# Years after completely ditching the system, WotC makes their move!



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 16, 2010)

See for yourself. Crystal Keep - D&D and d20 System

All I can say is WTEverLoving?!!!!

I admit, it probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, pretty clear violation of copyrighted material, etc, etc...  But, it did exist.  For many years.  With nary a peep from WotC as far as we could tell.  And now all of a sudden...gone?  I reiterate, WTF?

EDIT: Looks like BG has a pretty active thread on it already, complete with amusing, yet grandma-unfriendly dialogue: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10410.0


----------



## Dandu (Dec 16, 2010)

There is a simple explanation for this.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 16, 2010)

I'm sure most people have downloaded the files they needed by now.

I wonder how this is going to help anything ... entire books, scanned in, are available for $0 via torrent websites.  Is shutting down the spotty charts from CrystalKeep really a major problem, in the face of entire book downloads?


----------



## Veven1290 (Dec 16, 2010)

Dandu said:


> Revenge is a dish best served cold.





And it is very cold in space. The space left at crystal keep to be precise.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 16, 2010)

Dandu said:


> There is a simple explanation for this.
> 
> Revenge is a dish best served cold.




What, like WotC's taking revenge on us for some reason?  I don't think taking down the pdfs hurt crystalkeep much, never even noticed any ads on the site, not sure he was making any money off of web traffic...

EDIT: It has a single slim banner ad on the right side, my bad.  Still no ads on the pdfs themselves, which is where people spend most of their browsing time.


----------



## Dandu (Dec 16, 2010)

We're not buying 4e. Clearly, this is because there is still 3.5e material still floating around. It must be purged.

Lock your doors at night, people. WotC law-ninjas will soon be coming to torch your obsolete deadtree.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 16, 2010)

With any luck, WotC will go away very soon and leave us all in peace.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 16, 2010)

Huh. Really odd that they're asking them now to pull their files. I don't actually see how this might hurt WotC in any way, _now_ (unless they plan to re-release all of their 3e books...).


DumbPaladin said:


> With any luck, WotC will go away very soon and leave us all in peace.



And what kind of 'luck' would that be?! Wishing for WotC to go away is wishing for D&D to go away. And that would be a bad thing for the whole hobby, not just D&D players.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Huh. Really odd that they're asking them now to pull their files. I don't actually see how this might hurt WotC in any way, _now_ (unless they plan to re-release all of their 3e books...).




I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture that this has something to do with the release of Essentials.  You know, the new 4E thing intended to win back previous players supposedly.  Can't win 'em back if there's a better product still visible and accesible in any way, shape or form, after all.

Seriously, not sure if the timings match too well, haven't paid any atention to Essentials.  I do think it's safe to assume this issue's been going on a while now.  Months ago CC removed the classes index without any explanation.  Quite likely that was an earlier WotC demand, only for them to seek all the pdfs removed later.

Alternative theory: WotC just really, really has a deep illogical fear and hatred of pdfs which will eventually lead to them attempting to mail bomb Adobe's headquarters.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Dec 16, 2010)

Heh, so I'm effectively undead to WotC.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I suppose CK was borderline infringing, but, man, what a petty move on WotC's part-- especially so long after they've moved on.  This matches their M.O. of torching anything that supports past versions, though, so I'm not surprised.

[edit] Is this an omen?  Will WotC be removing their 3e archives in the near future?


----------



## BENINHB (Dec 16, 2010)

NOOOOOOO!!!

Crystal keep saved me so much time. It was a great way to find what you were looking for, reference the page and book, then go look it up. Granted the equipment section "replaced" books for me but who wants to flip through all you different books looking for mundane gear, poisons and there DC's and base weapon stats. In the books it too much information too spread out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Wishing for WotC to go away is wishing for D&D to go away.




As TSR going away proved...... 



the_orc_within said:


> what a petty move on WotC's part-- especially so long after they've moved on.  This matches their M.O. of torching anything that supports past versions, though, so I'm not surprised.




I'm sure if you just saw if from their position....a smart business move....what else could they do?....._*insert other excuse here*_......


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 16, 2010)

It does seem remarkably spiteful of them.

If WotC was going to stop producing any 3e material and refuse to sell pdfs or make any attempt to profit off of it, they really should have at some point lifted the restrictions on all of their out of print books, allowing the d20 SRD or a like site to put every piece of content online. Even from a strict business perspective, that would probably be a good decision because they're not going to get any return on whatever money they spend chasing down copyright violators.

Fortunately, I never really used Crystal Keep.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2010)

> If WotC was going to stop producing any 3e material and refuse to sell pdfs or make any attempt to profit off of it, they really should have at some point lifted the restrictions on all of their out of print books, allowing the d20 SRD or a like site to put every piece of content online. Even from a strict business perspective, that would probably be a good decision because they're not going to get any return on whatever money they spend chasing down copyright violators.




I understand the frustration, but it makes business sense to me.  We don't know what plans WotC has for_ their IP_, so it makes sense for them to protect it.  And if CK's content was too compete, that's a problem for WotC's ability to defend their rights if left unadressed.

Someone once made a similar assertion about old videogames...and then they started rereleasing those games in new units, like Atari games released in bunches built into controllers that attach directly to TVs, or consoles that cost about $1/game loaded on them.

Near as I can tell, WotC sent a C&D letter and CK complied.  That's actually pretty civilized in this field.


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 17, 2010)

I understand them protecting their rights.  

I understand them yanking the 3.x pdf for sale when 4ed was released.

But why yank the older PDF materials that were available for sale on the web?  Other companies were paying the expenses of hosting the PDFs for sale on the Web.  WOTC just had to sit back and collect the checks from the hosting companies.

I ask WHY yank that older 1ed, 2ed and basic material?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

Same reason- protecting their IP.

Was CK selling the stuff and sending WotC a check?  Did they have a license?  If not...that's a violation.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

Ahnehnois said:


> Fortunately, I never really used Crystal Keep.




See, I was thinking about what's happened, who this most affects, and that's what pisses me off the most.  You and I and all the current 3E players that go on the internet to read/talk about it...we're already set.  I used crystalkeep for reference tons, but mostly out of laziness from actually looking at the books/pdfs.  It was convenient, but not essential.  Further, we've had plenty of time to download those CK pdfs, and still can with the mirror sites that are up...until those also get taken down.

But anyone coming in new to the hobby?  The books are gone, the legal pdfs are gone, CK's gone....all they have left is d20srd.  No access to splat material for them.  The core 3E game is wonderful, it hooked me.   But I wonder how well it can hold up with just the vanilla core when 4E's plastering their new releases every single month.  It's also going to make character building and optimization advice much harder to provide.  I can't count the number of times I've linked people to CK to find useful items for their concept.  No more.  I doubt ENWorld will let us openly pass along the pdfs in the threads, since it's clearly now considered legally questionable to even view the things.  Even if they had the frivolously large amounts of money to just buy a bunch of books for a few feats or items for a single character...WotC's also taken away that route.  Again, we can't "advocate" piracy by telling them where they can obtain the rulebooks they want, either.

THAT is the chilling effect the cumulative efforts of WotC to bury the previous editions (next up: complete deletion of all the old web articles) that I'm worried and furious about.  It's insidious, cold hearted, brilliant, and evil, and I hate them for it.  It absolutely makes good business sense, I won't argue with that.  They've decided they don't need our money, and after that stage, there's no point in trying to play nice for them.  Even though it makes sense for them, I'm still going to rage and vent about it on teh interwebs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

The books aren't gone.  I see them all the time in places like Half Price Books.  And besides, newbies will typically stat with the newer games and work backwards- if at all- with the tutelage of veterans who have the stuff.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Same reason- protecting their IP.
> 
> Was CK selling the stuff and sending WotC a check?  Did they have a license?  If not...that's a violation.




May not matter legally, but I also want to add that I firmly believe that CK gave WotC sales.  Both intentionally (posting short blurbs to try and remain within fair use) and unintentionally (very glaring errors), CK left itself as a good reference library to look stuff up quick, but at the same time was about as reliable as wikipedia.  Looking on there for things was fine, but IME a fair number of DMs would want to actually see the rule you were trying to use in the book before they'd allow it.  Further, if you found a lot of cool rules items from a certain book, it would logically lead you to consider buying it.  Unless you never intended to buy a book in the first place, in which case CK at least didn't cost you a sale.  This isn't even as tough as the "piracy helps sales" argument.  With a pirated pdf you have the ENTIRE book.  CK was summaries and blurbs, it in no way gave you the complete picture of what was in a particular book.

Obviously, now that WotC no longer can benefit from 3E sales, a choice of their own making, CK no longer provides this sort of "advertising."  And it's now that they send C&D letters out.  Strange, eh?  *goes to look for a foil hat*


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The books aren't gone.  I see them all the time in places like Half Price Books.  And besides, newbies will typically stat with the newer games and work backwards- if at all- with the tutelage of veterans who have the stuff.




I don't know...we still get a fair number of new posters in this forum just starting out with 3E.  The game's not dying out yet.  Might be getting leached at slowly by pathfinder, but at least that's in the same ballpark.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 17, 2010)

What I'm wondering about is with the recent stirring from Legal Department, will it be turning its eyestalks at the Creature Catalog web page and subsequent uses in Tome of Horrors [3.0 / 3.5] and the more recent use in Pathfinder. I've always been curious to the exact details of whether Necromancer / SSS had the actual authority to release the classic D&D critters into d20 status.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

> May not matter legally, but I also want to add that I firmly believe that CK gave WotC sales. Both intentionally (posting short blurbs to try and remain within fair use) and unintentionally (very glaring errors), CK left itself as a good reference library to look stuff up quick, but at the same time was about as reliable as wikipedia. Looking on there for things was fine, but IME a fair number of DMs would want to actually see the rule you were trying to use in the book before they'd allow it. Further, if you found a lot of cool rules items from a certain book, it would logically lead you to consider buying it. Unless you never intended to buy a book in the first place, in which case CK at least didn't cost you a sale. This isn't even as tough as the "piracy helps sales" argument. With a pirated pdf you have the ENTIRE book. CK was summaries and blurbs, it in no way gave you the complete picture of what was in a particular book.




Whether or not CK helped drive sales is immaterial: it's WotC's _right_ AND _duty_ to control it's IP.  If they decided what CK was doing was a problem for them right now or could become one in the future, that's their perogative.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I don't know...we still get a fair number of new posters in this forum just starting out with 3E.  The game's not dying out yet.  Might be getting leached at slowly by pathfinder, but at least that's in the same ballpark.




True, and I'm one of the people still running it...and again, the books are still out there.  I've personally bought several core sets of 3Ed and 3.5Ed- adding OA & dice for good measure- to be sent to troops overseas.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Whether or not CK helped drive sales is immaterial: it's WotC's _right_ AND _duty_ to control it's IP.  If they decided what CK was doing was a problem for them right now or could become one in the future, that's their perogative.





I haven't seen anyone arguing the contrary, so I'm not sure who you're preaching to, exactly; the choir is already singing.

The point of this entire thread seems to be to point out that ...
-- the move is easily seen as nothing but sheer pettiness, or as a knee-jerk reaction to the rather abysmal reception 4E has gotten from some people;
-- WotC was not losing profits due to CrystalKeep's site, as they'd already given up on profits when they gave up on the system;
-- WotC's IP rights were not (and still are not) in jeopardy due to CK or any similar sites;
-- WotC seems not to have considered any of the PR ramifications of this decision, which from a fanbase viewpoint, is one in a long line of incredibly stupid decisions;
-- the move is purposeless when torrent websites have effectively rendered any chances of preventing copyrighted material from being traded free of charge;
-- this act could actually do nothing other than lower the number of new and prospective 3.x players. 


Just because you have a right doesn't mean exercising it on purpose is wrong.

If WotC had any "duty" to protect intellectual property rights, they would have exercised it many years ago by going after CK and similar sites and shutting them down.  Those sites have been up far too long for WotC to claim with a straight face in open court that they'd done everything necessary to strenuously defend their copyright.  I suspect the reason they never bothered before is because their lawyers have informed them they were in NO such danger.

If they were ... well, hell, they've already lost that copyright, and someone should file a suit about it.


----------



## Orius (Dec 17, 2010)

I have to wonder about the timing myself.  It's been there for a while, and WotC is just getting around to it?  I'm not going to bother putting on a tin foil hat and go on about the latest WotC/Hasbro conspiracy, because that's gotten to be ridiculuous at this point.  But it does make people wonder about whether they're up to something.  Or state their views on how 4e is failing, which seems to be based on wishful thinking rather than any concrete facts.

Either that, or WotC legal department is woefully inefficient.

It is kind of a shame though, I just discovered the site as I'm running my first game in years, and some of the information looked useful as a reference.

And is the 3.x archive really in imminent danger of coming down?  As far as I can tell, it's still there more or less intact, it's just buried behind the main site:

3.5 D&D Archives

You have to do a site search to get to it quickly or bookmark it, but it's there.

My biggest problem is that I have a lot of the stuff I want saved, but it's on a disc, and that format is becoming deprecated.  So I have to transfer that stuff from a disc to a flash drive or SD card if I want to keep accessing it, and that's what irritates me about stuff being taken down, it sometimes gets hard to replace.  I can't afford to keep up with the bloody tech treadmill most of the time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> The point of this entire thread seems to be to point out that ...
> -- the move is easily seen as nothing but sheer pettiness, or as a knee-jerk reaction to the rather abysmal reception 4E has gotten from some people;




Even as someone who vastly prefers 3.X, as an Entertainment lawyer, I can assure you that "pettiness" is not the #1 reason for this move- its a legitimate business decision.



> -- WotC was not losing profits due to CrystalKeep's site, as they'd already given up on profits when they gave up on the system;



That is immaterial.



> -- WotC's IP rights were not (and still are not) in jeopardy due to CK or any similar sites;



Yes they were- one right is the ability to control access to the property in the market.  If you do not enforce your rights against "open and notorious" infringers, it is possible to lose your ability to defend against others.



> -- WotC seems not to have considered any of the PR ramifications of this decision, which from a fanbase viewpoint, is one in a long line of incredibly stupid decisions



I agree that it's not the best PR, but sometimes you have to take a PR hit to do what is best for your fundamental interests


> -- the move is purposeless when torrent websites have effectively rendered any chances of preventing copyrighted material from being traded free of charge



;
If WotC does not enforce it's rights against CK, it could lose it's ability to enforce those same rights if they go after the torrent sites, etc.
-







> - this act could actually do nothing other than lower the number of new and prospective 3.x players.



All we can do on that point is speculate.



> If WotC had any "duty" to protect intellectual property rights, they would have exercised it many years ago by going after CK and similar sites and shutting them down.  Those sites have been up far too long for WotC to claim with a straight face in open court that they'd done everything necessary to strenuously defend their copyright.  I suspect the reason they never bothered before is because their lawyers have informed them they were in NO such danger.
> 
> If they were ... well, hell, they've already lost that copyright, and someone should file a suit about it.




Nah, they still have the right and duty, the statute of limitations hasn't run yet.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 17, 2010)

If you really are an entertainment lawyer, how would you explain to a judge that WotC has been actively protecting their copyright by allowing Crystalkeep to stay afloat and infringe upon said copyright for years?


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 17, 2010)

I'd really like to say Wotc was taking things too far and Goose stepping with the CopyReich Gestapo, but CK's indexes were far beyond _Fair Use_ IMO.

So any bets how long Chet's Mirror site for Crystal Keep stays up?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> If you really are an entertainment lawyer, how would you explain to a judge that WotC has been actively protecting their copyright by allowing Crystalkeep to stay afloat and infringe upon said copyright for years?




I wouldn't have to, because the Court doesn't care how long it took for WotC to get around to CK as long as its within the statute of limitations.  Essentially, its a non-issue.

However, if they started doing _selective_ enforcement- and whether or not it is selective or not is a question of fact to be decided in court- there could be an issue.  Then WotC might have to show why it enforces its rights against some infringers and not others...and if they don't have a good reason, they could be in trouble.  They could be deemed to have abandoned part or all of their rights.

For instance, if you post something on the internet and tell users its ok for them to copy it and share it, you cannot then turn around and sue someone for infringement if they _repost_ it.

In this case, CK is relatively high profile- if WotC does not go after them, they'll have issues going after others.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 17, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> I'd really like to say Wotc was taking things too far and Goose stepping with the CopyReich Gestapo, but CK's indexes were far beyond _Fair Use_ IMO.
> 
> So any bets how long Chet's Mirror site for Crystal Keep stays up?





Well, if they actually are doing this because they're in fear of losing their copyright and/or IP rights, you'd think they'd do it soon ...


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't have to, because the Court doesn't care how long it took for WotC to get around to CK as long as its within the statute of limitations.  Essentially, its a non-issue.
> 
> However, if they started doing _selective_ enforcement- and whether or not it is selective or not is a question of fact to be decided in court- there could be an issue.  Then WotC might have to show why it enforces its rights against some infringers and not others...and if they don't have a good reason, they could be in trouble.  They could be deemed to have abandoned part or all of their rights.
> 
> ...





