 
> I'm just sayin'.




It's a lot harder to see what WotC could actually sue over though.


----------



## Kafen (May 28, 2010)

malraux said:


> It's a lot harder to see what WotC could actually sue over though.




Good for the gander, good for the goose. You gents go over the lack of a good look at the C&D letter quite a bit in the early  for tat bits, I believe it is my turn to point out that you do not know the contents of the letter. It could apply equally well to iPlay4e. Zee Doctor is dead on with his bit.


----------



## mudbunny (May 28, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> *We presume WotC has no problems with it, as it hasn't received a C&D yet and its sins seem much less egregious. That said, Masterplan was around for a while before it got a C&D. While it's unlikely that iPlay4E hasn't been noticed by WotC yet, it remains possible that WotC could change still its mind about iPlay4E.
> 
> I'm just sayin'.




While it is possible that they will get a C&D letter, given that iPlay4e is using the compendium API in a manner that requires a constant subscription to DDI, and doesn't enable a person to, with two clicks of their mouse, download the Compendium to their HD and no longer require a subscription, the way that MP does, I find it unlikely that they will get a C&D letter. On the order of orders of magnitude less.


----------



## doctorhook (May 28, 2010)

malraux said:


> It's a lot harder to see what WotC could actually sue over though.



That's true, although I'm not sure what would actually provoke them to go that far anyway, aside from perhaps systematic piracy and distribution of proprietary materials on or about their release dates, up to and including PH2. 

I suppose if somebody was ballsy/stupid enough to consistently disregard their C&D, we'd find out. I don't predict any lawsuits against iPlay4E in the near future, at any rate.



mudbunny said:


> While it is possible that they will get a C&D letter, given that iPlay4e is using the compendium API in a manner that requires a constant subscription to DDI, and doesn't enable a person to, with two clicks of their mouse, download the Compendium to their HD and no longer require a subscription, the way that MP does, I find it unlikely that they will get a C&D letter. On the order of orders of magnitude less.



Absolutely. I only meant what I said in a general way, rather than to imply that I think any major change to WotC's policies are soon forthcoming.

Still, for those few who are still missing the larger context here, it needs to be reiterated that, first, we don't, can't, and likely won't ever know exactly what WotC is thinking or doing; and second, WotC still has the right to change its attitude and policies surrounding D&DI uses at any time.*

It's really, _really_ unlikely that WotC will suddenly take action against iPlay4E come Monday morning, but technically speaking, it is remotely possible. 

*There's probably an even more remote chance that a sudden change of policy on WotC's part could prompt legal retaliation against WotC, and a yet more remote chance that it would ever succeed. I'm being very hypothetical, of course.


----------



## malraux (May 28, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Still, for those few who are still missing the larger context here, it needs to be reiterated that, first, we don't, can't, and likely won't ever know exactly what WotC is thinking or doing; and second, WotC still has the right to change its attitude and policies surrounding D&DI uses at any time.*




I would argue that the larger context here is that WotC is only likely to go after you for something relating to dissemination of large chunks of their ip.  It's the common thread in all the lawsuits and C&Ds.


----------



## Kafen (May 28, 2010)

I am not seeing the collective works of WOTC when it comes to C&D letters. Is there a link people could look at? 

*curious to see where people are getting the ability to generalize WOTC's legal theory without actually seeing the collective  C&D letters*


----------



## Fifth Element (May 28, 2010)

Version 9 has been available for download for about two minutes now. Who's had a look at it yet?


----------



## mudbunny (May 28, 2010)

Masterplan v9 now available for downlaod.

Masterplan

Darbnit - Ninja'ed


----------



## mudbunny (May 28, 2010)

I took a *quick* look at it. While the scraping/extracting from the compendium is gone, the ability to install custom libraries as well as adding monsters saved from the Adventure Tools has been added.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 28, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Data Scraping in itself is not illegal. Feist (spelling?) Publications has a recent case where it goes into it. The interesting point in that case is that it allows data scraping - the limits are in direct relation to the creative aspect under US copyright law. In that light, I think the users of Masterplan are in clear violation of the law when they retain data after their DDI accounts expire. Masterplan only provides active DDI account users the ability to scrape the information.
> 
> Scraping: Data theft is scaling up - SC Magazine US This covers the brief version.
> 
> ...




