# Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...



## scruffygrognard

Thanks to the folks at WotC.  As someone who used that site for character sheets over the last few years, I've gotta say that I'm really annoyed.

Good luck sorting things out Ema.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik

Well sure, tough economy.  With so much corporate belt tightening, the WOTC Legal Hit Squad needs to look like they're productive and busy.  So they unsheath the Plus Five Bic Pen of Funkilling and the Plus Three Cease and Desist Pad of Pettiness and go to work.  

Way to go WOTC.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Dirty pool.  This fan site has been contributing to the D&D community for ages, and by threatening it, WotC is spitting in all our faces.

This is a bad move, and I find it hard to believe that it was perpetrated by the same people who have shown our community so much goodwill and support.  The person responsible should be reprimanded, and an apology sent to the website operator.


----------



## Jack of Shadows

You know,

I was livid when they killed Dungeon and Dragon. But this just elevates me to a level of disgust that I just can't verbalize on this site with out breaking the rules. I can say I'm officially done with EVER purchasing anything from these sanctimonious pricks. 

JoS - D&D is dead to me.


----------



## frankthedm

Hmm, _maybe _it was just for the fact that the site asked for the paypal donations? 

But the stench of T$R is in the air... Nope air here is clear.


----------



## Morrus

Without any actual information (and there is precious little in the notice on Ema's site), it's impossible to tell what's going on.  All we know is that a C&D letter exists; we don't know what it was for exactly, we don't know how much conversation took place prior to it, we don't know if it's an issue that can be easily fixed or not.

I'm sure Ema and/or WotC will fill us in on the details when/if they feel like it, but jumping to conclusions is not particularly productive.


----------



## Desdichado

Morrus said:


> I'm sure Ema and/or WotC will fill us in on the details when/if they feel like it, but jumping to conclusions is not particularly productive.



No, no... I disagree.  I think now is the time to declare my undying hatred and blood feud with Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons and Scott Rouse personally.  They will _rue the day_ that they took down this website and sparked my wrath.  We might want to step out of the books on this one.


----------



## Shemeska

Hmm. First WotC scores some points in my opinion for 'stepping out of the books'* on one actual pirate, but then they take down a longstanding fansite. That's just not cool guys. Not at all. I have big differences on a design level with you guys over 4e, and some constant eye-rolling over the management and content in the digital area, but it's nothing personal ... but this just comes off as scummy. Say it 'aint so. 

*IYKWIMAITYD


----------



## HiLiphNY

Desperately low sales of 4e relative to those seen initially with 3.0 call for desperate behaviour, I suppose.

Yes, I'm having flashbacks of TSR during the 2E days with respect to their treatment of fan websites.  

Maybe they will discuss it on their slick, polished, and informative Podcast!  I can't wait!!!

Not cool, guys.  Not at all.


----------



## Mistwell

The nerd rage in this thread is truly sad.

You don't know the facts, but fly off the handle anyway?


----------



## Morrus

Shemeska said:


> , but then they take down a longstanding fansite. That's just not cool guys.




They didn't "take down a fansite".  They sent a C&D regarding something which, if I were to guess, was the Character Manager.


----------



## francisca

Jack of Shadows said:


> You know,
> 
> I was livid when they killed Dungeon and Dragon. But this just elevates me to a level of disgust that I just can't verbalize on this site with out breaking the rules. I can say I'm officially done with EVER purchasing anything from these sanctimonious pricks.
> 
> JoS - D&D is dead to me.




OMG!  Call Olbermann!  WotC is clearly the worst person in the world!

BTW, can I have your D&D books?


----------



## ferratus

What I find troubling is this happened right on the heels of releasing the Character Builder, which generates a character sheet.   

I don't know their true motives, but the timing makes this look like WotC didn't mind Ema's site while they didn't have their act together on their DDI software.  In other words, this looks like a management decision rather than just someone from legal trying to look busy.

With the GSL still not finished 9 months after the release of 4e, people have largely been playing it by ear as to how much reference to 4e will be tolerated.  If Ema's site is problematic, it is getting hard to see what 3rd party published works would be safe from censure.

I was considering working on coding an app for my new Iphone for displaying 4e power cards, but I sure as heck won't now.   I'm wondering if I can contribute to fan sites with 4e monsters and classes for old campaign settings (in my case Dragonlance) as well.


----------



## Jack99

Morrus said:


> They didn't "take down a fansite".  They sent a C&D regarding something which, if I were to guess, was the Character Manager.




For 3.x?


----------



## Sammael

This is low. Low low low. I'm sure someone from WotC will be around soon for some light damage control, as usual.