I can actually buy this argument, but a good lawyer (like, the one CK would have needed to hire had they refused to comply with the request) would certainly have some evidence to suggest that WotC had abandoned at least part of their rights by doing nothing for quite some time.  There are other violators out there, as well.

We really need to reform copyright laws in this country.  As a corporation, you should only be able to go after individuals if you can actually show that they're causing you a financial harm in some way.  Clearly, this wasn't the case with CrystalKeep.  

Which brings us back to the original point of the thread: this isn't about money, or protecting anything WotC cares about, or them being in danger of losing anything IP related, so ... just what IS it about?

And really, did it accomplish ANYTHING at all?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> I can actually buy this argument, but a good lawyer (like, the one CK would have needed to hire had they refused to comply with the request) would certainly have some evidence to suggest that WotC had abandoned at least part of their rights by doing nothing for quite some time.  There are other violators out there, as well.




Mere inaction or delayed action ≠ abandonment.  To prove abandonment, the lawyer would have to prove that WotC did NOTHING to protect its rights and/or that they have acted inconsistently and selectively in enforcement...both damn tough to do.



> We really need to reform copyright laws in this country.  As a corporation, you should only be able to go after individuals if you can actually show that they're causing you a financial harm in some way.  Clearly, this wasn't the case with CrystalKeep.




I disagree.

Disney went after an obscure animated porno producer who barely made a cent with his ripoffs of Disney characters in adult shorts and won.  The harm, if any, was to the brand and associations and goodwill, not the bottom line.

Sometimes you don't want your product out in the stream of commerce at all.  Prince went after people who released unauthorized copies of songs he was working on.  Few of those songs were ever released commercially.  He sued, not because he lost money- he actually gained money when the profits were confiscated- but because he felt the songs stolen were of inferior quality.  The damage was not monetary, but to his public image.

And then there's a dirty little secret of IP law: sometimes you sue in copyright to protect other, less strongly protected forms of intellectual property.  D&D isn't just a _copyrighted_ game, its a set of trademarks, service marks and so forth...but defending all those other things can be tough, time consuming and expensive.  But waving the copyright bat around gets people's attention: the fines are bigger; there's the threat of jail time; there's the loooonng duration of protection.

(BTW, its not just in the USA that corporations can go after infringers who haven't done financial harm.)



> Which brings us back to the original point of the thread: this isn't about money, or protecting anything WotC cares about, or them being in danger of losing anything IP related, so ... just what IS it about?




You don't know that it wasn't about money or protecting their IP, etc.- nor do I- because 1) there are valid business reasons to do all of those things you dismiss and 2) we were not there in the boardrooms where these decisions were being made.  We're all just speculating.



> And really, did it accomplish ANYTHING at all?



Only time will tell.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 17, 2010)

When I was typing my last post, part of me started to wonder about whether one strand would unravel the entire blanket.

If WotC actually faced a challenge from a belligerent website creator refusing to pull down his D&D-themed information site, could they be in danger of losing not only some old 3.x copyrights, but 4E and the future as well?  That would certainly explain their knee-jerk behavior a bit better on a financial basis.

It still doesn't explain allowing CK and sites like it to exist for this long, however.  And that length of time of not caring (such as the entire time 3.5 was actually still actively on sale) is what allows us to speculate, with a high degree of confidence, that this action smacks of pettiness or reprisal against those people who refuse to jump on the 4E bandwagon.

Don't get me wrong, I understand it's not based in fact ... but it sure as hell is based in logic.  The timing makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As TSR going away proved......



I think this was a slightly different situation. Or rather, I was thinking of a slightly different thing, because WotC won't go away any time soon because of Magic.

If, however, Hasbro decides the D&D rpg line is no longer profitable enough, they'll simply cancel it and sit on the license, mabe trying to sell other stuff using the brand name, say, D&D action figures and movies.

I don't see Hasbro selling the license to any other company to continue publishing D&D rpg material. I'm not even sure the Paizo guys (and gals) would be interested, since the license would probably be expensive and their Pathfinder stuff is selling well enough without the brand name.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> When I was typing my last post, part of me started to wonder about whether one strand would unravel the entire blanket.
> 
> If WotC actually faced a challenge from a belligerent website creator refusing to pull down his D&D-themed information site, could they be in danger of losing not only some old 3.x copyrights, but 4E and the future as well?  That would certainly explain their knee-jerk behavior a bit better on a financial basis.




Its always going to be case specific, but generally speaking, I don't think a goof in a legal struggle with a 3.X site, for instance, would cost WotC their 4Ed rights.  But if they lose because of a certain error on their part that they repeated with 4Ed or other properties, then the precedent of losing a case in 3.X could, indeed, result in them losing rights associated with those other properties.  (That's one reason why contracts get redrafted as opposed to copied and recycled...)



> It still doesn't explain allowing CK and sites like it to exist for this long, however.  And that length of time of not caring (such as the entire time 3.5 was actually still actively on sale) is what allows us to speculate, with a high degree of confidence, that this action smacks of pettiness or reprisal against those people who refuse to jump on the 4E bandwagon.




Your "confidence" is based on a misunderstanding of law and an absence of facts.  The only timetable that matters is whether or not they chose to enforce their rights within the time set forth in law.  If they had filed their first lawsuits against ten thousand infringers at 3:45PM the day before their rights expired, _the court wouldn't care. _ They'd check to see if they filed the documents properly and go on from there.

That lack of caring is, in the eyes of the law, evidence of nothing.



> Don't get me wrong, I understand it's not based in fact ... but it sure as hell is based in logic.  The timing makes absolutely no sense at all.




No its not logic.  There are lots of reasons for doing it now- just because you don't know which one or ones it is doesn't change that.  You're asserting a position based on a gut feeling, because the only fact you have is that it happened.  For all you know, they could have been tossing this around their legal department, plotting strategy, identifying targets, and debating whether it was worth their time, energy and (most importantly) their money for years before greenlighting this.

Is it possible they're doing this out of spite?  Sure.  They also could have done it because of a message someone got on a Ouija board or some new hotshot in legal wanted to prove he's Courtroom Ace #1.  Its far more likely than any of those scenarios, though, that with margins as tight as they probably are that Hasbro/WotC isn't going to spend $$$ on their legal departments initiating costly lawsuits or taking actions that could result in costly lawsuits without a valid business reason to do so.

Or to put it a different way, if WotC DID do this out of spite and generated a slew of cases because infringers X, Y and Z didn't feel like complying, they'd have to justify their actions to Hasbro.  And then what are they going to say?  "Almighty Hasbro, we thought our profit margins on 4Ed were a little tight, so we decided on a scorched earth policy against our previous product to drive the market towards it...which has unfortunately raised our legal fees 3000% this quarter."

That won't cut it.  That's the kind of thing that gets people- management people, bosses, etc.- fired.


----------



## Runestar (Dec 17, 2010)

Do any of you feel that Crystalkeep helped with 3e sales back in its heyday (which was why wotc tolerated its presence? And now that it has long outlived its usefulness...

I personally felt it was very useful for quickly determining if a particular feat, spell or template existed, though I can't credit it for actually spurring me to buy any splatbooks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I don't see Hasbro selling the license to any other company to continue publishing D&D rpg material. I'm not even sure the Paizo guys (and gals) would be interested, since the license would probably be expensive and their Pathfinder stuff is selling well enough without the brand name.




Meh.

I don't care if the brand name dies, personally, so long as the game does not.  The brand name seems to mean less and less (to me) with each passing year.

OTOH, other games with stronger connections to what the game means (to me) exist, and won't be going away soon.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are lots of reasons for doing it now- just because you don't know which one or ones it is doesn't change that.




Out of curiosity, do you think any of those "lots of reasons" might also apply to EN World?  And, if so, how do you feel about that?


RC


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> See, I was thinking about what's happened, who this most affects, and that's what pisses me off the most.  You and I and all the current 3E players that go on the internet to read/talk about it...we're already set.  I used crystalkeep for reference tons, but mostly out of laziness from actually looking at the books/pdfs.  It was convenient, but not essential.  Further, we've had plenty of time to download those CK pdfs, and still can with the mirror sites that are up...until those also get taken down.
> 
> But anyone coming in new to the hobby?  The books are gone, the legal pdfs are gone, CK's gone....all they have left is d20srd.  No access to splat material for them.  The core 3E game is wonderful, it hooked me.   But I wonder how well it can hold up with just the vanilla core when 4E's plastering their new releases every single month.  It's also going to make character building and optimization advice much harder to provide.  I can't count the number of times I've linked people to CK to find useful items for their concept.  No more.  I doubt ENWorld will let us openly pass along the pdfs in the threads, since it's clearly now considered legally questionable to even view the things.  Even if they had the frivolously large amounts of money to just buy a bunch of books for a few feats or items for a single character...WotC's also taken away that route.  Again, we can't "advocate" piracy by telling them where they can obtain the rulebooks they want, either.
> 
> THAT is the chilling effect the cumulative efforts of WotC to bury the previous editions (next up: complete deletion of all the old web articles) that I'm worried and furious about.  It's insidious, cold hearted, brilliant, and evil, and I hate them for it.  It absolutely makes good business sense, I won't argue with that.  They've decided they don't need our money, and after that stage, there's no point in trying to play nice for them.  Even though it makes sense for them, I'm still going to rage and vent about it on teh interwebs.



Remembering back when I first tried the game and my skepticism towards it, I shudder to think that some people might be in the same situation as I, but that those people would not pick up the beautiful, well-written books that started my gaming career. One look at the 4e books (never mind their actual content) would have probably put me off the hobby for good. The way the company has treated their 3e material, as if it had no value, is a potent reminder to those of us who know that it does.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 17, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> Well, if they actually are doing this because they're in fear of losing their copyright and/or IP rights, you'd think they'd do it soon ...



It's not necessary to do it soon, it's only necessary to do it soon _enough_.

In fact, it's conceivable that by waiting as long as possible, WotC was being considerate toward CrystalKeep and the gamers who used it.  For instance, if you assume a five-year period of infringement is required before IP rights are threatened, and WotC waited four years and eleven months, it's _possible_ they'd do that to give gamers as much time as possible.

I'm not saying that's what happened -- God knows I am no longer a WotC fan _at all_ -- and WotC would never admit it if it were true (for potential legal reasons), but it's _possible_ that WotC waiting to enforce was out of benevolence, not spite (or the most likely attitude: indifference).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

Runestar said:


> Do any of you feel that Crystalkeep helped with 3e sales back in its heyday (which was why wotc tolerated its presence? And now that it has long outlived its usefulness...




Yes, I really do feel that way.  Some things a quick google search turned up below.  Note that I'm sure wotc's thread purge destroyed plenty of years old examples of CK linking on their own freaking forums.

2009: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2009: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2009: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2008: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2007: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible!

2007: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2007: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2006: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2006: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2004: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

2002: SCS: Custody Battle : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering
An article, on wotc's own site, mentioning looking on CK for magic the gathering rules! (Last paragraph)
"Okay, so I actually have one more thing -- a couple people didn't know what I was referring to with section "'K.11 -- Creature Type' from the Comprehensive Rules." That's understandable because there's no such section in the Comp. Rules. "K.11 -- Creature Type" is the title of the section about creature types in the rulings summary compiled by Stephen D'Angelo at crystalkeep.com. You can get more information about the Magic rules by clicking on "Rules" in the upper left of this Web page. (The Comp. Rules sections that deal with creature types include rule 212, "Card Type," rule 214, "Creatures," and rule 216 "Tokens.")"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

Runestar said:


> Do any of you feel that Crystalkeep helped with 3e sales back in its heyday (which was why wotc tolerated its presence? And now that it has long outlived its usefulness...




I personally used CK only about 5 times...but I'm sure that its existence did earn some sales for WotC.  OTOH, it may have also cost them some.



Raven Crowking said:


> Out of curiosity, do you think any of those "lots of reasons" might also apply to EN World?  And, if so, how do you feel about that?
> RC



I don't think ENWorld is in any danger.  The mods here do an excellent job of policing the site and keeping copyrighted material off the boards.  And most of the stuff posted here is discussion (protected), review (protected), how to use RPG products (protected) and homebrew (protected).

Besides, given WHO posts here, I'm sure ENWorld would be shown a lot of courtesy and leeway- meaning time- to self-police if some offending bit DID show up here.


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Same reason- protecting their IP.
> 
> Was CK selling the stuff and sending WotC a check?  Did they have a license?  If not...that's a violation.



CK was not selling PDF to my knowledge.

I was referring to RPGDrivethrough.com, who was selling, under contract with WOTC, PDFs of Basic, 1ed, 2ed and 3.x ed materials at one point.  Until Wizards yanked their ability to sell with no warring to the public.

I was more venting that WOTC did not have to pay for the web hosting of this older editions material but could just sit there and collect the royalties they were do for it.

After all there were plenty to people whom bought the older editions stuff to read for inspiration or to convert for their home games.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

TanisFrey said:


> CK was not selling PDF to my knowledge.
> 
> I was referring to RPGDrivethrough.com, who was selling, under contract with WOTC, PDFs of Basic, 1ed, 2ed and 3.x ed materials at one point.  Until Wizards yanked their ability to sell with no warring to the public.
> 
> ...




Again, WotC's thrown everything behind 4E (and future editions *ducks*).  Anything that hurts its success, even if that something is helpful to them, like older edition sales, is deemed overall a loss or hurting their product, just by virtue of existing as competition.  I don't agree and think it's an asinine policy, so don't expect me to explain/defend it, but that's what it is.  Any "small profits" made off of previous edition pdfs to them isn't worth the presumed impact on their 4E profits.

WotC also isn't known for being very intelligent about whether their actions will generate good or bad PR, or possibly not really caring about PR.  So the whole "it's pissing a lot of people off" argument doesn't much matter, either.

As for myself, I'm just smiling (bitterly), thinking back when WotC announced the pdf move, pulling ALL editions from being for sale.  They claimed it was for piracy protection.  Myself and others at the time rightly identified that the 3E books had long ago been pirated and that was clearly not the motive behind yanking the older pdfs (several people citing the "3E is competition" angle specifically).  I recall people reacting to that like we were crackpots or worse, "edition warring."  It sure sucks to be right, I have to say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

> I was referring to RPGDrivethrough.com, who was selling, under contract with WOTC, PDFs of Basic, 1ed, 2ed and 3.x ed materials at one point. Until Wizards yanked their ability to sell with no warring to the public.
> 
> I was more venting that WOTC did not have to pay for the web hosting of this older editions material but could just sit there and collect the royalties they were do for it.




Gotcha.

Even there, yanking the license was probably done for business reasons.  For instance, they may have felt that even this older material was cannibalizing sales from newer product.  There may have been a coding issue that they felt was too expensive to correct.

They may have even had obligations of their own- say, royalty/license payments to some of the game's original creators (or their estates) who may have retained some of their rights- that were triggered by those sales, and they didn't want to keep paying those fees.

Who knows, they could even be stealing a page from The House of Mouse: Disney routinely releases it's older properties for sale for limited times to create rarity, and thus sales.  Hasbro/WotC may be gearing up to release "Deluxe Platinum Dragonskin Editions" of old IP on a 10 or 20 year cycle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

> As for myself, I'm just smiling (bitterly), thinking back when WotC announced the pdf move, pulling ALL editions from being for sale. They claimed it was for piracy protection. Myself and others at the time rightly identified that the 3E books had long ago been pirated and that was clearly not the motive behind yanking the older pdfs (several people citing the "3E is competition" angle specifically).




Just because the damage was done doesn't mean that WotC's motive in yanking their PDFs from sale wasn't motivated by anti-piracy concerns.  That just means they were ill-informed as to the efficacy of the tactic in combatting piracy.

Even in the RW, a lot of people and corporations do things based on erroneous assumptions or knee-jerk reactions: people close barn doors long after horses are gone; dump significant others due to mere suspicion of cheating; base business or political models on unproven theories...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think ENWorld is in any danger.




That isn't what I asked.

I didn't ask *would* WotC apply the same concerns, I asked _*could*_ they apply the same concerns.

And how would you feel about that?

RC


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 17, 2010)

To everyone speculating about timing - remember that we only know the time when CK decided to comply with WotC's request.  We have no idea when WotC first approached them.  I can easily imagine that WotC first contacted CK months (possibly years) ago with the first complaint, and has been escalating threats or discussion with CK since then.  CK may only have taken down content now because the legal threatening (which is very justifyable on WotCs end) got serious, or because discussions on how to keep things legal broke down.


----------



## Ryltar (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't have to, because the Court doesn't care how long it took for WotC to get around to CK as long as its within the statute of limitations.  Essentially, its a non-issue.




This may be slightly off topic, but since you appear knowledgeable in US IP matters: is there no way to forfeit a right through continued inaction? I'm asking because this is a valid legal construction under various European legal systems, provided that the court is sure the claimant either knew of or could have known of the infringement if he had done his due diligence. Just asking because it's always interesting to see the differences between the various systems.