Hi,

That note is interesting, but a little weak.  Scraping graphics for slide presentation may be fairly harmless, but it could very often be illegal.

I think a key issue will be how much data is scraped, as well as to what use it is put, and how long it is retained.

My understanding is that you have a fair use right to retain the data temporarily, for specific uses, and that you definitely do not have the right to retain major portions of the data for lengthy periods of time, unless you have be granted that right by the copyright holder.

The issue that I can see Hasbro having is that MasterPlan enables an infringement, in that too much data is scraped, and that data is retained for too long.

Can someone answer a question as to whether or not you are permitted to scan data from books that you own, and whether you own a printed copy of material if that allows mass scraping?  (Inverted, if I have a PDF, absent a specific provision, am I allowed to make a print-out of that PDF?)

As far as what mass scraping is legitimate, that is an interesting question.  However, the notion that an indexing bot has the right to perform mass scraping seems to be turning out to be no, if the recent problems that Google has been having in regards to its attempt to create an index to all printed material, including the ability to display select (small) portions of the data, is to be taken as a guide.

Thx!


----------



## Scribble (May 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Version 9 has been available for download for about two minutes now. Who's had a look at it yet?




I have it... seems to have removed the compendium links.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 28, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I have it... seems to have removed the compendium links.



If you upgraded from an older version to this one, would you still have your Compendium library available to use?


----------



## mudbunny (May 28, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Can someone answer a question as to whether or not you are permitted to scan data from books that you own, and whether you own a printed copy of material if that allows mass scraping?  (Inverted, if I have a PDF, absent a specific provision, am I allowed to make a print-out of that PDF?)




IANAL.

Now, my understanding of Canadian Law as it currently stands is that you are allowed to have a personal electronic copy of any print products you own and vice versa, with the understanding that if you get rid of the originally purchased copy, you must get rid of the scanned/printed copy that you made.

Again, IANAL, so my understanding may be *completely* wrong.


----------



## Kafen (May 28, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> That note is interesting, but a little weak.  Scraping graphics for slide presentation may be fairly harmless, but it could very often be illegal.
> 
> ...




Agreed.  It's why I do not see WOTC going very far with it in court. All legal obligations rest solely on the end user in regards to material covered under the creative expression clause in the copyright act. 



> The issue that I can see Hasbro having is that MasterPlan enables an infringement, in that too much data is scraped, and that data is retained for too long.




Yup, I agree that is the likely claim. However, I can't find a single case that assigns blame to the makers of data scraper software for the transfer of infringing material by a third party end  user. It's the heart of the theory that most people are putting out here. I am not saying that such cases don't exist, mind you. It's what I'm asking Mudbunny about in PM. So, I'm all ears if people have a case for it.    



> Can someone answer a question as to whether or not you are permitted to scan data from books that you own, and whether you own a printed copy of material if that allows mass scraping?  (Inverted, if I have a PDF, absent a specific provision, am I allowed to make a print-out of that PDF?)
> 
> As far as what mass scraping is legitimate, that is an interesting question.  However, the notion that an indexing bot has the right to perform mass scraping seems to be turning out to be no, if the recent problems that Google has been having in regards to its attempt to create an index to all printed material, including the ability to display select (small) portions of the data, is to be taken as a guide.
> 
> Thx!




Google's issues stem from their usage of material that breaks the creative expression rule. They host and transmit data that violates the copyright act. It's a  massive distinction between Masterplan 8.8 and Google books. Masterplan does not host infringing data. It does not transmit data, either.

*not sure about the limits on hard copy count and testing import features, now*


...and yes... The .library files do transfer. I deleted the things, however. So, nobody gets to use my DDI account info. It works on both custom files and WOTC files.