----------



## Shadowsong666

[just deleted all the insulting stuff prior to posting]

wtf, great move wotc. *claps*

So now its time to get a fanmade 4e hero lab module out and no farting way to stop us from using it.


----------



## chriton227

Someone probably got upset that a single fan managed to produce something useful in a small fraction of the time it took WotC to get anything up even with the massive head start WotC's internal development should have had.  If WotC would have had their stuff together at launch time, there really wouldn't have been much need for a site like Ema's.  

Maybe they'll realize that Ema has some skill and accomplished much more in less time than their internal team and entertain the thought of making him an offer.  Or maybe their ego is just too big to accept that someone might do something better than them.  After the debacle of eTools, the 3.0 character creator, and the laughable delays for DDI (how bad does your project management need to be to not know your flagship electronic product is running months if not years behind schedule in time to pull the ads from the books?), my money is on their ego, not their rationality.


----------



## jaerdaph

First WotC gets us attacked on 9/11 for releasing the Book of Vile Darkness, then cut gnomes from the PHB, and now this. When will the madness end? 

Seriously though, thanks for the great character sheets over the years, Ema!


----------



## Khairn

I wish I could say that I was shocked.  But I'm not.  This is the type of activity I expected once I saw how WotC was handling the GSL and their relationship with 3PP companies.  EMA's is a great site, and this truly does suk.

I wonder when the spin and damage control will start.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Morrus said:


> They didn't "take down a fansite".  They sent a C&D regarding something which, if I were to guess, was the Character Manager.




Well, actually:



			
				emass-web.com said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to inform you that this site is no more.
> Wizards of the Coast asked me to take it down, and I complied.
> 
> I'm sorry for all the fans who will miss it - I will miss it, too - but it was the right thing to do.
> 
> Time to move on...
> 
> Ema.



According to the site operator, WotC made him take down his fansite.  I think it's safe to assume they threatened legal action in the event of non-compliance.  That means that they literally did "take down a fansite."

edit: Fortunately, his character sheets are still available elsewhere on the internet, and will continue to be available until people lose interest in them.


----------



## jaerdaph

frankthedm said:


> But the stench of T is in the air...




I guess this makes them Wot¢ LOL! 

Be careful, dude. It's a proven fact that the amount of times you use "T$R" in your life is inversely proportional to the amount of times you will get laid in your life. 

I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.


----------



## blargney the second

This seems strange.  I wonder what happened.
-blarg


----------



## Drkfathr1

HiLiphNY said:


> Desperately low sales of 4e relative to those seen initially with 3.0 call for desperate behaviour, I suppose.
> 
> Yes, I'm having flashbacks of TSR during the 2E days with respect to their treatment of fan websites.




I've kind of been getting that vibe myself, but I may be reading too much between the lines.


----------



## Xyxox

It's nice to see Wot¢ return to its T$R roots.

The more I see, the more convinced I am that the OGL is the only way to go for gaming. NO issues whatsoever so long as you stay away from everything Wot¢ cosniders IP and closed.

IT seems to me, Wot¢ = ¢heapskates.


----------



## jaerdaph

Xyxox said:


> The more I see, the more convinced I am that the OGL is the only way to go for gaming. NO issues whatsoever so long as you stay away from everything Wot¢ cosniders IP and closed.




But isn't the issue that Ema didn't do that with the character manager? (Not rhetorical - I'm actually asking because I never really used that - and was it 3e/3.5e?)

I discovered Ema's site when she did a d20 Call of Cthulhu character sheets and a GM's screen. Those were absolutely beautiful.


----------



## Mark

> I'm sorry to inform you that this site is no more.
> Wizards of the Coast asked me to take it down, and I complied.
> 
> I'm sorry for all the fans who will miss it - I will miss it, too - but it was the right thing to do.
> 
> Time to move on...
> 
> Ema.





I am surprised that WotC has chosen to begin going after fansites.  I knew they were getting tough on file sharers and obviously are no longer interested in an expansive Open Gaming support system for their current edition, but I did not expect to see fansites targetted.  At one point they intimated they would have a fansite policy coming on the heels of the GSL but that has yet to be provided, so I am not sure how they would have expected Ema to know what lines not to cross.  I wonder how close to the line EN World is?


----------



## Xyxox

Mark said:


> I am surprised that WotC has chosen to begin going after fansites.  I knew they were getting tough on file sharers and obviously are no longer interested in an expansive Open Gaming support system for their current edition, but I did not expect to see fansites targetted.  At one point they intimated they would have a fansite policy coming on the heels of the GSL but that has yet to be provided, so I am not sure how they would have expected Ema to know what lines not to cross.  I wonder how close to the line EN World is?