Back on topic: I wonder if WotC's decision was really worth it. They won't be able to prevent distribution of said files anyway - seeing how the threads the OP mentioned already contain several links to mirrored versions of said documents. My guess is that they will just be uploaded elsewhere, and then elsewhere again ... kind of a battle against windmills, and certainly nothing I as WotC would want my legal team to spend time on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That isn't what I asked.
> 
> I didn't ask *would* WotC apply the same concerns, I asked _*could*_ they apply the same concerns.
> 
> ...




I guess I'm not seeing what you're getting at.

My point was that in the time I've been here, I've seen nothing going on here that is actionable that doesn't get swatted down by ENWorld's mods, so even if WotC (or Hasbro) got a bee in their bonnet, their own legal department would tell them there's nothing worth pursuing.  There's no significant activity here that WotC could base a lawsuit or C&D on: ENWorld does an excellent job of self policing, and even the rank & file membership is generally respectful of ENWorld's policies...even those who don't repect WotC's IP rights.



Ryltar said:


> This may be slightly off topic, but since you appear knowledgeable in US IP matters: is there no way to forfeit a right through continued inaction? I'm asking because this is a valid legal construction under various European legal systems, provided that the court is sure the claimant either knew of or could have known of the infringement if he had done his due diligence. Just asking because it's always interesting to see the differences between the various systems.




There are IP rights you can lose by mere inaction in the US, but copyright isn't one of them...which is one of the underlying factors why you're more likely to see a copyright suit (or its threat) when dealing with old IP.



> Back on topic: I wonder if WotC's decision was really worth it. They won't be able to prevent distribution of said files anyway - seeing how the threads the OP mentioned already contain several links to mirrored versions of said documents. My guess is that they will just be uploaded elsewhere, and then elsewhere again ... kind of a battle against windmills, and certainly nothing I as WotC would want my legal team to spend time on.




My bet is that 90% of WotC's legal department's work boils down to a couple of jobs: contract drafting/negotiations/review (internal & external) and IP rights enforcement.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I guess I'm not seeing what you're getting at.
> 
> My point was that in the time I've been here, I've seen nothing going on here that is actionable that doesn't get swatted down by ENWorld's mods, so even if WotC (or Hasbro) got a bee in their bonnet, their own legal department would tell them there's nothing worth pursuing.  There's no significant activity here that WotC could base a lawsuit or C&D on: ENWorld does an excellent job of self policing, and even the rank & file membership is generally respectful of ENWorld's policies...even those who don't repect WotC's IP rights.




Surely there are downloads on EN World that make use of non-SRD 3e material, and I assume 4e material as well.

In any event, I think your "there's nothing worth pursuing" is evidence of a lot of assumptions that I, for one, am not willing to make.  If WotC decided EN World was cutting into their profits, could Morris afford to defend against WotC?  If not, does WotC actually have to _*win*_ a legal battle to close EN World's virtual doors?  

There is evidence, as linked upthread, that CK had a good relationship with WotC, too.  After all, you generally don't recommend people go to a website that you think is causing you problems, do you?

Nor, again, does your post answer my questions:

(1)  Could WotC make the same sort of claim against EN World?

(2)  How would you feel about that?


RC


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 17, 2010)

Dandu said:


> We're not buying 4e. Clearly, this is because there is still 3.5e material still floating around. It must be purged.
> 
> Lock your doors at night, people. WotC law-ninjas will soon be coming to torch your obsolete deadtree.




Well, I guess this answers the age-old question...

Ninjas do trump Pirates!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Surely there are downloads on EN World that make use of non-SRD 3e material, and I assume 4e material as well.




I wouldn't know yes or no, but my gut feeling is that if the mods found this to be the case, they'd take it down...which is probably what WoC would ask for.



> In any event, I think your "there's nothing worth pursuing" is evidence of a lot of assumptions that I, for one, am not willing to make.  If WotC decided EN World was cutting into their profits, could Morris afford to defend against WotC?  If not, does WotC actually have to _*win*_ a legal battle to close EN World's virtual doors?




Not so much assumptions as personal observations.  I'm not sure of what besides some possible downloads that ENWorld has yet to remove that WotC could point at and say "this cost us money" and initiate a lawsuit.

Whether or not Morrus has the funds to win/survive a WotC suit is something only he could answer.



> There is evidence, as linked upthread, that CK had a good relationship with WotC, too.  After all, you generally don't recommend people go to a website that you think is causing you problems, do you?



And we have zero idea as to what went on before this time- nothing?  A bunch of C&D letters?  Prior threats of legal action?  We simply don't know.



> Nor, again, does your post answer my questions:
> 
> (1)  Could WotC make the same sort of claim against EN World?
> 
> (2)  How would you feel about that?



I DID answer that- I've seen nothing here WotC could hang a lawsuit on.

To file a lawsuit, they would have to allege facts supporting their claims if being damaged.  With, as I pointed out, nearly all of the speech I've seen here falling into constitutionally protected safe harbors, there's nothing to allege from the forums.  Given their history of mod enforcement, ENWorld would win on the merits (or possibly even an outright dismissal) that they did give their best efforts to keep the site infringement free.

So I'm asking you, is there some form of infringement you've seen here go unpunished that you feel could endanger ENWorld?  Because I haven't seen any.

As to how would I feel?

Well, given my personal assessment of ENWorld's environment, I'd think WotC would be foolish to go after the site for a variety of reasons, most boiling down to I haven't seen anything they could sue for.  They could file the case, no doubt, but I suspect it would be dismissed for lack of alleging facts to support their allegations, case over.

I guess I'm saying that, based in my perceptions of ENWorld, you're asking about a scenario that has less than a 10% chance of occurring.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If WotC decided EN World was cutting into their profits, could Morris afford to defend against WotC?



And don't forget the question of WOULD Morris defend against WotC?


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Dec 17, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> To everyone speculating about timing - remember that we only know the time when CK decided to comply with WotC's request.  We have no idea when WotC first approached them.  I can easily imagine that WotC first contacted CK months (possibly years) ago with the first complaint, and has been escalating threats or discussion with CK since then.  CK may only have taken down content now because the legal threatening (which is very justifyable on WotCs end) got serious, or because discussions on how to keep things legal broke down.



Hmmm, this actually jogs a memory.  I vaguely recall that _part_ of CK disappeared several months ago-- the feats pdf, maybe?  It's not important, but was it my imagination, or did anyone else also notice this?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 17, 2010)

Yes, as I noted a few pages ago, the base classes index disappeared about 6 months ago.  So presumably this has been going on for a little while behind the scenes.  Still unlikely to be YEARS, though.  More likely (speculation) the issue started around the start of Essentials being announced or released.


----------



## Ace (Dec 17, 2010)

AFAICT There are  two reasons behind the  PDF related decisions.

#1 is protecting IP 

#2 is "edition channeling"  Hasbro/WOTC was counting on an upgrade cycle to drive sales, most of the 3.5 players would move on to 4.0 and thus they'd recapture the old play base and gain some new younger players. 

However a mixture of the OGL, global economic woes (the young were particularly hit) PDF warez , a different market (video games hurt TTRPG's) and the jarring edition transition (4.0 is not like older editions all that much) have hurt sales. 

There were at least some notes out there suggesting  that Pathfinder was selling as well as 4.0 at a times at that is a big big deal 

So being a big organization and less than nimble they controlled what they could control, cut off the legal PDFs (for old and new editions) , went after that guys that posted on SCRIBD, went after CK, and took out the old archives (which is also a cost savings measure) 

The problem is that none this worked, the warez world has pretty much everything ever in PDF with a few exceptions of obscure direct to PDF releases and very obscure and expensive RPG's. 

For those who don't choose to be involved in that, there are plentiful retro-clones for every edition save 2.0 (its being worked on though)  and cheap books a plenty. Its even possible to find players ...

As for driving 3.5 to upgrade to 4.0 , well no. The natural 3.5 upgrade is Pathfinder +OGL   and essentially everything save some IP related things can or will exists sooner than later anyway.

What happened is a company relied on a business strategy (edition upgrade) that was obsolete with the OGL and as soon as it became fairly easy to scan and download books.

This doesn't mean  WOTC won;t make money hand over fist or that D&D won't stay number one. Its just means they no longer have as much leverage and I think thats just fine.


----------



## Senko (Dec 17, 2010)

Out of curiosity, ignore this question if answering would violate anything, is there anywwhere I can download a zipped/batched/otherwise collected into a single source copy of the old 3.x releases that were free on their website e.g. the pages containing new spells/items for specfic environments or themes, portal discussion, epic progressions for a shapeshifter etc? I had them once but they were corrupted when my computer crashed and I could never bring myself to spend the hours resaving them all.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Dec 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yes, as I noted a few pages ago, the base classes index disappeared about 6 months ago.



Ah, I missed where you'd mentioned that.  Thanks.

Another question:  Has there been an effort to OGL-ize some of the more popular WotC stuff that falls outside the SRD?  Is that even possible?

I know a handful of iconic monsters (&/or thematic variants) have been done, but I'm less sure about things like feats and base classes.   Such a thing would be a nice supplement to the SRD.


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 18, 2010)

Senko said:


> Out of curiosity, ignore this question if answering would violate anything, is there anywwhere I can download a zipped/batched/otherwise collected into a single source copy of the old 3.x releases that were free on their website e.g. the pages containing new spells/items for specfic environments or themes, portal discussion, epic progressions for a shapeshifter etc? I had them once but they were corrupted when my computer crashed and I could never bring myself to spend the hours resaving them all.



Google the title you want and become a pirate.  

That is, if you think that you can kill WOTC Ninja-lawyers.


----------



## Orius (Dec 18, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> I'd really like to say Wotc was taking things too far and Goose stepping with the CopyReich Gestapo, but CK's indexes were far beyond _Fair Use_ IMO.




That's why I didn't list it as a source for my new game.  I took a look at the stuff and the legality was definitely suspect from what I could tell.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think ENWorld is in any danger.  The mods here do an excellent job of policing the site and keeping copyrighted material off the boards.  And most of the stuff posted here is discussion (protected), review (protected), how to use RPG products (protected) and homebrew (protected).
> 
> Besides, given WHO posts here, I'm sure ENWorld would be shown a lot of courtesy and leeway- meaning time- to self-police if some offending bit DID show up here.




I see no reason for WotC to try to shut down ENWorld.  There's good moderation here, and copyrighted material likely would get modded quickly.  WotC also has never gone the TSR route and jumped on homebrew rules for copyright infringement, if anything they've put effort into trying to repair the damage TSR did with that.  Plus we're in many ways a source of advertisement for them, the front page announces new releases, and the site has always been about providing information about the game.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 18, 2010)

TanisFrey said:


> I understand them protecting their rights.
> 
> I understand them yanking the 3.x pdf for sale when 4ed was released.
> 
> ...




Who KNOWS? But I tell ya, there are still maaaany little nooks on the interwebs, including rapidshare, filestube and too many other places as well as the d20srd. The net is vast and infinite.



Senko said:


> Out of curiosity, ignore this question if answering would violate anything, is there anywwhere I can download a zipped/batched/otherwise collected into a single source copy of the old 3.x releases that were free on their website e.g. the pages containing new spells/items for specfic environments or themes, portal discussion, epic progressions for a shapeshifter etc? I had them once but they were corrupted when my computer crashed and I could never bring myself to spend the hours resaving them all.






TanisFrey said:


> Google the title you want and become a pirate.
> 
> That is, if you think that you can kill WOTC Ninja-lawyers.




*zing*!

Duh Duh Duh-another one bites the dust!
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/297801-wizards-coast-website-articles-3-x-archive.html



Dandu said:


> We're not buying 4e. Clearly, this is because there is still 3.5e material still floating around. It must be purged.
> 
> Lock your doors at night, people. WotC law-ninjas will soon be coming to torch your obsolete deadtree.




10-20% Commin for you
30-40% Lock your door
50-60% Cruxifix
70-80% stay up late
90-00% NEVER SLEEP AGAIN!


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 18, 2010)

-Double Post-


----------



## aboyd (Dec 19, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you do not enforce your rights against "open and notorious" infringers, it is possible to lose your ability to defend against others.



I believe you are confusing trademark law (businesses can lose their trademarks if they don't protect them) with copyright law (you can selectively enforce it with no loss of rights -- you can even sit on the copyright for 30 years until people assume you've let the information go free, then boom hit 'em all with lawsuits -- it may be mean, but it's legal).

Thus, WotC could _indeed_ leave CK alone and have no worries about losing copyright control.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In this case, CK is relatively high profile- if WotC does not go after them, they'll have issues going after others.



This is absolutely untrue.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are IP rights you can lose by mere inaction in the US, but copyright isn't one of them...



Wait... now I'm confused.  The first two quotes of yours seem to contradict this third quote of yours.  You acknowledge that inaction won't cause you to lose copyright, yet you asserted that WotC must go after CK or "they'll have issues."

What is going on here?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 19, 2010)

Ah, desperation.

It's not a flattering look, W. _Yet_ again.

But sure, don't let that stop you digging your own grave, a little bit more each time. I for one literally could not care less.

It is a shame, however, that CK is not what it was. But, as has been said upthread, it's not like anything ever entirely disappears from the arpatubes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2010)

aboyd said:


> I believe you are confusing trademark law (businesses can lose their trademarks if they don't protect them) with copyright law (you can selectively enforce it with no loss of rights -- you can even sit on the copyright for 30 years until people assume you've let the information go free, then boom hit 'em all with lawsuits -- it may be mean, but it's legal).
> 
> Thus, WotC could _indeed_ leave CK alone and have no worries about losing copyright control.
> 
> ...



While it is true you cannot lose copyright via mere inaction, a good attorney can argue that selective enforcement of your rights is evidence of at least a partial abandonment- something the Ninth Circuit has suggested is possible (such as in _Microstar v. Formgen, 1998_) but has not yet to my knowledge had a case in which they ruled that such had happened.

I'm not saying that a ruling of partial abandonment is the probable outcome, but given that the courts are starting to entertain such ideas, WotC/Hasbro's legal department may have advised them to err on the side of caution.

Proving copyright abandonment is tricky: you have to show evidence of an intentional act (_Hampton v. Paramount, 1960_).  In the hypothetical, the attorney would have to show that WotC's selective enforcement was deliberate; that they did not and never intended to enforce their rights against equally or more egregiously offending parties.  IOW, WotC had singled out their client.

A tough burden of proof, to be sure, but not impossible...especially if actually true.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 19, 2010)

It's kind of interesting that this thread has started to become the #1 place on ENWorld for legal eagle geeks.  

On a related note: I wonder how the CrystalKeep guy feels about having WotC come down on him as if he were some sort of out-of-control criminal enterprise...


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 19, 2010)

Danny's the only one really, it'd be nice to see joethelawyer or other-lawyer-types-that-didn't-put-their-professions-in-their-usernames-thus-making-it-easy-for-me-to-recall-what-they-do-for-a-living to post on this topic.


----------



## freyar (Dec 20, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> What I'm wondering about is with the recent stirring from Legal Department, will it be turning its eyestalks at the Creature Catalog web page and subsequent uses in Tome of Horrors [3.0 / 3.5] and the more recent use in Pathfinder. I've always been curious to the exact details of whether Necromancer / SSS had the actual authority to release the classic D&D critters into d20 status.




I've been somewhat curious about this as well.  Scott Greene had/has an agreement with WotC about the CC, which was, as you noted, a development area for the ToH.  Necromancer Games also had a specific agreement (contract, I guess) to cover the ToH.  However, I am not sure how long the CC agreement lasts/lasted.  Scott may know, but he hasn't dropped in for a visit at the CC in ages.  There was also a memo from someone at WotC in the early 3.0 days about using the d20 system license to convert old adventures and monsters, but (1) that can't apply any more and (2) I don't think that's what the CC was under in the first place.  So the whole situation is possibly a bit murky, and the current CC crew isn't the group that was there in the beginning (even Shade, the only forum moderator still around).

After that ramble, I have a question for Danny or anyone else.  I seem to recall a lot of noise in the past that game mechanics aren't copyrightable, just their specific expression in tables, etc.  So shouldn't the CK business be due to some trademark infringement instead?  CK certainly seemed to use a different format than WotC ever did.  Just some confusion on my non-lawyerly part.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2010)

> After that ramble, I have a question for Danny or anyone else. I seem to recall a lot of noise in the past that game mechanics aren't copyrightable, just their specific expression in tables, etc. So shouldn't the CK business be due to some trademark infringement instead? CK certainly seemed to use a different format than WotC ever did. Just some confusion on my non-lawyerly part.



True, and it's why clone RPGs are able to exist.

However, snce I haven't seen the particular stuff that was removed, I can't really say with any accuracy how strong WotC's case may have been.  But in general, the expression of the rules can extend to unique words (like new monster names) or specific terminology within the context of the rules.  And a mere switch of word order or rules order or layout isn't going to fly.

IOW, its a question of fact for the court to sort out.