----------



## Scribble (May 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If you upgraded from an older version to this one, would you still have your Compendium library available to use?




Haven't tried anything- and I don't have an old library to use, but I think so as it lets you load libraries.

(I have an earlier version I just never used MP really.)


----------



## Kurtomatic (May 28, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> *We presume WotC has no problems with it, as it hasn't received a C&D yet and its sins seem much less egregious. That said, Masterplan was around for a while before it got a C&D. While it's unlikely that iPlay4E hasn't been noticed by WotC yet, it remains possible that WotC could change still its mind about iPlay4E.
> 
> I'm just sayin'.



While I understand the risks involved in 'presuming' anything about WotC's mindset, (as far as I am currently aware) apps like iPlay4e don't use the Compendium API in any way different than a web browser does. WotC isn't going to send a C&D to Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. 

Sending your browser a Compendium http link generated with ID values from an exported character file would seem to be the whole point behind the API's very existence. The CB files contain the actual hyperlinks in clear text. Also if you happen know that the Compendium power ID number for _Fey Step_ is 1449, you can simply type www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/power.aspx?id=1449 into your browser, and bingo! You have now used the Compendium API without using any client at all (other than your web browser, of course). Congratulations!


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (May 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If you upgraded from an older version to this one, would you still have your Compendium library available to use?




This is a very important question to have answered - I don't want to download the new version if it deletes all of my old info.

Can anyone give a definitive answer?


----------



## Scribble (May 28, 2010)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> This is a very important question to have answered - I don't want to download the new version if it deletes all of my old info.
> 
> Can anyone give a definitive answer?




Well, seeing as there's no "install" that goes on, there's really nothing it's doing. You're just unzipping an exe and running said exe.

I think as long as you don't unzip it to the same directory you unzipped the original you should be ok.... But I take no responsibility if it does otherwise


----------



## Obryn (May 28, 2010)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> This is a very important question to have answered - I don't want to download the new version if it deletes all of my old info.
> 
> Can anyone give a definitive answer?



Just don't overwrite it.

Heck; I have a 7-zipped backup of my entire folder, that folder, and soon will have a Masterplan 9 folder which I'll try to move my .library files to.  I'm just not home at the moment.

-O


----------



## tomBitonti (May 28, 2010)

Kafen said:


> Yup, I agree that is the likely claim. However, I can't find a single case that assigns blame to the makers of data scraper software for the transfer of infringing material by a third party end  user. It's the heart of the theory that most people are putting out here. I am not saying that such cases don't exist, mind you. It's what I'm asking Mudbunny about in PM. So, I'm all ears if people have a case for it.




Hi,

Do file sharing cases work as an analogue?  Providing a file sharing capabilities is OK, but not if it is done with the intent to enable infringing copying.  (Note: I am *not*  meaning to say or imply that the following was Masterplan's intent!)  If Masterplan was created with the intent to allow folks to access the DDI material in ways other than allowed by the license, that would seem to be an analogue.

Thx!


----------



## doctorhook (May 28, 2010)

I can confirm that all of my previous libraries from Masterplan v8.8 are still working with v9.0.


----------



## Kafen (May 28, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Do file sharing cases work as an analogue?  Providing a file sharing capabilities is OK, but not if it is done with the intent to enable infringing copying.  (Note: I am *not*  meaning to say or imply that the following was Masterplan's intent!)  If Masterplan was created with the intent to allow folks to access the DDI material in ways other than allowed by the license, that would seem to be an analogue.
> 
> Thx!




*bows to Masterplan devs* They are a smart bunch. 

The nearest match for a case involves an airline that sends  a series of C&D letters. The software company refuses to comply. In this case, the product for sale is the primary gateway along with several refusals on the part of the software company to work with the airline. Can they take action if Masterplan removes the data scraper feature and does not pay? Hmmm... WOTC has to sue in Texas for this case to apply. *recalls something about WOTC terms stating that Washington state is their place where they litigate.*

There is an alternative case that depends on CFAA which allows for damages to be an issue. Masterplan has to scrape the data and host the information, though. 