I doubt they would go all Lorraine Williams on ENWorld. Open discussion of their game outside their own forum is absolutely necessary if they are to continue at all.


----------



## Jack99

Wik from WotC boards said:
			
		

> I think the problem was that there was a charge to store you stuff up there. I think that if he had provided the site and space free of charge nothing would have happened.
> 
> Just my thoughts.




Could this perhaps be the issue?


----------



## Mark

Xyxox said:


> Open discussion of their game outside their own forum is absolutely necessary if they are to continue at all.





Discussion is only a small part of what takes place at EN World.




Jack99 said:


> Could this perhaps be the issue?





I doubt it.  If it had been, the site could have remained open without charging and found some other revenue stream, such as selling some other commodity while keeping the site free.


----------



## Remathilis

Before we all go Nova and start using $ymbols instead of letters, take a deep breath.

Ema probably wasn't in trouble for his character sheets. He was probably in trouble for his auto-filling character generator which stored PC data on his website in a fashion similar to (though pre-dating) WotCs. 

There has always been a "software" clause in the SRD. WotC has turned a blind eye to HEROforge and the like because they were free. Ema was charging (abit a small fee used to webstorage) for his char-gen, which seems to violate WotC's good-natured policy.

Why now? Well, maybe its because WotC has competing software (in a different edtion) and they wanted to make sure no one uses the OGL/GSL to make a 4e Ema site to compete against WotC's DDi.

Does it suck, yeah, I guess. But before anyone goes off about TSR or "that other Washington-based company", keep in mind They were probably looking at a direct competitor, not fan-sites in general.


----------



## Shadowsong666

Remathilis said:


> Does it suck, yeah, I guess. But before anyone goes off about TSR or "that other Washington-based company", keep in mind They were probably looking at a direct competitor, not fan-sites in general.




Well, i don't think that this statement makes it any better for the fans that used the site and where happy with the services he provided so far. 

I think i should be happy, because getting rid of the competitors helps WotC strengthen the product they created so far. The character builder. just don't talk about the other stuff..please. Does it make me trust in WoTCs online tools now? Not really - no.

As it looks now, our gaming group will move away from 4e anyway for some time and revisit some systems that made us happy a long time before (funny thing how 4e shows you that old stuff isn't bad at all just because its old. ars magica and midgard come to mind. or merp, rm.. *cries*) and will make us happy again. But hell yeah, we ever been gamers first - no matter the system. Its all about the fun, right? 

ok - steam is kind a gone now i think.

did i mention that buying a netbook was one of the best things to do for gaming?


----------



## Xyxox

Remathilis said:


> Before we all go Nova and start using  instead of letters, take a deep breath.
> 
> Ema probably wasn't in trouble for his character sheets. He was probably in trouble for his auto-filling character generator which stored PC data on his website in a fashion similar to (though pre-dating) WotCs.
> 
> There has always been a "software" clause in the SRD. WotC has turned a blind eye to HEROforge and the like because they were free. Ema was charging (abit a small fee used to webstorage) for his char-gen, which seems to violate WotC's good-natured policy.
> 
> Why now? Well, maybe its because WotC has competing software (in a different edtion) and they wanted to make sure no one uses the OGL/GSL to make a 4e Ema site to compete against WotC's DDi.
> 
> Does it suck, yeah, I guess. But before anyone goes off about TSR or "that other Washington-based company", keep in mind They were probably looking at a direct competitor, not fan-sites in general.




Pssst, the 3.5 *S*ystem *R*eference *D*ocument is covered under the *O*pen *G*ame *L*icense and contains no "software clause". I think what you're thinking about was the *S*ystem *T*rademark *L*icense which did contain a "software clause". Of course, the STL is now defuct and 4E is only covered under the *G*ame *S*ystem *L*icense with a weird *S*ystem *R*eference *D*ocument . At any rate, I would agree with most who have stated that the C&D probably went after the 4E online storage stuff.


----------



## Jack of Shadows

francisca said:


> OMG!  Call Olbermann!  WotC is clearly the worst person in the world!
> 
> BTW, can I have your D&D books?




Bite me fanboy,

This situation struck an emotional chord and I should be allowed to express that emotion with out smug half-witted sarcasm.

JoS.


----------



## Ktulu

I know I should be irritated, but it's not like I ever used a fan-made character sheet, anyway.


----------



## Rel

There is a LOT of inappropriate posting going on in this thread.  Get it under control, folks.  If this has you furious then take a few deep breaths and step away from the computer.  Or go post about it someplace else.  You know the rules here require that opinions be expressed with civility.