And before you get to that point, the question is "is it worth it to you to defend yourself in court- can you afford it, or should you simply comply with the C&D request?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I DID answer that- I've seen nothing here WotC could hang a lawsuit on.
> 
> To file a lawsuit, they would have to allege facts supporting their claims if being damaged.  With, as I pointed out, nearly all of the speech I've seen here falling into constitutionally protected safe harbors, there's nothing to allege from the forums.  Given their history of mod enforcement, ENWorld would win on the merits (or possibly even an outright dismissal) that they did give their best efforts to keep the site infringement free.
> 
> So I'm asking you, is there some form of infringement you've seen here go unpunished that you feel could endanger ENWorld?  Because I haven't seen any.




AFAICT, the GSL doesn't offer the kind of protections that the OGL did for a site like this.  I would imagine that using the 4e rules to run online games could potentially be seen as infringement, should WotC ever get the VT running and want to channel/force people to use their service.



> Well, given my personal assessment of ENWorld's environment, I'd think WotC would be foolish to go after the site for a variety of reasons, most boiling down to I haven't seen anything they could sue for.




I think we have seen WotC do enough things that enough people have thought foolish that I no longer believe that foolishness is a bar to action.  I certainly don't expect that WotC will avoid doing something because I think it foolish.



> I guess I'm saying that, based in my perceptions of ENWorld, you're asking about a scenario that has less than a 10% chance of occurring.




And what I am saying is that I don't believe we have enough information to know what that chance is.  And "less than a 10% chance of occurring" still leaves a chance worth considering.

The more often we excuse the boorish behaviour of WotC.....The more often we make it the "right and obvious choice" because it doesn't impact their bottom line......the more we encourage WotC to engage in more of the same.  What I am saying is, "Let's not encourage them."

Because "How would you feel about that?" isn't "What do you think the odds are?" but "How would you feel about Morrus having to respond to C&D letters, and possibly shut down the site?"  I.e., how would you feel about that personally?

Because I am certain there are others who feel the same about CK.



RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2010)

Hmmm...

First of all, I'm far from being a WotC apologist.  I was among the first to analogize 4Ed to New Coke, after all, and maintain that, while a fine game in it's on right, it is "not D&D to me."  But while I have seen WotC do moves I think are foolish in the past few years, I cannot say I've seen them act "boorish."

As for the OGL vs GSL protections & running games online, I cannot give a fully informed analysis, since I never bothered with the GSL.  Still, I don't think method of communication between persons playing the game would be grounds for a lawsuit- playing via telepresence machinery of any kind would probably be viewed by the courts to be within the scope of the intended use of the product.

I'm not a worrier.  Even though I know that anyone in this country can file a lawsuit, I also know that the profit margins in the RPG biz are slender enough that the likelihood of doing so with bad facts could ruin a company.  I simply don't see WotC going after a site that polices itself as well as ENWorld does: lawsuits against similarly well moderated sites tend to lose when brought to trial...if they make it that far.



> Because "How would you feel about that?" isn't "What do you think the odds are?" but "How would you feel about Morrus having to respond to C&D letters, and possibly shut down the site?" I.e., how would you feel about that personally?




Responding to a C&D letter is cheap, so no concerns there.  Acting in response to it's requests may be expensive...or may just take the form of seeing a few mor mods run the ship a bit tighter, depending upon what was needed.

As for WotC shutting down ENWorld- yeah, that would tick me off.  But again, given what i have seen here, I think the probability is slim enough that I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about it.

It's like you're asking me if I'm worried my fat, flat-toothed 13 year old Border Collie was going to go Cujo on me because I've seen the way she wolfs down her dinner: it's possible, but not very probable, so I'm not wasting my time and energy with an emotional response.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First of all, I'm far from being a WotC apologist.




Good....glad to hear it.



> I'm not a worrier.




Me neither, but I am a "Other point-of-viewer" the minute someone suggests that WotC should do something that (seemingly) screws over (some of) its fans.  As you and I would be ticked off if it were EN World, so others might well be ticked off about CK.  Especially those who started using the resource because WotC pointed it out to them!

And we obviously disagree about what constituts "boorish" behaviour!  


RC


----------



## Shazman (Dec 20, 2010)

The awesomeness of WotC continues.  I think it's pretty telling that they seem to be concerned with 3.5 matierial competing with 4E.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 20, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Huh. Really odd that they're asking them now to pull their files. I don't actually see how this might hurt WotC in any way, _now_ (unless they plan to re-release all of their 3e books...).
> And what kind of 'luck' would that be?! Wishing for WotC to go away is wishing for D&D to go away. And that would be a bad thing for the whole hobby, not just D&D players.




Not really.  We still have Pathfinder.  It's as much (or maybe more) D&D as    4E is even if that can't legally claim that.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 20, 2010)

That's too bad, I enjoyed the site, great reference for the 3.5 games I still play in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2010)

> Me neither, but I am a "Other point-of-viewer" the minute someone suggests that WotC should do something that (seemingly) screws over (some of) its fans. As you and I would be ticked off if it were EN World, so others might well be ticked off about CK. Especially those who started using the resource because WotC pointed it out to them!




Like I said before, sometimes companies take actions to preserve the integrity of the company's rights or profitability that lead to a PR hit.

As for this case, your last sentence actually gives us a clue.  If WotC actually directed people to CK- who was posting something without a license just like other sites- that _IS_ potentially evidence of partial abandonment of IP rights.  Again, it's a matter of proof...but one that seems to be supported.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 20, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the GSL doesn't offer the kind of protections that the OGL did for a site like this.  I would imagine that using the 4e rules to run online games could potentially be seen as infringement, should WotC ever get the VT running and want to channel/force people to use their service.




What?

D00d, you can talk about, houserule, play, etc. the game all you want after you buy the game. IANAL but as far as I know there is no case for infringement whatsoever here. That's like saying that WotC has the right to tell you that you can't playanywhere unless it's at an official WotC store.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2010)

Thanks, Dannyalcatraz.  A pleasure reading & responding to your reasonable posts!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2010)

Were I in charge of WotC- given my pro-3.5 position- I'd probably be hard at work trying to draft a licensing structure favorable to sites like CK and all those they "like."

Because here's the thing: as long as you can prove you're not discriminating on the basis of a protected class (race, religion, etc.), you can refuse to do business with just about anyone.

So you could conceivably have a licensing agreement with CK for...say, $100/term...you could still go after the torrent sites and other pirates in IP lawsuits.  You'd never have to give them a license, either.  Or you could say they can have a license after paying some kind if nominal damages for lost profits before getting a license.


----------



## WHW4 (Dec 21, 2010)

I am not a lawyer or a copyright expert.

I'm an average gamer. I have used Crystal Keep for the past three years as one of my goto reference tools for 3.5, because there are about eighty-bajillion templates, races, and monsters scattered over thousands of magazines, splat books and web enhancements and they did a really nice job of making things easy to find. I didn't even know half the stuff existed before I found the site.

I just an average gamer, who lost an awesome tool, and who doesn't care about the reasons. It just blows. Thanks, WotC.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 22, 2010)

Maybe they'll be adding something on their DDI and want it to bring in more revenue? Losing something always sucks, like when they stopped updating the Offline CB...   Now I can't use it while traveling (on plane) or on public transportation rides.


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 22, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Were I in charge of WotC- given my pro-3.5 position- I'd probably be hard at work trying to draft a licensing structure favorable to sites like CK and all those they "like."
> 
> Because here's the thing: as long as you can prove you're not discriminating on the basis of a protected class (race, religion, etc.), you can refuse to do business with just about anyone.
> 
> So you could conceivably have a licensing agreement with CK for...say, $100/term...you could still go after the torrent sites and other pirates in IP lawsuits.  You'd never have to give them a license, either.  Or you could say they can have a license after paying some kind if nominal damages for lost profits before getting a license.





Bingo


----------



## Dingleberry (Dec 22, 2010)

FWIW, I'm also an IP lawyer.  I haven't replied on this thread previously because Dannyalcatraz's comments have been spot-on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2010)

> It's kind of interesting that this thread has started to become the #1 place on ENWorld for legal eagle geeks.




Apparently, this was posted from the future!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 22, 2010)

Dingleberry said:


> FWIW, I'm also an IP lawyer.  I haven't replied on this thread previously because Dannyalcatraz's comments have been spot-on.




[Insert mildly offensive lawyer joke about how appropriate that username is for a lawyer] 

That's a shame, Danny seemed to be right, but I'd rather he wasn't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> [Insert mildly offensive lawyer joke about how appropriate that username is for a lawyer]




Careful- with 3 in the waters, you might start a frenzy!

Personal fave lawyer joke:
Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?
A: Only one- all the rest are true stories.



> That's a shame, Danny seemed to be right, but I'd rather he wasn't.



You'd rather WotC was acting in a way that couldn't be justified under sound business judgement?

I understand the frustration- again 3.X is my D&D of choice and WotC's given me PLENTY to be ticked off about over the past few years- but I can't fault them here without more info.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 23, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> -- WotC seems not to have considered any of the PR ramifications of this decision, which from a fanbase viewpoint, is one in a long line of incredibly stupid decisions;




At this point, maybe they just don't give a damn anymore?  Numerous PR blunders and people are still buying their products.

There have been other rpg companies which have went the litigious route, such as Palladium.


----------



## Dingleberry (Dec 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Careful- with 3 in the waters, you might start a frenzy!
> 
> Personal fave lawyer joke:
> Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?
> A: Only one- all the rest are true stories.




My favorite:

_Why do lawyer jokes always fall flat?
Because lawyers don't think they're funny, and non-lawyers don't think they're jokes._


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 23, 2010)

ggroy said:


> At this point, maybe they just don't give a damn anymore?  Numerous PR blunders and people are still buying their products.




This is what I think.  Like I said, they've realized that they've burned the bridge and desecrated its remnants and most of us simply want nothing to do with their business again, so there's no logical reason for them to not stick it to older edition players in order to reduce previous editions' visibility.  Danny seems to think they might be planning some sort of re-release.  I honestly hope they aren't THAT stupid to think any of us angry with them will suddenly start buying their products again.  And besides, the whole reason they've removed pdfs and all is to prevent 3E from drawing potential new players away from 4E.  Unveiling any sort of re-release or collection would completely undermine all of that douchbaggery hard work.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 23, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Danny seems to think they might be planning some sort of re-release.  I honestly hope they aren't THAT stupid to think any of us angry with them will suddenly start buying their products again.  And besides, the whole reason they've removed pdfs and all is to prevent 3E from drawing potential new players away from 4E.  Unveiling any sort of re-release or collection would completely undermine all of that douchbaggery hard work.




I suspect it is probably "too early" to be re-releasing a classic unabridged 3.5E D&D.

With that being said, one possible scenario I can think offhand which could in principle extensively use 3.5E material, would be if WotC designs 5E D&D by rewriting 3.5E as a foundation and incorporating various 4E-isms such as:  healing surges, second wind, +level/2 modifier to attacks/defenses/skills, etc ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 23, 2010)

> Danny seems to think they might be planning some sort of re-release.  I honestly hope they aren't THAT stupid to think any of us angry with them will suddenly start buying their products again.




Not really- I haven't given any real thought as to what their *actual* plans are.  I just know it's one possibility, just like taking all of their 3.X product and burying it in a landfill.

Consider this: if 4Ed somehow did crash & burn, they'd have to replace it.  If they do not defend their rights in 3.X _now_, their _only_ path would be producing another new version of D&D- IOW, 5Ed.  They couldn't base it too much on 3.5 if they wanted because the IP would be compromised (I mean, they could, but it wouldn't make good business sense).

By ensuring that they have properly defended IP, they would at least have the option of re-release and upgrade of 3.5, which they could do much more quickly and with a good idea of it's value in the market.

And personally, _I'm not taking any of this personally_. While WotC has done some boneheaded things in my view, it's not like they're sending all proceeds of their Deluxe Dolphinskin-bound Core 3 to the KKK and NAMBLA- they simply haven't done anything to prevent me from buying a good RPG product if they put one out.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 24, 2010)

I can't really say I'd take it personally either ... but it's yet another in a long line of very petty and ultimately purposeless flexing of their legal muscle, and another in a line of decisions that have upset a portion of their (former?) fan base.

I feel sorry for the poor person who is tasked with fostering good feelings towards WotC, should they ever hire such a person ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 24, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> I feel sorry for the poor person who is tasked with fostering good feelings towards WotC, should they ever hire such a person ...




I think they hired Jimmy Hoffa...... 

(Because no one can find him)






Happy Holidays, All!


RC


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not really- I haven't given any real thought as to what their *actual* plans are.  I just know it's one possibility, just like taking all of their 3.X product and burying it in a landfill.
> 
> Consider this: if 4Ed somehow did crash & burn, they'd have to replace it.  If they do not defend their rights in 3.X _now_, their _only_ path would be producing another new version of D&D- IOW, 5Ed.  They couldn't base it too much on 3.5 if they wanted because the IP would be compromised (I mean, they could, but it wouldn't make good business sense).
> 
> ...





My take on it is that Danny pretty much has the gist of it right, as far as the legal perspective, from what I've skimmmed.  However, he nailed it when he said they ought to license the site so the site can stay in business, they keep the goodwill of fans, and their IP is protected.

Why aren't they doing this?  That's the real question.  Here's my theory and prediction:

Mearls isn't as stupid as his predecessors from a business sense, he likes older editions, and he is aware of the PR blunders of the past.  The only reason to repeat one, even to a lesser degree, would be to have a positive side to it---or at least something WOTC can spin as a positive to the fans, while at the same time making money off of it.  

Which leads me to think that there will be a re-release of older material, like as in ALL of it, going back to the OD&D books, in a way that WOTC can make money from it.  

The real money-maker for the company now is DDI subscriptions, as opposed to book sales, because everyone knows the books will be outdated due to errata in a matter of months.  What better way to get people who want nothing to do with paying a subscription to DDI because they don't play 4e than to release all material for all older versions of the game?  How many people would pay 10 or 20 bucks a month for access to everything?  

Short of that, they will release everything in pdf format, thus making up for their massive blunder of a couple years ago.

They've blown their load on Essentials, they've scaled back book releases, there is no new revenue stream on the horizon with the current system, nothing that's going to significantly jack up profits using the IP they are currently in bed with.  What they are doing now is a preemptive strike to protect their future plans and revenue streams, as much as it is a way to preserve, even if temporarily, the current hegemony (wished for in their own minds) of 4e.

Making older versions available electronically is a win win for everyone, from their perspective.  

My only question now is whether they will go after the clones.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 24, 2010)

joethelawyer said:


> Mearls isn't as stupid as his predecessors from a business sense, he likes older editions, and he is aware of the PR blunders of the past.  The only reason to repeat one, even to a lesser degree, would be to have a positive side to it---or at least something WOTC can spin as a positive to the fans, while at the same time making money off of it.



I wonder just how much if any Mearls had much to do with this move. I always pictured their legal department as being an extension of Hasbro Corp, less than part of the WOTC team. Especially since the GSL debacle, which made me start thinking the legal department had oversight over Wotc themselves .


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Dec 24, 2010)

Dingleberry said:


> _Why do lawyer jokes always fall flat?
> Because lawyers don't think they're funny, and non-lawyers don't think they're jokes._



When I was in law school, my classmate and I collected about 1,100 _distinct_ lawyer jokes.  (By "distinct," I mean (a) not re-purposed "whatever" jokes, and (b) not just variations.)  Most folks'd be surprised how much most lawyers appreciate lawyer jokes.

What lawyers most appreciate, though, is how much everybody forgets how much they "hate" lawyers ... you know, just as soon as they need one.

EDIT: Inflationary memory.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2010)

> Why aren't they doing this? That's the real question.




My guess?  Hasbro.  Despite hiring the people, they probably still don't understand the hobby.

(...although your speculation has a feel to it that I'd like to see realized)



> My only question now is whether they will go after the clones.




I don't see that as a winning proposition for WotC, legally or as a PR move, unless someone's being REALLY egregious.




> I always pictured their legal department as being an extension of Hasbro Corp, less than part of the WOTC team. Especially since the GSL debacle, which made me start thinking the legal department had oversight over Wotc themselves




Even if WotC's legal still got the same personnel as before Hasbro gobbled them up, Hasbro is still going to have the last word if they so choose.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Dec 24, 2010)

joethelawyer said:


> Which leads me to think that there will be a re-release of older material, like as in ALL of it, going back to the OD&D books, in a way that WOTC can make money from it.
> 
> The real money-maker for the company now is DDI subscriptions, as opposed to book sales, because everyone knows the books will be outdated due to errata in a matter of months.  What better way to get people who want nothing to do with paying a subscription to DDI because they don't play 4e than to release all material for all older versions of the game?  How many people would pay 10 or 20 bucks a month for access to everything?



I've been a little surprised WotC hasn't already done something along the lines of a proprietary ebook format, with a reader accessible via DDI.  This seems to me a fairly obvious route toward trying to suck old editioners into a DDI sub and make money off people they otherwise wouldn't attract.  

On the flipside, it also seems doomed to fail, since someone will have cracked such a thing within a couple weeks of its release-- and the stuff is out there already anyway.  