The third 'best' chance comes up from users here, WOTC can claim server load is an issue. However, one crawl is not server damaging. 

Keep in mind, the above three* only apply to scrapers. I know there is a quaint little law site that covers part of it if people want the long version. Anywho, WOTC has to pick which one applies. Chances are, I would bet it's the first aspect if they want to attack the scraper code. If it's the case, WOTC faces two points. First off, Masterplan no longer scrapes the data. Second, it is non commercial which gives zero room to make "intentional damage claim" which is at the heart of the airline claim. 

Of all the people in the topic, you are the only one that asks the right question. It's why I bow to the  devs of Masterplan. As a free piece of software, the act of compliance shows they are willing to work with WOTC. It goes a long way towards gutting  any future claims that WOTC stands to make if they decide to go along the airline route as it shows that they intend no harm in this version. 

Do I continue to think that Masterplan 8.8 is valid? Yes, but... I like the route they took. Gut the most obvious trigger conditions for a potential claim and let WOTC deal with copyright enforcement. It's why I do not buy into the copyright claims of people. The Copyright Act does not support such claims against scrapers ( at this time - who knows in the future ).

*I am fairly sure the three complaints are the most common ones cited.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 7, 2010)

Thx.    Have to think for real, since copyright and patent are important where I work.  Have to thank Paula Samuelson, from the ACM, from years ago, for providing some very excellent articles.

I suppose what matters is intent, as shown by an active policy.

Thx again!

Tom B


----------



## LordGraz'zt (Jun 8, 2010)

I have only just got back into 4E  and been learning about this fantastic tool - just in time for WotC to do their usual C&D magic.

Can anyone help me out with some libararies?

*Admin here. Do not use this site to ask where to get pirated material, please. ~ PCat*


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jun 8, 2010)

LordGraz'zt said:


> Can anyone help me out with some libararies?




Demon Prince or no, that request is likely to get you into trouble.

The best you could do is look for a copy of 8.8 and do a scrape of your own, assuming you have a DDI subscription and WotC haven't changed anything to break that feature of 8.8.


----------



## LordGraz'zt (Jun 8, 2010)

I saw a method to scrape the Compendium using AutoHotKey but assumed that its already been done so was hoping to save myself some time


----------



## Asmor (Jun 8, 2010)

LordGraz'zt said:


> just in time for WotC to do their usual C&D magic.




Their usual C&D magic? This is the only C&D I can recall which is remotely questionable. Hyperbole gets us nowhere.



Mephistopheles said:


> Demon Prince or no, that request is likely to get you into trouble.




Not very likely. I mean, at worst, maybe a slap on the wrist from one of the admins here on the board, but I can't picture any scenario where a request like that, or even following through on it, would actually get anyone in anything remotely resembling trouble.

*We don't allow people to ask for, or distribute info on getting, pirated material. We'd much rather people respect this policy than try to see how much they can get away with. People are welcome to drop me a PM if they wish to discuss this further. ~ PCat*



> The best you could do is look for a copy of 8.8 and do a scrape of your own, assuming you have a DDI subscription and WotC haven't changed anything to break that feature of 8.8.




This


----------



## LordGraz'zt (Jun 8, 2010)

Thankyou for the suggestion.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 29, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Their usual C&D magic? This is the only C&D I can recall which is remotely questionable. Hyperbole gets us nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They apparently have changed at least one thing, as both artifacts and conjuration items (ie, onyx dog) are not importing.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Jun 29, 2010)

webrunner said:


> They apparently have changed at least one thing, as both artifacts and conjuration items (ie, onyx dog) are not importing.




I don't think that this is a new issue... IIRC, I've seen my computer try and download those same items both before and after the situation with Masterplan took place. 

They haven't posted any new monsters since then, so I'm not sure if WotC has changed the process at all.


----------