----------



## Glyfair

Remathilis said:


> Ema probably wasn't in trouble for his character sheets. He was probably in trouble for his auto-filling character generator which stored PC data on his website in a fashion similar to (though pre-dating) WotCs.



Maybe.

Seriously, why was Ema's site asked to be taken down when other similar sites weren't?  What was different about it?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

jaerdaph said:


> But isn't the issue that Ema didn't do that with the character manager? (Not rhetorical - I'm actually asking because I never really used that - and was it 3e/3.5e?)
> 
> I discovered Ema's site when she did a d20 Call of Cthulhu character sheets and a GM's screen. Those were absolutely beautiful.




I think you mean "he".


----------



## thecasualoblivion

I paid for the full "God" subscription to Emas place, but only as a stopgap until the WotC character builder came out. Since I've had the full Insider app, I haven't touched Emas, so its no real skin off my back, though I may end up missing Ema's for printing out Ritual cards, which the Character Builder does not do. Despite a few bugs(of which Ema's had an equal amount), the Character Builder is a much better program. The magic item section in particular blows away anything else I have seen from anywhere else.

I'm surprised Ema's was around for as long as it was. If anything pushed the boundaries of what WotC could tolerate, it was that.

I agree with previous posters that it was the charging for content that was the major downfall of Ema's. If it was free, I don't think it would have been shut down.


----------



## rounser

> The more I see, the more convinced I am that the OGL is the only way to go for gaming. NO issues whatsoever so long as you stay away from everything Wot¢ cosniders IP and closed.



See my new sig for one suggested way forward.  I feel 3E is too much bookkeeping and prep time, 4E too hard to suspend disbelief for and retains 3E's long combats, and don't like the AD&D and OD&D thief and clunky bits, so a custom game based on S&W combined with the magic item and spell splat compilations of late 2E is looking darn appealing.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

I think the major gripe in this thread is that D&D(in the present tense) isn't OGL anymore, and this is the first real taste of that we've had.


----------



## Psion

The pendulum swings. I am reminded of rueful days when TSR went after fansites.

If there was a pay segment to Ema's site, I never used it. Really, I only ever use the 3.5 character sheets for spells. And it was great at that.

A great resource has been lost to the community. That, I regret.


----------



## Mindseye

My thanks to Ema..............your site has been the go-to site for many different systems for my group over the last few years. Thanks for the great work and sheets!

Without the big jump to conclusions, makes me a little nervous for fan sites and contributions.


----------



## Xyxox

thecasualoblivion said:


> I think the major gripe in this thread is that D&D(in the present tense) isn't OGL anymore, and this is the first real taste of that we've had.




Nope, though the OGL does offer an easy out to ever getting a C&D.

Many of us are having nasty memories of the TSR policy about fan sites from the 90s.

BTW, 4E isn't OGL, but the OGL can never die.


----------



## Firebeetle

So, is there a mirror site or an archive or anything? Just asking. . .


----------



## Psion

Firebeetle said:


> So, is there a mirror site or an archive or anything? Just asking. . .




You'll only find the navigational stuff at archive.org (and then, only for his 3e stuff).

The feature of Ema's what it has on-site software that generated PDF character/spell sheets to your specifications. That sort of stuff archive.org doesn't capture.


----------



## arscott

Glyfair said:


> Maybe.
> 
> Seriously, why was Ema's site asked to be taken down when other similar sites weren't?  What was different about it?



Similar Sites?  Ema's site is the only one I've ever seen that used non OGL material (stuff from Wizard's Splatbooks) _and_ charged money for its services.  If you can point me to a site like that which hasn't been shut down, I'd be surprised


----------



## Herremann the Wise

A player in our group purchased "storage" space at Ema's site, printing out power cards for the group in our 4E game. I was surprised at the time that a non-WotC site was able to (or more to the point willing to) do this from a copyright perspective. As such, I'm not surprised that a C&D was eventually sent although the timing seems interesting. Leave Ema alone initially as they try to grow 4E as a brand and product, but once they have their own Character Builder (with which Ema is now directly and illegally competing with), they close it down.

However, would WotC just want this directly competing site closed down or just the pay for storage part (which by the way guys had 4E stuff)? I have a feeling that Ema could have left just the character sheet stuff up and things might have been sweet. However, without the income stream, maybe Ema figured enough was enough, easier to close everything down and take a jab at WotC in the process. Maybe?

The aim of my speculation above is to demonstrate that we don't know the full story. Until then, over-reacting to it one way or the other might be rash. WotC have done a good job gaining good will after the Dragon and Dungeon debacle. I'd be surprised if they'd lowered the bar on this one.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## PeelSeel2

Never even heard of the site before this.  No big loss to me.