Personally, I'm hoping for a PDF release rather than a system that requires a subscription, as that will give those of us leery of subscriptions a legitimate way to get the material.  But frankly I'm not holding my breath.

Time will tell.  For now, I'm more than happy to curl up with the OGL protected stuff.  (Which, all bashing aside, we have lawyers to thank for.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2010)

> I've been a little surprised WotC hasn't already done something along the lines of a proprietary ebook format, with a reader accessible via DDI. This seems to me a fairly obvious route toward trying to suck old editioners into a DDI sub and make money off people they otherwise wouldn't attract.




I wouldn't be surprised if they're not waiting for the eReader war to settle down a bit, like VHS vs Beta or DVD-HD vs Blu-Ray.  That way, they spend less money putting their IP in a variety of formats.



> Personally, I'm hoping for a PDF release rather than a system that requires a subscription, as that will give those of us leery of subscriptions a legitimate way to get the material.




From your keyboard to God's inbox!



> How does NAMBLA feel about Elves? KKK about Dwarves? LMAO




The KKK is probably fine with most Dwarves except the Swirfneblin.

And I don't think any fantasy races except the Halflings & Kender have anything to worry about from NAMBLA.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2010)

I don't see how they could justify a DDI setup for older editions w/o adding new content each month.  Yeah, it's great to access archives of rules and whatnot, but if that's never getting added to, why in the hell should I use your subscription service?  And if they DO start making new content, again, it would go directly against their entire stance/strategy regarding older editions for years now.  I just can't see them doing that...

For myself, even if I hadn't sworn off ever giving them a dollar again, I'm also no fan of subscription services, like the orc within.  I prefer to just buy stuff to own and have that be the end of it.  I may use something for a few months, then not touch it for years and suddenly want to play with it again.  If it's a subscription service that might entail signing on for a longer term than I need, and the very real possibility of the service no longer being available years later when I want to go back to it.


----------



## Orius (Dec 25, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My guess?  Hasbro.  Despite hiring the people, they probably still don't understand the hobby.




I'm not really sure how much Hasbro is influencing WotC over D&D.  I mean, most of the time when ther are the various threads posted here about Hasbro's earning reports and the like, there doesn't seem to be a lot of mention about D&D.  I have to wonder how much of it is unwarrented geek paranoia over the big bad corporation everyone thinks is going to take away their fun. 

I think D&D is valuable to Hasbro as an IP since it does have some brand recognition, but I do agree that Hasbro might not know exactly how to market the brand.  It's not like their big name board games or toy lines, the customer base is somewhat different from the two.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I don't think any fantasy races except the Halflings & Kender have anything to worry about from NAMBLA.




Especially dwarves.  I think dwarf kids look like the kid in this commercial:

[ame=youtube.com/watch?v=DTAtsKkBWOo]YouTube - Capital One Vikings Commercial - 2009 (3).wmv[/ame]


Not sure NAMBLA's into that.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 25, 2010)

> The KKK is probably fine with most Dwarves...



Well, Dwarves are routinely described as clannish  and having race based hatreds. 







Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I don't think any fantasy races except the Halflings & Kender have anything to worry about from NAMBLA.



Some folks' settings {2e & OOTS] have elves growing up slowly over their first century. 3.5's races of the wild used the assumption they "physically" grow up as fast as humans. Either situations implications may call for for a tall glass of BRAIN BLEACH.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Well, Dwarves are routinely described as clannish  and having race based hatreds.




And how!  They hate orcs, giants, elves, goblinoids.... I don't think there's a more racist race in the game!  And they never forgive a grudge.  Even the ones they don't openly hate and wish death upon, they look down on for not being as tough/brave/able to hold liquor/making crap liquor...

And yet everyone calls elves the haughty, arrogant ones and hates them for it.  Dwarves are perfectly suited to make up a D&D verison of the KKK, the rules already sort of imply it.

EDIT: NAMBLA...wouldn't transmutation/polymorph magic in D&D let people take child-like forms while still having their adult intelligence and emotional capacity?  Not to mention the whole "modern sensibilities" thing.  If you're recreating ancient Greece or the Shudo of medieval Japan, or some other setting based on real life...yeah....  Feel free to reach for that brain bleach now.


----------



## rgard (Dec 25, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> EDIT: NAMBLA...wouldn't transmutation/polymorph magic in D&D let people take child-like forms while still having their adult intelligence and emotional capacity?  Not to mention the whole "modern sensibilities" thing.  If you're recreating ancient Greece or the Shudo of medieval Japan, or some other setting based on real life...yeah....  Feel free to reach for that brain bleach now.




Right before I apply the bleach...think of the possibilities for law enforcement.


----------



## rgard (Dec 25, 2010)

Bleached my brain, good to go now.

Anyway, if they did do DDI for 3.5, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.  Well maybe after I was able to once again download The Veiled Society I legally purchased at rpgnow.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2010)

rgard said:


> Right before I apply the bleach...think of the possibilities for law enforcement.




Well yeah, if you're going for the full-on modern day sensibilities, the law has no qualms using blatant entrapment to lull people into attempting to commit vice crimes, you could have a very evil society in your game where the guards spend most of their time baiting people into commiting crimes, using magic to help them trick (or even "gently" coerce, this is an evil empire, afterall) innocent people into attempting to break X crime.  And then, BAM, free prisoner slave labor for 50 years.  The horrible, awful things a despotic government could use magic to inflict on its own citizens is far more disturbing to me than some NAMBLA person paying an 80 year old mage to turn into a 10 yr old boy and...you know...


----------



## Orius (Dec 25, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> EDIT: NAMBLA...wouldn't transmutation/polymorph magic in D&D let people take child-like forms while still having their adult intelligence and emotional capacity?  Not to mention the whole "modern sensibilities" thing.  If you're recreating ancient Greece or the Shudo of medieval Japan, or some other setting based on real life...yeah....  Feel free to reach for that brain bleach now.




Or halfling gigolos that specialize in dresing like children.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 26, 2010)

One of my favorite D&D games was an Eberron one not long after it came out.  We worked closely with a thief's guild for a while.  One of their best pickpockets was a NPC halfling that disguised himself as a human child to look less suspicious / get closer to potential marks.  In retrospect, he probably could have made a good assassin, too.

Great game.


----------



## Orius (Dec 27, 2010)

No, I got that whole halfling idea from a post that wsa made here several years ago.  I think it was a thread on mystery plots for a campaign, someone posted something about a dead halfling prostitute who was wearing a schoolgirl costume, murdered by strangulation or something.  I'm not going to go looking for that thread right now, because I don't remember anything about the name or how long ago it was.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2010)

And some thing you just don't want to look at more than once...


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 29, 2010)

Orius said:


> Or halfling gigolos that specialize in dresing like children.




Makes you wonder. Is it WRONG to think Lidda was sexy in all that leather?


----------



## Dandu (Dec 29, 2010)

Am I the only one who thinks that the illustration of Lidda on page 86 of the PHB looks like she's giving...


----------



## ValhallaGH (Dec 30, 2010)

Dandu said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that the illustration of Lidda on page 86 of the PHB looks like she's giving...



No.  No you are not.


----------



## rgard (Dec 31, 2010)

Dandu said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that the illustration of Lidda on page 86 of the PHB looks like she's giving...




Page 85.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 31, 2010)

I didn't find Lidda's portrayal in the book very flattering (but she's a goddess compared to ol' bug head, of course), but I remember some hack and slash D&D game for Xbox years back, and they had Lidda in some cut scenes, and that's when I took a second look and was like, "Whoah, Lidda's hot."



rgard said:


> Page 85.




Dandu got distracted.


----------



## rgard (Jan 2, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Dandu got distracted.




Or he's left-handed.


----------



## Androrc (Jan 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> Even there, yanking the license was probably done for business reasons.




We're not WotC's shareholders. We don't have to give a crap about whether it was a smart business decision or not 

Furthermore, even if it was a good business decision, it was still an immoral decision. Sure, they are legally entitled to do it. But people can't be expected to like them if they keep pursuing immoral choices.


----------



## Dandu (Jan 5, 2011)

Immoral?


----------



## aboyd (Jan 5, 2011)

Androrc, welcome to the boards!  Also, you're re-treading a debate we've had here since the time it happened.  Nothing new.  Nonetheless, I'll bite at the bait in a hopefully-friendly manner of debate.

For me, I don't really view what they did as immoral, even though I hate that they did it.  To me, immorality is too strong -- it describes corruption, which I don't see here.  However, I do see the move as perplexing in the best of light, and downright stupid when I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Here's the thing: Removing the previous versions from sale doesn't force me to go into 4th edition, because I'm not buying it, ever.  It's been out for years, I've played it a bunch, I hate it a bunch, and things like the Essentials publications aren't winning me back.  So the speculation that older editions might be cannibalizing 4th edition sales doesn't wash with me, because they made the old version sales go away and I _still_ didn't buy.

I will concede that maybe a vast majority of _other_ people saw the removal of old PDFs and decided to go right into 4th edition.  If so, Wizards of the Coast may have made a brilliant financial decision.  Having conceded that such a thing is _possible_ I must also say that I do not find it _probable_ at all.  Every person I know that even _dabbles_ in 3.5 or Pathfinder will not go near 4th edition.  The idea that the 100 or so people I know in my area who play 3.5 edition are an anomaly seems... well, _unlikely_ IMHO.

So here's what I'm left with: a bunch of people who liked the older editions _and were buying the PDFs_ now no longer have a viable outlet.  Some of these people have pirated (not advocating, just noting the reality), some have turned to free old-school RPGs like Basic Fantasy, and some have turned to the SRD or eBay for materials.  Oh, and more & more of them are turning to Pathfinder.  Like, a lot of them.  This is a loss for just about _everyone_ except Paizo!  People who were legitimate paying customers are now infringing copyrights instead, or going to competitors.  In fact, it kinda feels like Wizards of the Coast is _pushing_ previous customers into Paizo's arms.

And that really doesn't make sense to me at all.

You know who does it right?  En World.  Right now, they're running a sale -- "stock up on new 4E stuff, or older 3.5 stuff."  They have moved on to 4th edition right along with Wizards of the Coast, but their 3.5 edition materials all still exist and have zero cost now.  Every sale is just a bonus for them.  And more importantly for the market, since they're offering 3.5 edition materials, _they retain me as a customer_ and I'm giving them money tonight that otherwise they wouldn't receive.  That just makes sense.  So I do not get the "We ban PDFs!  No options!" kind of thinking from WotC.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Immoral?




I, too, am puzzled.


----------



## Androrc (Jan 5, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Immoral?




Yes. They are hurting the common good (even if not much) for their own exclusive gain. While until some years ago they were benefitting everyone - they provided books, we bought them, they had profit, we had entertainment, that is no longer the case. They are purposefully trying to make their previous books less enjoyable (by denying us the possibility to buy supplements that would make them more fun) so that we buy their new products. They are doing everything to devalue the very product they sold to us. It's as if I sold you a house and then started a noisy factory right next to it, so that your house would be devalued and living in it would be a worse experience, so that you would be pressured to buy a new one from me. That to me cannot be termed as anything but immoral.



aboyd said:


> Androrc, welcome to the boards!  Also, you're re-treading a debate we've had here since the time it happened.  Nothing new.  Nonetheless, I'll bite at the bait in a hopefully-friendly manner of debate.
> 
> For me, I don't really view what they did as immoral, even though I hate that they did it.  To me, immorality is too strong -- it describes corruption, which I don't see here.  However, I do see the move as perplexing in the best of light, and downright stupid when I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> ...




I agree that it was probably a stupid decision, and they are leaving those of us who don't like fourth edition with little option. Right now, even though it is unlikely, I wish WotC would go away, so that maybe a better company would take care of the license.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

I think the word you are looking for is "unethical".

And, while the ethics are open to debate, I would agree that as a society we have become increasingly tolerant of unethical behaviour.....Indeed, we seem on many occasions to laud it (and reward it!) as though it were the paragon of virtue.


RC


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 5, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think the word you are looking for is "unethical".
> 
> And, while the ethics are open to debate, I would agree that as a society we have become increasingly tolerant of unethical behaviour.....Indeed, we seem on many occasions to laud it (and reward it!) as though it were the paragon of virtue.
> 
> ...




This.  The fact that all that matters to most people is whether this is a "sound business decision" with no regard to how it hurts the (former) fan base demonstrates this quite well.  Success itself is treated as a virtue now.  Success is great, any company or individual should want to achieve it out of self interest.  But a virtue it is not.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2011)

Immoral? Unethical?

How about this: It's unethical for anybody to distribute IP that isn't theirs.  (edit: without permission to do so, that is)

The unethical ones here are not WotC. What they are being is uncharitable, not immoral nor unethical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Immoral? Unethical?
> 
> How about this: It's unethical for anybody to distribute IP that isn't theirs.  (edit: without permission to do so, that is)
> 
> The unethical ones here are not WotC. What they are being is uncharitable, not immoral nor unethical.




I think that you are confusing "illegal" with "unethical".  From an ethical philosophy POV, what *should be* considered IP, as well as how long that "P" in IP should apply, are directly related to the ethics involved.

Societies grant IP rights in order to benefit the society.  Arguably, if the IP laws do not benefit the society, it is not unethical to oppose them.  Indeed, where a law itself is damaging to society, it may be unethical to support it.

I am not saying that this is the case here; I am saying that it is not clearly not the case here.

In any event, it is unethical to support people distributing your IP (including directing people to those distributing it) until you are longer interested in that IP.  If you forge a symbiotic relationship, only to remove your end once you have what you want, that is unethical.

It is not, however, illegal.  And it is often rewarded.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that you are confusing "illegal" with "unethical".  From an ethical philosophy POV, what *should be* considered IP, as well as how long that "P" in IP should apply, are directly related to the ethics involved.




I'm not confusing anything. There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there. There's nothing ethical in distributing IP beyond fair use that isn't yours without permission. There's nothing unethical about the copyrighting of the materials in question nor the duration of the copyright held so far (it's not like WotC is trying to extend their copyright duration like Disney's maneuvering over Mickey Mouse).

Calling WotC's actions immoral or unethical is baloney, to use a polite term, if you ask me.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 5, 2011)

billd91 said:


> There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there.
> 
> --snip--
> 
> ...



If you believe that "money is God", then sure. There is nothing more important in the world, in life? Well then, right you are.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2011)

> Calling WotC's actions immoral or unethical is baloney, to use a polite term, if you ask me.




Agreed 100%.

As a business, their first duty is to make money within the legal strictures of the society in which they operate.  They have duties to their owners & shareholders.

There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives.  IOW, while you might have a case if WotC were the world's sole supplier of seatbelts and flu vaccines, you have nothing upon which to base calling the control of sales of _*a pure luxury item*_ immoral.  That's pure nonsense.

Assuming no discrimination, your right to experience pleasure isn't EVER going to trump their right not to sell to you- that's a complete non-starter.

Or to put it a different way, you have no moral right to someone else's stuff.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> If you believe that "money is God", then sure. There is nothing more important in the world, in life? Well then, right you are.




Frankly, I don't believe money is god at all. But the nerdrage over this is incandescent in its stupidity and futility.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2011)

Can't wait so see this headline:

"This just in: McDonald's removal of McRib from menus called 'immoral' and 'unethical'...Film at 11."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Can't wait so see this headline:
> 
> "This just in: McDonald's removal of McRib from menus called 'immoral' and 'unethical'...Film at 11."




(Shrug)

If WotC-D&D is a McRib to you, I suppose I can see the comparison.

However, it is a pretty poor analogy, because no one is suggesting that WotC cannot stop selling Mc3rd, but rather that, once WotC has decided to do so, trying to stop others from providing related content _*may be *_unethical.  This is at least in part because of the perceived longterm value of Mc3rd when it was purchased, and the promotion by WotC of those resources that led to that perception (by some).

I would personally say that the current term to which IP is held is too long, and it promotes stagnation over innovation as a result.  This view holds no water with Mc3rd, but it might relate to Mc1st and earlier.  A healthy public domain is, IMHO, a sign of a healthy public.  YMMV.


RC


EDIT:  And billd91's "the nerdrage over this is incandescent in its stupidity and futility" is a statement that can be used to example more than one fallacy.  But, I suppose, that is easier than answering the actual argument.  


RC


----------



## Androrc (Jan 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed 100%.
> 
> As a business, their first duty is to make money within the legal strictures of the society in which they operate.  They have duties to their owners & shareholders.




I'm all for businesses profiting, usually everyone is better off that way. However, if they take decisions that harm the common good, then they are being immoral. They can _legally_ do what they have, but there is public rejection of their moves precisely because such moves are and feel unethical, and petty.



> There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives.  IOW, while you might have a case if WotC were the world's sole supplier of seatbelts and flu vaccines, you have nothing upon which to base calling the control of sales of _*a pure luxury item*_ immoral.  That's pure nonsense.
> 
> Assuming no discrimination, your right to experience pleasure isn't EVER going to trump their right not to sell to you- that's a complete non-starter.
> 
> Or to put it a different way, you have no moral right to someone else's stuff.



Once they put it out in the world, it belongs to everyone. They have only the right to profit from their work, and their IP. But having control over whether or not making it available, as currently they legally do, is a moral abuse against society, and the free flow of information.



Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)
> 
> If WotC-D&D is a McRib to you, I suppose I can see the comparison.
> 
> ...




I disagree partially. I think there are problems with how IP works currently, but I don't think that the problems stem from the term being too long. The problems are rather that companies have too much control over IPs, being able to shut down initiatives of third parties, and depriving people of the availability of their products. Ideally, they would be able to impose royalties on creative work based on their IPs, as well as necessarily gaining a share of profits from publication of their works, but wouldn't be able to stop people doing creative work on their IPs or others from publishing their works.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

Androrc said:


> I disagree partially. I think there are problems with how IP works currently, but I don't think that the problems stem from the term being too long. The problems are rather that companies have too much control over IPs, being able to shut down initiatives of third parties, and depriving people of the availability of their products. Ideally, they would be able to impose royalties on creative work based on their IPs, as well as necessarily gaining a share of profits from publication of their works, but wouldn't be able to stop people doing creative work on their IPs or others from publishing their works.




Well, here we disagree to some extent.

The existence of IP is to promote a reasonable gain for money spent in innovation, because innovation benefits society.  The term is intended to grant the IP creator long enough to make a reasonable profit from his/her/their work.  This profit is the incentive to invest in doing the work in the first place.

It is true, however, that both term and scope of control over IP has increased in ways that are certainly profitable to the IP holders, but not necessarily beneficial to (and perhaps harmful to) society.

Ethical =/= Legal.

It is always hoped that what is legal will be informed by what is ethical, but attempts to make the two terms synonymous would damage society enormously.  This is especially true because there is no objective way to determine what is, or is not, ethical (despite what seem to be claims to the contrary in this thread).  

Attempting to force others to conform to what you view as ethical is......well, not always ethical.  IMHO, anyway.  There is a fuzzy line that has to be drawn somewhere.

Attempting to urge others to take what you view as ethical action, though, or not take an action you view as deeply unethical, is probably as close to an "objective" moral obligation as I can imagine.  Well, accept practicing the same before preaching it, anyway.  



RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2011)

Androrc said:


> I'm all for businesses profiting, usually everyone is better off that way. However, if they take decisions that harm the common good, then they are being immoral.




RPGs are a luxury.  It's nice they exist, but if they vanished tomorrow, people would still find food, shelter and, amazingly, other forms of entertainment.  

They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.  Indeed, one of the cornerstone rights of property ownership _of any kind_ is the right to restrict access.  This enables the owner to set a price, and thus, establish a market.  If the price is too high, it may not sell; if no price is set, no third party has the right to then strip the property owner of his right (except in the recognized area of necessities to survival).



> Once they put it out in the world, it belongs to everyone. They have only the right to profit from their work, and their IP. But having control over whether or not making it available, as currently they legally do, is a moral abuse against society, and the free flow of information.




Absolutely and unequivocally no.  As stated above, the restriction of access is fundamental to the concept of private ownership of property.

Until something is sold or given to you, you do not own it.  Nobody makes this kind of anti-ownership argument except in the case of IP (or to justify variations of Communism).  You cannot justify the position that denial of access to a non-essential product is a moral right or is "abusive".

As for "the free flow of information"?  That is a slippery slope that would devalue any IP you'd care to name.  History has shown us multiple times that he greatest rate of home-grown advancements in technology exists in countries that protect IP rights the most rigorously.  Russia stagnated vis a vis the West until Peter the Great instituted certain changes that protected the rights of inventors at the national level (not as good as in the West, but better than "self-help" which had been the rule before).  More recently, China has had to crack down on some of the pirates that Western businesses have been complaining about for decades because the pirates had broadened their operations to include Chinese businesses (which started to fail at alarming rates).

What IS abusive to the good of society is the disregard of the rules by which we allow persons to benefit from the product of their efforts.

Hence my McRib analogy.  No one would seriously assert that, once the McRib was created that society at large had a right to have McRibs; McDonalds is free to remove it from the market at will.  They also have a right (to anwer RC) to prevent someone from releasing a product identical to the McRib or to use "McRib" to describe their product...but CANNOT  prevent someone from making their own rib sandwich with a different recipe & name.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As for "the free flow of information"?  That is a slippery slope that would devalue any IP you'd care to name.  History has shown us multiple times that he greatest rate of home-grown advancements in technology exists in countries that protect IP rights the most rigorously.  Russia stagnated vis a vis the West until Peter the Great instituted certain changes that protected the rights of inventors at the national level (not as good as in the West, but better than "self-help" which had been the rule before).  More recently, China has had to crack down on some of the pirates that Western businesses have been complaining about for decades because the pirates had broadened their operations to include Chinese businesses (which started to fail at alarming rates).




It also may have shown us the opposite as well: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

That said, sitting anywhere on the spectrum from strict copyright enforcement to no copyright for luxury entertainment products is hardly a question of morality and legitimately exercising whatever rights are recognized anywhere along that spectrum is hardly unethical. Asserting rights that are *not* recognized, would be--such as distributing materials when not approved by the copyright holder or exerting rights and control in excess of what is recognized.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They also have a right (to anwer RC) to prevent someone from releasing a product identical to the McRib or to use "McRib" to describe their product...but CANNOT  prevent someone from making their own rib sandwich with a different recipe & name.




I suppose that would answer me if I questioned their rights.

Rights are a legal entity; they are not an ethical entity.  Ethics sometimes demands that one does something one has no right to do.  Ethics also sometimes demands that one refrain from acting on one's rights.

Example of the first:  In a society where group X is being systematically killed, I have an ethical duty to protect group X, even if it is a violation of legal obligations.

Example of the second:  In a society where I have the right to the proceeds from my ex-wife's estate upon her death, I may be ethically obligated to not do so if it harms my children, her children which are not mine, or others to whom I have a moral obligation.

Rights and obligations do not define ethics; ethics define how rights should be used and how obligations should be met.  You are putting the cart before the horse.



RC


----------



## Dandu (Jan 5, 2011)

And requesting that PDFs of questionable legality being withdrawn to protect intellectual property rights is unethical.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

> Rights and obligations do not define ethics; ethics define how rights should be used and how obligations should be met. You are putting the cart before the horse.




Flipping the McRib example, in what way is it ethical for someone to take someone else's commercial recipe (and/or product identity) and use it for their own commercial product?

Long story short, it isn't ethical, and thus, actions taken within the society's legal framework to end such unethical behavior is at least prima facie ethical.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> It also may have shown us the opposite as well: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International



I disagree with his conclusion: other factors he himself mentions could account for most if not all of the difference.

For example, he points out that German publishers typically had limited print runs of premium editions alongside a large print runs of inexpensive editions for the mass market.  This is what we would call a very modern business model for a publisher...at least pre-Internet.

In contrast, print runs in the other countries were _exclusively_ premium editions under 1000 copies, relying on massive markups alone to become profitable.

IOW, Germany's IP explosion is not a copyright issue, that's a business model issue.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I disagree with his conclusion: other factors he himself mentions could account for most if not all of the difference.
> 
> For example, he points out that German publishers typically had limited print runs of premium editions alongside a large print runs of inexpensive editions for the mass market.  This is what we would call a very modern business model for a publisher...at least pre-Internet.
> 
> ...




But why did German publishers adopt that business model? Lack of copyright, I think is an entirely reasonable conclusion. When faced with an environment where they couldn't count on their IP being protected, they found a way to still make an effective business model around it.

Could the Russians have made similar advances without copyright protection by adopting a similar business model? Was it really lack of IP that hampered Russian invention or lack of supporting business models and infrastructure?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> But why did German publishers adopt that business model? Lack of copyright, I think is an entirely reasonable conclusion. When faced with an environment where they couldn't count on their IP being protected, they found a way to still make an effective business model around it.




That's not a reasonable inference.

German publishing went that route virtually right out of the gate, as it were.  They were trying something new, and they got lucky and stumbled on the superior business model.

(Compare the dotcom boom/bust: dozens of business models were tried out in numerous fields...not all of them worked out.)

There is nothing inherent in the copyright regime that disfavors the dual printing method- if there were, mixed mass market/prestige printing would not have flourished in the modern era characterized by true copyright regimes.
_<sorry, lost WiFi before completing edit>_

In addition, the business model the others were following was the same one that had been going back to Gutenburg's Bible and beyond: books and other written materials were rare and expensive...all in a world without copyright protection.  Even with Gutenburg's revolutionary printing process with moveable type, prices fell and numbers of books made rose...but "print runs" were still in sub-1000s.  The publishers of France & England simply did a scaled-up version of the old (pre-copyright) way of doing business.  The German revolution was in unleashing the full power of Gutenburg's innovation and printing in massive runs.



> Could the Russians have made similar advances without copyright protection by adopting a similar business model? Was it really lack of IP that hampered Russian invention or lack of supporting business models and infrastructure?




Pre Peter's reforms, your remedies were self-help or having the protection of a guild or a personal stamp from the gov't.  Innovation in Russia stagnated a  hundred years behind the West.  Within a couple of decades of Peter's reforms,  not only did the locals flourish, but Western talent flooded into the country, allowing for even more cross-pollination of ideas.


----------



## Dandu (Jan 6, 2011)

Bill, I believe you have been outclassed.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

Ok, as the thread creator, I'd like to know...

How in the blue hell did the thread title get one of those butt ugly mini banners attached to the start of it, and how do I rid the internets of its unsightliness?


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jan 6, 2011)

My guess is the icon is tied to the "d20 System" tag on the thread (You did tag the thread "d20 system", right?).  I suspect you can't get rid of it, without undoing the tag.

Morrus just made a bunch of these things; there's a thread in Meta if you haven't seen it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Frankly, I don't believe money is god at all.



Be that as it may, the IP in question is only "theirs" because of, that's right, money. That is their (i.e., Hasbro's) sole claim to it: possession via purchase.

Now you might be of the (admittedly, fashionable!) belief that that not only gives them the right to to whatever they wish with said "property", but also automatically makes anything so done... _right_.

I am not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

> Be that as it may, the IP in question is only "theirs" because of, that's right, money. That is their (i.e., Hasbro's) sole claim to it: possession via purchase.




Which is the sole claim a person might have on a pen or a house that they themselves did not create.



> ...that not only gives them the right to to whatever they wish with said "property", but also automatically makes anything so done... right.




Well, so long as they operate within the confines of the law, they are prima facie right.  This is a rebuttable presumption, the burden of proving otherwise lying upon the party wishing to assert that they have not acted in a just & right fashion.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

the_orc_within said:


> (You did tag the thread "d20 system", right?).




Nope, I never bother to tag threads, if one is there it's because the site auto-picks them for you.  I will look into both removing the tag and yelling in Meta to get off my lawn.

EDIT: Upon checking the bottom of the page, I see that there are in fact no d20 system tags or any others, for that matter.  Crap...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is the sole claim a person might have on a pen or a house that they themselves did not create.



Owning something that impacts thousands open thousands of people, and owning something that clearly, you know, _doesn't_? Very different set of responsibilities, etc.

IMO, and all that.




> Well, so long as they operate within the confines of the law, they are prima facie right.  This is a rebuttable presumption, the burden of proving otherwise lying upon the party wishing to assert that they have not acted in a just & right fashion.



This is truly relevant _only_ if you happen to believe that the law as it currently stands is perfect (or even useful whatsoever), in all such cases. And will work perfectly, for the common good, without favouring the exceedingly rich, etc., etc.

I do not.


While I respect - and will defend! - the rights of the _creators_ of various material, goods, IP, whatever... those who simply use their tremendous purchasing power to snap it up, with *nothing* in mind above or beyond squeezing as much money as they possibly can from it, everything and everyone else be damned? Those people, I have very little time for. If there was some way I could strip them of their "rights", in many cases, I would, without any hesitation. Because (again, in many cases) they have grossly misused what is in their "custody". I see it time and time again, and to be honest, while this is not a relatively _major_ case, every instance does irk me, to some degree.

Just to make it clear, I don't believe that what is legal, purely by virtue of large sums of money being exchanged, and of the way laws have been constructed, necessarily has all that much to do with what is right. Legailty does not imply sound ethics, nor morality... nor even concern for any living thing, necessarily.

Given WotC's track record, particularly in recent years, of arrogance, deceit and manipulation, well, another drop is all, I suppose.

Still, while there is perhaps some grim satisfaction in noting their desperation, the way they continue to treat their "property", and the many people connected to it in various ways, _does_ bother me.

Ah, well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Owning something that impacts thousands open thousands of people, and owning something that clearly, you know, _doesn't_? Very different set of responsibilities, etc.




No.  Same rights, same responsibilities.

Again, we're not discussing the actions of a company that provides food or shelter, we're discussing the actions of a company that provides an entertainment product: a pure luxury.  Their removal of their own IP from bookshelves has no more moral/ethical weight than the hypothetical removal of marshmallows from the shelves of US grocery stores.  No person can claim a superior right to their IP.




> This is truly relevant _only_ if you happen to believe that the law as it currently stands is perfect (or even useful whatsoever), in all such cases. And will work perfectly, for the common good, without favouring the exceedingly rich, etc., etc.




The current system does not favor the exceedingly rich: rich or poor, IP holders have the exact same bundle of rights.  What the poor cannot do as easily as the rich can is defend their rights from people who seem to think their desire to own or use IP is more important than the IP owner's right to contol it.

A band I represented a little more than a decade ago had the same problem as Metallica: a Russian piracy site selling their stuff.  Metallica had no more rights than my clients, they just had the money to hire a Russian IP attorney to take care of things.  My guys were just blue collar joes who couldn't hire a Russian IP attorney nor send me to Russia to do it myself...and I certainly couldn't afford to do the job pro bono.  My guys never recouped their initial expenditure to record that album; Metallica won in their case.  Not because of having more rights, but by being rich enough to be able to defend themselves.



> While I respect - and will defend! - the rights of the _creators_ of various material, goods, IP, whatever... those who simply use their tremendous purchasing power to snap it up, with *nothing* in mind above or beyond squeezing as much money as they possibly can from it, everything and everyone else be damned? Those people, I have very little time for.  If there was some way I could strip them of their "rights", in many cases, I would, without any hesitation. Because (again, in many cases) they have grossly misused what is in their "custody".




One of the surest ways to make a profit from IP- especially if you are poor- is to sell or license it to a person, company or government that has the bankroll to 1) fully realize it's potential and 2) defend the IP to the fullest extent of the law.

Strip away the rights of subsequent purchasers and you devalue the IP itself to virtually nothing.  Nobody will want to buy or license IP that has NO rights attached.  

IOW, the end consequence of your position is that the only creators who could make money from IP are the ones who have some kind of money already.  The poor schmoe who, say, has crappy credit and a job at 7-11 but who nonetheless comes up with a viable process to refine gold from dumps at 3¢/ton (while simultaneously sequestering CO2) is NOT going to be able to get a loan to make his $100K prototype to prove his process works.  And with no ability to sell or license his idea, not only is he doomed to become a 7-11 manager after only 25 more years, the world is denied an invention that would definitely make the world a better place.

It's much like the sale of land: real estate is not just land, it's a bundle of rights, and they can be sold off or retained piecemeal.  If you lived in Texas, as I do, you would probably be living on a plot of land called a "surface estate"- a pics of land that has no rights to the minerals below.  As such, the land would not be worth as much as an "entire" or "mineral" estate...because if oil or another resource is found below a "surface estate", that surface owner not only doesn't get any money from the mining company, they also have no right to exclude the mining company from reasonable measures to retrieve that resource if the persons owning the mineral rights gives the go-ahead.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

I certainly wish that ethics were as clear-cut, black & white, right & wrong, as some in this thread seem to believe.  Having studied the philosophy of ethics, though, I am forced to conclude differently.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Be that as it may, the IP in question is only "theirs" because of, that's right, money. That is their (i.e., Hasbro's) sole claim to it: possession via purchase.
> 
> Now you might be of the (admittedly, fashionable!) belief that that not only gives them the right to to whatever they wish with said "property", but also automatically makes anything so done... _right_.
> 
> I am not.




Actually, since we're talking about WotC and not just Hasbro here, the d20 IP in question is theirs *because they created it*. Sure, it was based on a property they bought but then they modified it with their own labor. That's far more than just possession via purchase.

And lest you assume to much (and we all know what that causes), believing there's nothing unethical or immoral about what WotC is doing with their property doesn't mean that I think it's the best plan. It may be alright as in nothing's specifically wrong with it either morally, ethically, or legally, but that doesn't make it right as in the best strategy. I'm just not going to get my undies in a wad over it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I certainly wish that ethics were as clear-cut, black & white, right & wrong, as some in this thread seem to believe.  Having studied the philosophy of ethics, though, I am forced to conclude differently.




Who said it was that neat?

(Phi Sigma Tau, BTW.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Who said it was that neat?
> 
> (Phi Sigma Tau, BTW.)