----------



## Glyfair

arscott said:


> Similar Sites?  Ema's site is the only one I've ever seen that used non OGL material (stuff from Wizard's Splatbooks) _and_ charged money for its services.  If you can point me to a site like that which hasn't been shut down, I'd be surprised



Didn't know about the non-OGL stuff, I only used the site for character sheets.  I know there was a site that was widely used because it carried almost all the non-OGL WotC "crunch" verbatim.  I was surprised that WotC didn't try to close it down at the time.

Charging for features that used "closed" WotC material.  I am surprised that many would complain about WotC clamping down on that.


----------



## Greylock

> Never even heard of the site before this. No big loss to me.




Ema has always had some of the best character sheets out there, and all in one easy to find place. Along with the Mad Irishman, Ema's site was a must visit for most gamers I know, IRL and on the web.


----------



## Irda Ranger

This is really annoying. The Core value of D&D is the rulebooks. There should be competition in accessories like character sheets & generators. I feel bad for Ema too, since his efforts were clearly ones of love not profit.


----------



## xechnao

Irda Ranger said:


> This is really annoying. The Core value of D&D is the rulebooks. There should be competition in accessories like character sheets & generators.




Why? Why are you saying there should there be competition for game accessories and not for rulebooks?
D&D is not a game or your game. D&D is a protected brand. These accessories you are talking about officially make part of D&D. This is Wotc's policy for what D&D comes to be. 
Whether you like it or not. And since you do not seem to really like it, the question is do you really know what you do not like here? Is it the understanding that D&D becomes a game of rigid and marketable pieces or is it the fact that the brand is protected?


----------



## SteveC

Unfortunately none of us really know the details of this situation, but on the surface it seems really bush league by WotC. I don't know what Ema had up for 4E, but his 3X site was a godsend to me: it let me put together all of the spells for my characters in one place. I used it all the time to find out about spells that were in books that I had purchased, but didn't want to go through all the time.

I have no idea who is making these decisions, but they're making public relations for the brand very difficult. It seems like we get some decision that riles up the fanbase just about at the point where WotC seems to be turning the corner on public relations. The new character builder is fantastic, and people have been saying good things about it as it relates to the DDI. That's the perfect time to take a fan site offline with a cease and desist. 

--Steve


----------



## thecasualoblivion

SteveC said:


> Unfortunately none of us really know the details of this situation, but on the surface it seems really bush league by WotC. I don't know what Ema had up for 4E, but his 3X site was a godsend to me: it let me put together all of the spells for my characters in one place. I used it all the time to find out about spells that were in books that I had purchased, but didn't want to go through all the time.
> 
> I have no idea who is making these decisions, but they're making public relations for the brand very difficult. It seems like we get some decision that riles up the fanbase just about at the point where WotC seems to be turning the corner on public relations. The new character builder is fantastic, and people have been saying good things about it as it relates to the DDI. That's the perfect time to take a fan site offline with a cease and desist.
> 
> --Steve




Ema's site used copyrighted WotC material that was not released under the OGL for both 3.5E and 4E, and charged money to use features of the site. I never used the 3.5E part of things, but I paid for and used the 4E section, which had full power descriptions from the PHB, Martial Power, and the Dragon magazines. At the time, I couldn't believe they hadn't already recieved a cease and desist. I'm surprised it took this long.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

SteveC said:


> Unfortunately none of us really know the details of this situation, but on the surface it seems really bush league by WotC. I don't know what Ema had up for 4E, but his 3X site was a godsend to me: it let me put together all of the spells for my characters in one place. I used it all the time to find out about spells that were in books that I had purchased, but didn't want to go through all the time.
> 
> I have no idea who is making these decisions, but they're making public relations for the brand very difficult. It seems like we get some decision that riles up the fanbase just about at the point where WotC seems to be turning the corner on public relations. The new character builder is fantastic, and people have been saying good things about it as it relates to the DDI. That's the perfect time to take a fan site offline with a cease and desist.
> 
> --Steve



See this is the thing, you say no one knows the details but you have still made a semi-judgment. You say you don't know what Ema had up for 4E but I think you'll find this is where the problem was (that led to the C&D). Ema moved on from just doing "character sheets". You call Ema's a fan site (because that was what it used to be) but again, what he then started doing was a commercial venture. As soon as you do that, you have to play on WotC's turf.