It is certainly implied in any statement which conflates a legal system with a justice system.  It is also strongly implied in any absolutist statement of morality or ethics.

For example:



billd91 said:


> There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there. There's nothing ethical in distributing IP beyond fair use that isn't yours without permission. There's nothing unethical about the copyrighting of the materials in question nor the duration of the copyright held so far (it's not like WotC is trying to extend their copyright duration like Disney's maneuvering over Mickey Mouse).






Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Absolutely and unequivocally no.  As stated above, the restriction of access is fundamental to the concept of private ownership of property.






billd91 said:


> legitimately exercising whatever rights are recognized anywhere along that spectrum is hardly unethical. Asserting rights that are *not* recognized, would be--such as distributing materials when not approved by the copyright holder or exerting rights and control in excess of what is recognized.




I wish I could be as certain of ethics as these people seem to be.

I wish I could be as certain as to what the public good was, and what harms it.

I wish I could be as certain as to how ethics applies to the idea of holding ideas as property (and there is a legitimate reason why these questions apply to IP more than, say, to your house!).

I wish I could be as certain that recognized rights (legal system) was co-equivilent to recognized ethics (justice system).

Ethics is not covering your ass in a legal sense.  Ethics is what one does (hopefully) regardless of the consequences of action.  Covering your ass requires turning a blind eye to unethical behaviour (and more often than not, your own), either because of an actual or perceived benefit accruing from doing so (or negative consequence of not doing so).  Declaring that there is absolutely no ethical problem is a common means to do so.

So, let me repeat my stance:  

There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case.  Indeed, there is _*never*_ a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate.

The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders.  This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.



RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

> There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case.



Show me some particular way(s) in which you feel they've behaved unethically.



> Dannyalcatraz
> There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives.




I stand by that as an ethical statement.  If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.



> Dannyalcatraz
> They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.



Again, we're talking about a particular RPG, a luxury item; a non-essential product.  It's voluntary removal from the stream of commerce by its owners would be a bummer, but raises no ethical issues.  I stand by this.


> Dannyalcatraz
> Absolutely and unequivocally no. As stated above, the restriction of access is fundamental to the concept of private ownership of property.




Again, I see no ethical quandary, this is an issue of logic: if you cannot limit access to something, you cannot be said to have control or ownership of that thing.

Or are you asking whether ownership itself is ethical?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I stand by that as an ethical statement.  If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.
> 
> 
> Again, we're talking about a particular RPG, a luxury item; a non-essential product.  It's voluntary removal from the stream of commerce by its owners would be a bummer, but raises no ethical issues.  I stand by this.




Why is it only essential things to human existence?  Shouldn't something apply to creative works in general, or at least art specifically?  With digital media, there wasn't even a need ot keep producing anything, just having the information for sale online (pdfs) would suffice.  What WotC is doing is purposely trying to marginalize their own earlier product and reduce/eliminate access to it as much as possible.  I do think that is unethical to some extent, assuming that is their motive (denying the public access to their creative work).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

Before I continue, I want to clarify: I absolutely do not agree with a lot of what WotC has done in the past few years- I just haven't seen any behavior towards the public I'd characterize as being unethical or immoral.



> Why is it only essential things to human existence?




Because for there to be a violation of an ethical principle, there must be some duty that was violated (deontologically speaking); because an action has to be objectively wrong; Etc.  Every ethical system deals with fundamentals of human existence.

And when you're talking about non-essentials, you're just not going to get there.

As an artist and lawyer and a bunch of other things, I agree that certainly, there is a need for art in society.  But you cannot argue that a particular artist has an ethical/moral duty to create; a duty to allow initial or continued access to his or her work.

If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting unethically.  Writers revise, musicians re-record.  Painters completely obliterate past works to create different ones.  Dali, Prince, Joyce- anyone you can name has either sequestered and/or destroyed their own work.

In short, while humanity has a right to art and other creative endeavors, humanity has no right to a _particular_ piece of art.

And to be clear- this is an IP owner exercising control over their own stuff.

Were there an external force removing said IP from the market, that would be a different issue, such as censorship or possibly even, yes, a moral/ethical violation and crime against humanity.

But that's not happening here.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Why is it only essential things to human existence?  Shouldn't something apply to creative works in general, or at least art specifically?  With digital media, there wasn't even a need ot keep producing anything, just having the information for sale online (pdfs) would suffice.  What WotC is doing is purposely trying to marginalize their own earlier product and reduce/eliminate access to it as much as possible.  I do think that is unethical to some extent, assuming that is their motive (denying the public access to their creative work).




Why only things essential to human existence? Because building a moral or ethical system around access to a specific non-essential item would be really silly. 
I think it's important for people to have access to non-essential materials to pursue in their leisure time. Maybe things like this stimulate their intellects, broaden their horizons, soothe their nerves, or bring them indescribable joy. But I don't think it's at all important that any single producer of such materials forever make a particular item available. Suppose I really like the 4th episode of the first (and only) season of *Quark*. To behave ethically, is either NBC or Buck Henry obligated to make it available to me? Are they behaving unethically because they don't? I don't think so. I think their behavior in not letting me (and legions other fans) have it is ethical, moral, and legal even if I'm not getting what I want.


----------



## Androrc (Jan 6, 2011)

That argument goes both ways, though. If companies don't have to provide access to non-essentials because they aren't important enough to society, then there is no reason for the State to protect IPs related to non-essentials, as they aren't important to society.

In any case, I disagree. Happiness is essential to human life, and that makes entertainment quite important to society.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting  unethically.  Writers revise, musicians re-record.  Painters completely  obliterate past works to create different ones.  Dali, Prince, Joyce-  anyone you can name has either sequestered and/or destroyed their own  work.




hat is being discussed here is not shutting down initiatives of people  that want to provide access to such creations when the original creator  no longer does, not a duty for the creator personally to provide any and  all versions of the creation at all times. Destroying their past work is fine, destroying their past work *and* prohibiting people who have remnants of it from making it available again is not.



> And to be clear- this is an IP owner exercising control over their own stuff.




It is only "their" because the State guarantees that. Actual intellectual property is a murky area, given that while it exists by analogy with material property, it does not share many of the characteristics that material property does (for instance, you don't deny the original owner access to his product if you infringe IP)



> Were there an external force removing said IP from the market, that  would be a different issue, such as censorship or possibly even, yes, a  moral/ethical violation and crime against humanity.
> 
> But that's not happening here.




Ah, but it is. An external force, the State, is giving monopolies based on past creativity. There is nothing "natural" with IP protecting - not that there is anything natural about the alternatives either, but all are compromises based on the differing interests within a society and the interests of the society as a whole.


----------



## Dandu (Jan 6, 2011)

Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Show me some particular way(s) in which you feel they've behaved unethically.




My point doesn't require that I agree the behaviour is unethical, or that you do so.



> I stand by that as an ethical statement.  If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.




Again, I wish I had your certainty that ethics only applies to "something fundamental to human existence".  Personally, I tend to think that things which are not are deeply involved in ethical debate.  Examples:  Liberty, dignity, pursuit of happiness.

YMMV, though.



> Again, I see no ethical quandary, this is an issue of logic: if you cannot limit access to something, you cannot be said to have control or ownership of that thing.
> 
> Or are you asking whether ownership itself is ethical?




Ownership in any sense is a socially granted phenomenon, and is rooted in what that society views as ethical.  Ethics very much enter into what can be owned, what should be owned, and how far ownership rights should extend.

Note please that I do not say "How far ownership rights _*do*_ extend".  That is a matter of law, and is therefore as objective as the law is objective.  *Should*, OTOH, is subjective, and therefore open to debate.

My point doesn't require that I agree the current _*should*_ needs to be changed, or that you do so.  It merely requires that *what is ethical cannot be objectively known*.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because for there to be a violation of an ethical principle, there must be some duty that was violated (deontologically speaking);




Legal duty =/= ethical duty.



> because an action has to be objectively wrong; Etc.




Please explain this objective system of ethics you refer to.  Humanity has been looking for it since the dawn of history.  Do you really feel it is fair to keep this knowledge from the rest of us?  



> Every ethical system deals with fundamentals of human existence.




Every ethical system deals with, *but is not limited to*, fundamentals of human existence.



> But you cannot argue that a particular artist has an ethical/moral duty to create; a duty to allow initial or continued access to his or her work.




Why not?



> If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting unethically.




So?

Are you claiming that something is ethical simply because it is done, or that it must not be unethical because we would otherwise be guilty of acting unethically?

That's pretty shaky ground, my friend.



RC


----------



## Dandu (Jan 6, 2011)

What do you claim is ethical?


----------



## Nebten (Jan 6, 2011)

In before lock


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why not?




That would, for one thing, be depriving them of freedom for your edification - something I think that most people would consider a more grave example of unethical behavior.



Raven Crowking said:


> So?
> 
> Are you claiming that something is ethical simply because it is done, or that it must not be unethical because we would otherwise be guilty of acting unethically?
> 
> That's pretty shaky ground, my friend.




I think you're starting to tread on that as well. If there is no objectively wrong behavior (or we are in any way unable to determine objectively right behavior), then how can you declare that activies that harm no one and considered normal for centures are unethical? If there are no detectable objective ethical standards, then wouldn't behavior considered normal for centuries define standards of behavior? Or are you proposing that an artist declining to distribute his work breaks some more important ethical consideration that would justify his compellence?


----------



## Androrc (Jan 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> That would, for one thing, be depriving them of freedom for your edification - something I think that most people would consider a more grave example of unethical behavior.




Let's be clear that we are talking about their freedom of having a monopoly - the freedom to restrict freedom. It is more alike granting the first person to build a mill in a region the monopoly to have mills there than modern liberties.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 6, 2011)

Nebten said:


> In before lock




Much as I appreciate you bumping my thread's post count up by 1, do you really think this adds to the discussion?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 6, 2011)

Androrc said:


> Let's be clear that we are talking about their freedom of having a monopoly - the freedom to restrict freedom. It is more alike granting the first person to build a mill in a region the monopoly to have mills there than modern liberties.




No. It's more like freedom to monopolize something that nobody needs and wouldn't exist if you hadn't made it in the first place. Mills hold a place in a certain kind of economy far more crucial than that. 
Plus, having the monopoly to control the display and distribution of your own work doesn't prevent anybody else from displaying and distributing their own works. It's exclusivity of control of a work, not a protected monopoly preventing anyone else from creating another work capable of competing for people's attention. So the mill monopoly comparison doesn't fit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

Androrc said:


> That argument goes both ways, though. If companies don't have to provide access to non-essentials because they aren't important enough to society, then there is no reason for the State to protect IPs related to non-essentials, as they aren't important to society.




That is not the assertion I made.  Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.

A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.



> In any case, I disagree. Happiness is essential to human life, and that makes entertainment quite important to society.




Entertainment IS important.  It is NOT important enough, however, that the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the wishes of the populace.





> hat is being discussed here is not shutting down initiatives of people  that want to provide access to such creations when the original creator  no longer does, not a duty for the creator personally to provide any and  all versions of the creation at all times. Destroying their past work is fine, destroying their past work *and* prohibiting people who have remnants of it from making it available again is not.




Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership.  If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.



> It is only "their" because the State guarantees that. Actual intellectual property is a murky area, given that while it exists by analogy with material property, it does not share many of the characteristics that material property does (for instance, you don't deny the original owner access to his product if you infringe IP)



ALL property is a social convention.  Many societies have existed where there is no concept of personal ownership...though not many of them have survived the test of time.

If you want to knock down ownership of IP, just realize that there will be a great cost associated with removal of its protection.

As for the access issue: its true that if you hack my computer and steal one of my recordings, I still have access to it.  However, I have lost the ability to sell it to you or to any third party with whom you "share" it- just like a material property owner.  If the "sharing" goes on at an exponential rate (I'm a DAMN good guitarist ), eventually, the entire market for that recording will be destroyed unless I somehow find a way to add value to it.

I'm no less damaged than if someone drills into the reservoir beneath my home and takes all the liquid found within it.

Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean its any less stolen when its gone.



> Ah, but it is. An external force, the State, is giving monopolies based on past creativity. There is nothing "natural" with IP protecting - not that there is anything natural about the alternatives either, but all are compromises based on the differing interests within a society and the interests of the society as a whole.



But that isn't what I said.  I said there is no State force _compelling_ the creator to _remove_ their creations from the public.  THAT is a crime against society.

The State protecting a creator's rights in his own work, be it a concept or a crop in the field isn't what we're discussing.  The State, by protecting IP, is encouraging persons to create it because that monopoly gives them a chance to profit from their efforts.  THAT leads to the enrichment of society, it is generally seen as a social good.


Raven Crowking said:


> My point doesn't require that I agree the behaviour is unethical, or that you do so.
> 
> Again, I wish I had your certainty that ethics only applies to "something fundamental to human existence".  Personally, I tend to think that things which are not are deeply involved in ethical debate.  Examples:  Liberty, dignity, pursuit of happiness.



I agree that those things are fundamental as well.

However, I disagree that your right to liberty, dignity and the pursuit of happiness entitles you to take away my control (or the control of my successors in interest) of what I create.



> Ownership in any sense is a socially granted phenomenon, and is rooted in what that society views as ethical.  Ethics very much enter into what can be owned, what should be owned, and how far ownership rights should extend.




Agreed.




> Please explain this objective system of ethics you refer to.  Humanity has been looking for it since the dawn of history.  Do you really feel it is fair to keep this knowledge from the rest of us?



That sentence you parsed was just a way of shorthanding that there are lots of different schools of ethical theory before getting to the next point...and I'm pretty sure if you're an ethics hotshot, you realized that.  The semicolons were there to provide a "cliff's note" version of a couple of them.  I'm sure you realized that as well.  So why the show?

There are what, 2 dozen general schools of thought about the nature of ethics- deontology, consequentialism, cyrenaic hedonism, epicurianism and stoicism to name but a few (some of which conflict inherently with others)- not to mention all the hundreds if not thousands of unique religious nuances on each...

Yet I can't think of one that justifies _forcing_ a creator of ideas to share them.



> Every ethical system deals with, *but is not limited to*, fundamentals of human existence.




True, but when you start applying ethical constructs to ephemera like specific kinds of entertainment, those systems break down.  None will compel the creator to create.



> Why not?



Because that is slavery.



> Are you claiming that something is ethical simply because it is done, or that it must not be unethical because we would otherwise be guilty of acting unethically?



No, I'm asserting that this position you seem to support would entail such disruptions to the creative process (and the sale or licensing of the fruits of that process) as to be severely curtailing the liberty, dignity and pursuit of happiness of the creators of IP.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> If there is no objectively wrong behavior (or we are in any way unable to determine objectively right behavior), then how can you declare that activies that harm no one and considered normal for centures are unethical?




(1)  What have I declared unethical?

(2)  What activities harm no one?  AFAICT, ethics is involved with determining the scope of potential harm to oneself and others, as well as the scope of possible benefit, and attempting to balance the two.



> If there are no detectable objective ethical standards, then wouldn't behavior considered normal for centuries define standards of behavior?




Why would this be so?  

Ethics is anything but stagnant!

Behaviour considered normal for centuries is often no longer considered normal centuries later.  What is considered harmful or of benefit may well vary by culture....One can think of many historical practices that were once considered ethical that are no longer considered to be so.  Some are even now considered to be abhorent.

Our understanding of ethics changes, and most often changes in response to the widespread acceptence of new forms of communication.  The printing press, mass literacy, radio, television, and film sparked (and some may continue to spark) ethical debate.  

One should hardly expect the Internet to be different.  Among other obvious factors, the Internet gives us a better ability to track the harm we do!

It is encumbent upon each of us, in our time, to ponder how we should be living, and what is an acceptable balance between harm to others/benefit to ourselves.  That is, I would say, our primary ethical duty as human beings.



> Or are you proposing that an artist declining to distribute his work breaks some more important ethical consideration that would justify his compellence?




I am proposing nothing of the sort.  I am proposing that questions as to the ethics of any decision/action are always open to debate.

I will always oppose a statement that X is firmly ethical, or firmly not, or that we cannot or should not engage in discussions about ethics.  

(And I mean this in terms of a society; I certainly agree with EN World's right to limit discussions of ethics to factors that the moderators determine are relevant to the site as a whole, as well as to moderate how those discussions may take place.)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.




This again conflates an argument about legality, and/or government duties, with an argument about ethics.

If the State has no justification in forcing someone to supply a non-essential to those who lack it, then the State has no justification in forcing someone to comply with, say, copyright, if the individual(s) holding the copyright cannot themselves enforce it.

Copyright is, after all, non-essential.

But most of us agree that the State does indeed have a justification in supplying copyright enforcement to those who lack said enforcement....even if we also agree it is a non-essential.

And I very much doubt that you consider this "facism, the nanny state, communism, etc."



> Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership.  If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.




You are a lawyer, right?

Please explain "Fair Use" to me.  If I cannot prohibit Fair Use (which is the use of property), then I don't own it?

Please explain "Right of Way" to me.  If I cannot prohibit the right to travel unhindered across a throughway (which is the use of property), then I don't own the land?

There are more examples in law, if you actually require them.  One ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that you are wrong here.  I can both own property and not have the right to prohibit all use of it.



> Yet I can't think of one that justifies _forcing_ a creator of ideas to share them.




And you cannot think of one that justifies an idea becoming public domain perforce of it being shared?



> No, I'm asserting that this position you seem to support would entail such disruptions to the creative process (and the sale or licensing of the fruits of that process) as to be severely curtailing the liberty, dignity and pursuit of happiness of the creators of IP.




What position do you believe I am supporting?

So, let me repeat my stance: 

There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case. Indeed, there is never a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate.

The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders. This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.​
How does that require slavery?

And, even if I were to take the stance that profitting by putting forth your idea should cause that idea to then, after a period, enter the public domain.....How does that require slavery?

Or does thinking the current period to long change it into slavery?

For that matter, if I discover a cure for cancer, and I believe it is unethical of me to not share that cure....how does that belief that my actions would be unethical force me to follow some other course?  Surely, I decide whether or not to do what I believe is ethical.

And, should I publicly do something that you believe is unethical, why should the State (or anyone else) protect me from your publicly calling my ethics into question?


RC


----------



## Androrc (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is not the assertion I made.  Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.




I was actually responding to billd91 on that one.



> A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.
> 
> Entertainment IS important.  It is NOT important enough, however, that  the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the  wishes of the populace.




I agree entirely. I am not for State forcing people to provide services or goods. But, if they are no longer willing to provide them, they shouldn't be able to stop others from doing so either. In other words, if Wizards had taken out the older edition stuff out of circulation, and allowed people to distribute the material, there would be no ethical problem. And intent is important here - they intended to deprive the market of certain goods to pressure customers into buying their newer products; they took out of circulation a product that could be regarded by the market as better than the newer one to force the market into buying new products. What they did was certainly not in the common interest.



> Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership.  If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.
> 
> 
> ALL property is a social convention.  Many societies have existed where there is no concept of personal ownership...though not many of them have survived the test of time.
> ...




I don't think ownership of IP should be knocked down at all, I just am saying that in certain situations, the owner's privilege should not be considered, to favor common interest. I'm not saying in *any* case that favors common interest that privilege shouldn't be regarded, but just that if a supplier no longer wants to perform a service or sell a certain good, then others should be allowed to pick up the slack. When I said that intellectual property is murky, I didn't mean to say that it shouldn't exist, far from that, but only that things that apply to material property shouldn't immediately apply to intellectual property, only if it makes sense to apply them.



> As for the access issue: its true that if you hack my computer and steal one of my recordings, I still have access to it.  However, I have lost the ability to sell it to you or to any third party with whom you "share" it- just like a material property owner.  If the "sharing" goes on at an exponential rate (I'm a DAMN good guitarist ), eventually, the entire market for that recording will be destroyed unless I somehow find a way to add value to it.
> 
> I'm no less damaged than if someone drills into the reservoir beneath my home and takes all the liquid found within it.
> 
> Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean its any less stolen when its gone.




Yes, but in this case what you are complaining of is the stealing of your potential profits, not your intellectual property. That is material wealth, and accordingly the rules for material property would have no problems dealing with it. And the distributors in such a case wouldn't be doing much benefit to society either, as they would be providing something that you would already provide, and they would be greatly harming your stimulus to create more.



> But that isn't what I said.  I said there is no State force _compelling_ the creator to _remove_ their creations from the public.  THAT is a crime against society.
> 
> The State protecting a creator's rights in his own work, be it a concept or a crop in the field isn't what we're discussing.  The State, by protecting IP, is encouraging persons to create it because that monopoly gives them a chance to profit from their efforts.  THAT leads to the enrichment of society, it is generally seen as a social good.




And it is good, but in the extreme, it can be quite harmful as well. In any case, the external action of the State in granting those monopolies is worth the mention because the State is interfering in the market none the less. It doesn't matter if it is removing the goods from the market directly or giving the right to remove them to third parties, it is still intervention. Now, that intervention is good, but only up to a point; as it stands now, the way the State handles monopolies granted to IP holders is harmful to the market, it's harmful to the common interest. While protection is important to stimulate innovation, it is not positive to go overboard with protection either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 7, 2011)

> > Dannyalcatraz
> > Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.
> 
> 
> ...




No it doesn't.

Even if its own laws do not specifically state that it can do so, a state can ethically justify forcible redistribution of things like food or shelter in protecting the interests of its citizens because those things are utterly essential to human survival.

There is no ethical analog here.  Non-essentials are nice.  They enrich our lives.  We are better off for having them.  But there is no justification for the state to force someone to supply...say...an RPG.


> If the State has no justification in forcing someone to supply a non-essential to those who lack it, then the State has no justification in forcing someone to comply with, say, copyright, if the individual(s) holding the copyright cannot themselves enforce it.




Not true.

A State or indeed any government has a vested interest in ensuring all kinds of rights for the benefit of its citizenry, including preventing citizens from acting against the interests of other citizens.

In the case of protecting IP, the state is protecting the right of someone to profit from their own efforts.

In the case of forcing someone to supply IP, that is slavery.


Quote:


> > Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership. If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




At no point did I use the absolute term "all"- as previously stated, all property is a social construct, and those noted exceptions are enumerated within the laws of property.  (Indeed, upthread I posted information about the divisible bundle of rights that exist in real property when talking about "surface estates", "mineral estates" and "estates entire," sorry you missed it.)

And with each of those exceptions, the burden of proof lies upon the person or entity relying on the exception because the default presumption is that of exclusion.
Quote:


> > Yet I can't think of one that justifies forcing a creator of ideas to share them.
> 
> 
> 
> And you cannot think of one that justifies an idea becoming public domain perforce of it being shared?



Again, this is an exception already extant within the rules of the social construct within IP laws, so not worth covering explicitly.



> There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case.




Again, make the case: what have they done that rises to the level of being unethical?



> What position do you believe I am supporting?




Well, this:


> > *Me*
> > But you cannot argue that a particular artist has an ethical/moral duty to create; a duty to allow initial or continued access to his or her work.
> 
> 
> ...




There is no supportable ethical position that forces another to provide you with non-essentials.


> The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders. This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.
> 
> How does that require slavery?




I believe we've lost each other here, because I'm not following your inquiry and the slavery to which I referred was in forcing someone to work to supply you with non-essentials.



> And, even if I were to take the stance that profitting by putting forth your idea should cause that idea to then, after a period, enter the public domain.....How does that require slavery?




This, again, is part of the background assumptions of IP that up until now we were not discussing.  To the best of my knowledge, WotC has NOT removed or attempted to remove from the market of ideas anything that has fallen into public domain.



> For that matter, if I discover a cure for cancer, and I believe it is unethical of me to not share that cure....how does that belief that my actions would be unethical force me to follow some other course? Surely, I decide whether or not to do what I believe is ethical.



I don't understand where you're going here.  We've been discussing whether its ethical to withdraw something non-essential from the market and/or withhold it from ever being released.



> And, should I publicly do something that you believe is unethical, why should the State (or anyone else) protect me from your publicly calling my ethics into question?



You have freedom to say that, absolutely.  Discourse is essential to a functioning society.

i'm just waiting for an example of WotC's behavior that you claim is actually unethical because 1) I haven't seen anything _I'd_ describe that way and 2) you haven't provided an example.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 7, 2011)

> > A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.
> >
> > Entertainment IS important. It is NOT important enough, however, that the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the wishes of the populace.
> 
> ...




Well you just basically said that once I release IP into the market, you would prefer a rule that I no longer control access to it.  Again, this devalues IP immensely.  With such a regime, I can no longer sell or license my IP to others who may be better able to deliver it to the public.

if I perform a song at my local cafe, 3 customers and 2 baristas hear it.  If I sell it to Sony, that song may be heard by almost 50 people (), maybe more! But if Sony can't enforce IP rights like deciding if & when the song will ever be released, they're not going to to buy it from me in the first place.

Those exclusionary rights are why movie production companies pay $10K $50K, $100k or more for "Options" on scripts.  If someone can just walk up and produce a script that Paramount felt wasn't worth doing while Paramount has the rights to it, then those scriptwriters will never see those "options."



> I don't think ownership of IP should be knocked down at all, I just am saying that in certain situations, the owner's privilege should not be considered, to favor common interest. I'm not saying in *any* case that favors common interest that privilege shouldn't be regarded, but just that if a supplier no longer wants to perform a service or sell a certain good, then others should be allowed to pick up the slack.




No, see above.  What you're proposing is extremely destructive of the value of IP.



> Yes, but in this case what you are complaining of is the stealing of your potential profits, not your intellectual property.




The ability to leverage property- of any kind- for profit is one of the essential rights in the bundle.  Some would call it the single most important parts.  Destroy it, and what's left?  Hmmm...the ability to use it for yourself.


> In any case, the external action of the State in granting those monopolies is worth the mention because the State is interfering in the market none the less. It doesn't matter if it is removing the goods from the market directly or giving the right to remove them to third parties, it is still intervention. Now, that intervention is good, but only up to a point; as it stands now, the way the State handles monopolies granted to IP holders is harmful to the market, it's harmful to the common interest. While protection is important to stimulate innovation, it is not positive to go overboard with protection either.



That's less intervention than setting the rules that everyone gets to follow.

As for harm, take a look at the history mentioned upthread: States that protect IP with copyright, trademark & patent laws have more internal innovation than those that don't.

If all you're saying is that its better to have more products in the market than fewer and that anyone should be able to sell products that have been removed from the market by their creators, then this "common interest" to which you keep alluding is looking more and more like simply letting others benefit from work they didn't do. 

Besides, the State has rules to deal with genuinely harmful monopolies- Anti-trust.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 7, 2011)

TL; DR version: How about some concrete examples of WotC's "unethical" behavior and why you consider it unethical?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No it doesn't.




Well, you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.  

Repeatedly, I have demonstrated where your statements re: ethics are flawed.  I haven't seen you answer any of those objections.  Raising straw men related to law does not answer a question related to ethics.  



> A State or indeed any government has a vested interest in ensuring all kinds of rights for the benefit of its citizenry, including preventing citizens from acting against the interests of other citizens.
> 
> In the case of protecting IP, the state is protecting the right of someone to profit from their own efforts.
> 
> In the case of forcing someone to supply IP, that is slavery.




We could, of course, get into a debate about the ethics of slavery, but that is hardly necessary, as freedom from slavery is not essential for human survival and therefore the State has no business supplying it.  If I accept the argument you made regarding ethics upthread, anyway.....which I do not.  

In any event, there is a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and saying that it is not ethical to not supply certain IP.....for the blatantly obvious reason that saying "X is not ethical" forces no one to not-X.

There is also a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and granting that some portion of IP becomes public domain as a consequence of its being supplied.

And, since you no longer seem to believe that prohibiting the use of property means prohibiting all use, then the only thing left is a sliding scale, the ethics of which is based on subjective scale determined by society.  That sliding scale has been more in favour of the public domain in the past, and it certainly can be so in the future.



> i'm just waiting for an example of WotC's behavior that you claim is actually unethical because 1) I haven't seen anything _I'd_ describe that way and 2) you haven't provided an example.




Let me repeat my stance.  You seem to have missed it the last two times: 

There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case. Indeed, there is never a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate.

The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders. This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.​
I haven't claimed that WotC's behaviour is unethical; I have claimed that a case can be made, and that a blanket "No, it cannot!" is a public disservice.

However, it could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled consumers as to the support that said customers could expect related to 3e if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.

It could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled the creaters of those sites as to the support level that WotC would find acceptable, and therefore how much they should invest in those sites, if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.

And, again, please note that I am talking ethics, not law.  "They have a legal right/duty!" is not an answer to a claim about ethics.  

It is also, of course, possible to claim that these actions are either not misleading (although the content of this thread suggests to me otherwise, YMMV) or unethical, or both.  (Shrug)




RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 7, 2011)

> Well, you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.
> 
> Repeatedly, I have demonstrated where your statements re: ethics are flawed. I haven't seen you answer any of those objections. Raising straw men related to law does not answer a question related to ethics.




Right below the portion you quoted is a non-conflationary example.



> And, since you no longer seem to believe that prohibiting the use of property means prohibiting all use, then the only thing left is a sliding scale, the ethics of which is based on subjective scale determined by society. That sliding scale




I never was, RC: as I said last post, we hadn't opened the can of examining the minutiae of the background assumptions of the social contract called "property ownership" until the last few pages.

As for public domain in particular, given the continuing acceleration in the speed of advances in all things IP, it seems to me as if the community is being served pretty well.


> Let me repeat my stance. You seem to have missed it the last two times:



. I haven't missed it.  I even said debate was necessary.  I'm just waiting for something more than discussion of abstractions, IOW, real-world examples RE: WotC's actions.  I have only asked that if a case could be made, make the case.

So, RE: WotC recs to CrystalKeep:

I personally never saw them.

Thus, my first line of inquiry would be whether the recommendations were personal or official.  IOW, did _WotC_ make the recommendations or subsequently condone them, or instead, were the statements made entirely by employees- regardless of their place in the heirarchy- who were making personal recommendations?

If there were links on WotC's site, were they put there by someone authorized to do so?

If they were not, how long did it take someone who had such authority to become aware that the links were present?

And after that discovery, how long did it take for WotC to act?  By that I mean  when did they actually start the process of "decoupling," not how long did it take for the results of WotC's actions to be visible to the public.  If it took them years to go through their internal process, the flaw is not one of ethical failings, but rather one of inefficient and slow internal procedures...and/or perhaps lax management.

But even so...

To me this is no different than a merchant who says "if you don't want to pay my price for X, you can always try these others..." and then tells you who they are...even including those who sell counterfeits.  (This IS a RW example I've run into more than once.)

The counterfeit seller is aware of the recommendations, and is acting in a way that is illegal (he may or may not know it).  Given that his business is based on illegal activity, what ethical justification can be offered that he should be allowed to continue it's operations if the legitimate businesses in the same market object?

The merchant finally decides to not recommend the counterfeiter because he feels it is hurting his business.  He even notifies that person that if he doesn't stop selling the counterfeits, he will exercise his rights within the law.

The merchant is defending the means by which he earns the money that keeps him fed & sheltered and does so in a civilized way.  There is no assault.  There is no sabotage.  There is merely a demand to stop doing the illegal act harming his business or further (legal, civilized) actions will be taken.  How is this unethical?

Or to put it a different way, I'd a C&D letter is unethical, what is?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz, I think it is better to agree to disagree.

"Given that his business is based on illegal activity", "legitimate businesses", and "his rights within the law" have to do with what is legal.  What is legal has to do with what is ethical only if the legal system is perfect.  We are not talking the same language, and no matter how many times I try to point that out, it doesn't seem to be getting through.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2011)

I think the lack of understanding on your side at least mirrors my own.

I'll rephrase:



> Given that his business is based on illegal activity



May be read as "his business is based entirely upon the labors and investments of persons he has not compensated" (a.k.a. A freeloader)



> legitimate businesses



Is "a business built on the labor and investments of the proprietor and those he has compensated for THEIR labor and investments"

However,



> What is legal has to do with what is ethical only if the legal system is perfect.



Is not true since no system is perfect, _including ethical systems._  If there were a perfect ethical system, it would be the only one.  Instead, as pointed out before, there are many, and each may provide answers to ethical quandaries that are at odds with each other.  Ask a consequentialist ("ends justifying the means"), a utilitarian ("greatest good for greatest number) a deontologist (duty focused) and a hedonist (greatest good for yourself) the same question and you will get at least 4 different answers.

Instead, the law and ethics intersect like Venn diagrams, the amount of overlap depending on the law in question and your preferred set of ethical lenses.

And that is why I keep asking for specific behaviors and "why" it could be deemed unethical...because until we are arguing about one act in the light of a single ethical system, law is the only common ground of discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think the lack of understanding on your side at least mirrors my own.




I suppose.  We are certainly talking past each other.  And, you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.

So, again, I will agree to disagree with you unless something changes.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2011)

> ...you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.




Right back at ya, RC, right back at ya.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose.  We are certainly talking past each other.  And, you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.
> 
> So, again, I will agree to disagree with you unless something changes.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right back at ya, RC, right back at ya.



...and ... SCENE. 

That's a wrap, folks. Clear off the craft services table; we paid for it. Get your coats and leave the lot within the hour. Wrap party at jonesy's place tonight at 9!


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 9, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> ...Wrap party at jonesy's place tonight at 9!




I hope Gary Busey isn't there this time.  He always hogs the crab cakes...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right back at ya, RC, right back at ya.




Hence, better to agree to disagree.

After all, I can do so without thinking less of your opinion on other topics, and I hope you can reciprocate.

RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2011)

Hey, it's only the Internet!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 10, 2011)

wow, that's some busy spambot... (reported)


----------



## Aluvial (Jan 12, 2011)

I would like to ask a question that is about the lists themselves...

Does anyone have a list of which 3.5 (WotC) books did not make the lists?

Aluvial


----------