I'm getting the feeling that quite a few people on this thread have jumped to a conclusion based upon what Ema's site used to offer (all those wonderful character sheets), rather than what was being offered just before Ema closed it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Xyxox

herremann the wise said:


> see this is the thing, you say no one knows the details but you have still made a semi-judgment. You say you don't know what ema had up for 4e but i think you'll find this is where the problem was (that led to the c&d). Ema moved on from just doing "character sheets". You call ema's a fan site (because that was what it used to be) but again, what he then started doing was a commercial venture. As soon as you do that, you have to play on wotc's turf.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that quite a few people on this thread have jumped to a conclusion based upon what ema's site used to offer (all those wonderful character sheets), rather than what was being offered just before ema closed it.
> 
> Best regards
> herremann the wise




qft


----------



## Herremann the Wise

thecasualoblivion said:


> Ema's site used copyrighted WotC material that was not released under the OGL for both 3.5E and 4E, and charged money to use features of the site. I never used the 3.5E part of things, but I paid for and used the 4E section, which had full power descriptions from the PHB, Martial Power, and the Dragon magazines. At the time, I couldn't believe they hadn't already recieved a cease and desist. I'm surprised it took this long.



The timing is the interesting thing. As I said before, it could have made marketing sense to leave it until it became a direct competitor. WotC needed as much 4E exposure as they could get and perhaps leaving it untouched was the best thing initially. If this is the case, is this unfair on WotC? Ema "used" their copyright material to advantage so I suppose they could have "used" his site until it no longer provided advantage to them. Even this would seem fair enough if this was the case.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Xyxox

Herremann the Wise said:


> The timing is the interesting thing. As I said before, it could have made marketing sense to leave it until it became a direct competitor. WotC needed as much 4E exposure as they could get and perhaps leaving it untouched was the best thing initially. If this is the case, is this unfair on WotC? Ema "used" their copyright material to advantage so I suppose they could have "used" his site until it no longer provided advantage to them. Even this would seem fair enough if this was the case.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise





It would seem to me that WotC most likely considered the site a competitor that was using IP wholly owned by WotC to compete.

Any time in business when a competitor is using your property to compete against you, you have no choice but to shut that competitor down.


----------



## frankthedm

Herremann the >Wise< said:
			
		

> You call Ema's a fan site (because that was what it used to be) but again, what he then started doing was a commercial venture. As soon as you do that, you have to play on WotC's turf.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that quite a few people on this thread have jumped to a conclusion based upon what Ema's site used to offer (all those wonderful character sheets), rather than what was being offered just before Ema closed it.



Agreed. I retract my previous statement on this in regards to wotc. Indeed my _baseless suspicions_ now turn towards Ema closing up shop so quickly. Could not Ema only removed the 4e material? Since there is money involved, are refunds going to be issued for undelivered services?

I think anyone who payed for any services on the now defunct website should be communicating with Ema and Paypal to ensure prompt refund of any remaining funds owed.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Xyxox said:


> It would seem to me that WotC most likely considered the site a competitor that was using IP wholly owned by WotC to compete.
> 
> Any time in business when a competitor is using your property to compete against you, you have no choice but to shut that competitor down.




Until the full release of the Character Builder, Ema's technically wasn't competing with WotC, since WotCs competing product wasn't out yet. So it does make sense on some levels that Ema's was allowed to exist as it did until the Character Builder was released.

As I've said several times, I'm surprised it got away with it for as long as it did. While I used Ema's and happily paid for my subscription, I always felt it was a C&D waiting to happen.


----------



## Obryn

Waitasec...  Bear with me a moment, because I've never been to Ema's site that I remember.

So Ema sets up a site which lets you print out copyrighted material, complete text from the books ... and that site wasn't licensed to do so ... and the site charged for full functionality 

... and a C&D comes as a surprise somehow?

Gosh, I figured companies love it when people re-sell their stuff.

I know everyone wants to get upset at WotC, but if this is all true, then I'm upset at Ema.  Personally, I'd like a workable GSL that more third-party companies can work with.  Regardless of my personal opinions on copyright issues, crap like this makes the GSL fight even harder.

There's a thin line between a fan site and a commercial site.  When you're directly paying for functionality, and copyrighted non-original material is part of the deal...  Well, that crosses the line.

Now, with that said, WotC likely doesn't have a right to say, "Shut the whole thing down!" if Ema also had OGL material up.  I hope the non-infringing stuff gets straightened out and back up so that fans of his work can get back to it.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion

frankthedm said:


> Agreed. I retract my previous statement on this in regards to wotc. Indeed my _baseless suspicions_ now turn towards Ema closing up shop so quickly. Could not Ema only removed the 4e material? Since there is money involved, are refunds going to be issued for undelivered services?




I don't think thats really possible. What Ema's did beforehand probably skirted copyright issues, but since there wasn't money involved, there was no reason for WotC to lay the smack down. Once money became involved in it(even if it was only to pay for bandwith, since selling subscriptions is a lot different than asking for donations), the die was cast and I don't think there was any way to separate it anymore. I don't think it was an option for WotC to crack down on the paid stuff while leaving the old character sheets alone.

There is also the issue that had WotC allowed Ema's to continue as it was, it would theoretically be encouraging others to do the same.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Obryn said:


> Waitasec...  Bear with me a moment, because I've never been to Ema's site that I remember.
> 
> So Ema sets up a site which lets you print out copyrighted material, complete text from the books ... and that site wasn't licensed to do so ... and the site charged for full functionality
> 
> ... and a C&D comes as a surprise somehow?
> 
> Gosh, I figured companies love it when people re-sell their stuff.
> 
> I know everyone wants to get upset at WotC, but if this is all true, then I'm upset at Ema.  Personally, I'd like a workable GSL that more third-party companies can work with.  Regardless of my personal opinions on copyright issues, crap like this makes the GSL fight even harder.
> 
> There's a thin line between a fan site and a commercial site.  When you're directly paying for functionality, and copyrighted non-original material is part of the deal...  Well, that crosses the line.
> 
> Now, with that said, WotC likely doesn't have a right to say, "Shut the whole thing down!" if Ema also had OGL material up.  I hope the non-infringing stuff gets straightened out and back up so that fans of his work can get back to it.
> 
> -O




I blame the open-gaming mindset and a hangover from the bad old days of "*T*hey *S*ue *R*egularly".


----------



## Mark

thecasualoblivion said:


> Ema's site used copyrighted WotC material that was not released under the OGL for both 3.5E and 4E, and charged money to use features of the site.






Herremann the Wise said:


> (. . .) what he then started doing was a commercial venture. As soon as you do that, you have to play on WotC's turf.





Whether money is charged or not, IP needs to be protected.  Part of the reasoning behind the advent of the OGL and the subsequent 3.x fansite policy was an effort to manage an inevitable amount of usage by a growing online community.  One of the side effects of abandoning the OGL for the newest edition of D&D was a need to create a new policy for how to deal with online activity that might violate copyright and trademarks.  Recently we found out that Scott Rouse was tasked with curtailing filesharing of D&D materials, a task that he said was prioitized higher than making adjustments to the current GSL.  Now a site carrying 4E IP material that was a fansite and began charging a fee received a C&D notice, prompting its closing.  It remains to be seen if they will take the same stance with a site that might do the same thing but not charge money for it, however, the fact that Ema did not simply cease charging and actually shut down the entire site seems to indicate that was not an option.  Perhaps they will reopen with more limited content and still charge, or not charge, or something else.  That also remains to be seen.  Some have suggested that it was the "software" aspect that brought on the C&D but, honestly, I doubt anyone believes that illegally utilizing someone's IP is okay outside of "software" but a no-no used in conjunction with "software" of some kind.  If anyone does believe the above conditional usages, they could go right ahead and open a fansite with all of the same material outside of a "software" application and not charge for it, then see how long before they receive a C&D, though I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## Xyxox

thecasualoblivion said:


> I don't think thats really possible. What Ema's did beforehand probably skirted copyright issues, but since there wasn't money involved, there was no reason for WotC to lay the smack down. Once money became involved in it(even if it was only to pay for bandwith, since selling subscriptions is a lot different than asking for donations), the die was cast and I don't think there was any way to separate it anymore. I don't think it was an option for WotC to crack down on the paid stuff while leaving the old character sheets alone.
> 
> There is also the issue that had WotC allowed Ema's to continue as it was, it would theoretically be encouraging others to do the same.




On top of that, if the site included trademarked material, WotC could lose all rights to those trademarks if it chose not to vigorously defend the IP.

As I'm not familiar with Ema's site, I cannot say whther or not trademarked content was there, but if it was then WotC had no choice but to shut Ema down completely.


----------



## jephlewis

I think i've been to ema's a few times in the past. I normally just print out the free, plain jane, black and white 3.5 character sheets that i'm pretty sure I got from the wotc site; they were the exact same thing as the sheet in the PHB.

IF ema was hosting non-OGL stuff AND charging money related to that, then I definitely won't fault wotc for acting on it.

IF ema was only hosting OGL stuff, charging for it or not, then yeah, that's kinda messed up on wotc's part. It doesn't sound like that's the case though.

It sure would be nice if ema, a wotc representative, or both would give us some more info.


----------



## xechnao

thecasualoblivion said:


> I don't think thats really possible. What Ema's did beforehand probably skirted copyright issues, but since there wasn't money involved, there was no reason for WotC to lay the smack down. Once money became involved in it(even if it was only to pay for bandwith, since selling subscriptions is a lot different than asking for donations), the die was cast and I don't think there was any way to separate it anymore. I don't think it was an option for WotC to crack down on the paid stuff while leaving the old character sheets alone.
> 
> There is also the issue that had WotC allowed Ema's to continue as it was, it would theoretically be encouraging others to do the same.




I do not know Ema's site but what you are saying does not really square based on what has been said on this thread. Ema could have simply canceled service of 4e copyrighted material and remain on OGL material. Especially if some people could have donated money for this. But I understand there could be technical complications.


----------



## Obryn

xechnao said:


> I do not know Ema's site but what you are saying does not really square based on what has been said on this thread. Ema could have simply canceled service of 4e copyrighted material and remain on OGL material. Especially since it seems some people could have payed money for this.



Neither of us have seen the C&D.

If WotC demanded the whole site - infringing AND non-infringing - be taken down, then bad on them.

If they only asked for the removal of the 4e material and Ema took the whole site down in response...  Well, it's either a matter of confusion or something else entirely.

Basically, I don't know that we have enough information on this without more information.  Rushing to judgment may be the internet's favorite pasttime, but why not give it some time?

-O


----------



## Obryn

jephlewis said:


> It sure would be nice if ema, a wotc representative, or both would give us some more info.



I doubt WotC will say anything specific, for legal reasons.

Ema, though, would be perfectly free to scan and post the C&D letter.

-O


----------



## xechnao

Obryn said:


> Neither of us have seen the C&D.
> 
> If WotC demanded the whole site - infringing AND non-infringing - be taken down, then bad on them.
> 
> If they only asked for the removal of the 4e material and Ema took the whole site down in response...  Well, it's either a matter of confusion or something else entirely.
> 
> Basically, I don't know that we have enough information on this without more information.  Rushing to judgment may be the internet's favorite pasttime, but why not give it some time?
> 
> -O




Agreed.


----------



## darjr

I've been to Ema's a few times as well.

Never used the pay services, just downloaded and browsed character sheets.

I don't blame WotC for a C&D if Ema's used their property, and I don't blame Ema for taking his ball and going home after getting one from WotC.

Really, these sites are not free, in the end somebody pays. If the C&D killed Ema's big seller, I understand the decision to punk all the stuff, stuff covered by the C&D and not.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

xechnao said:


> I do not know Ema's site but what you are saying does not really square based on what has been said on this thread. Ema could have simply canceled service of 4e copyrighted material and remain on OGL material. Especially if some people could have donated money for this. But I understand there could be technical complications.




I used the 4E section of Ema's site, which for all intents and purposes was an online version of the Character Builder, with fully texted Power Cards and even D&D logos on the character sheets. I also paid for the privilege.

I'm not an expert on copyright stuff, but I have a feeling that it wasn't really practical for there to being exceptions in this sort of C&D letter.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

...huh.  I just realized that this is probably what Scott Rouse was talking about a couple of weeks ago when he was listing the things that were distracting him from OGL completion.


----------



## Greylock

jephlewis said:
			
		

> I think i've been to ema's a few times in the past. I normally just print out the free, plain jane, black and white 3.5 character sheets that i'm pretty sure I got from the wotc site; they were the exact same thing as the sheet in the PHB.




They were not the same as WotC's. They were made by Ema, or collected by Ema. Most were made by Ema and had a certain style that was definitely his own. I only ever used the character sheets and don't recall there being any I.P. material there at all. At least nothing that wasn't already in the SRD. Maybe things changed? I stopped using his sheets at about the same time [go figger] I started playing Castles & Crusades. My group is back into 3.x for the time being, but I'm using HeroForge again and the rest of the group is either using PCGen or pen & paper.

Man, I wonder what HeroForge is up to...


----------



## Mark

thecasualoblivion said:


> I used the 4E section of Ema's site, (. . .)
> 
> I also paid for the privilege.
> 
> I'm not an expert on copyright stuff (. . .)





Understood.




Amy Kou'ai said:


> ...huh.  I just realized that this is probably what Scott Rouse was talking about a couple of weeks ago when he was listing the things that were distracting him from OGL completion.





I believe he posted that he was actually out of the country dealing with a different issue, though he may well have had to deal with this, as well.


----------



## chriton227

Mark said:


> I believe he posted that he was actually out of the country dealing with a different issue, though he may well have had to deal with this, as well.




This may have been why he was out of the country.  Ema's was based out of Italy.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Greylock said:


> They were not the same as WotC's. They were made by Ema, or collected by Ema. Most were made by Ema and had a certain style that was definitely his own. I only ever used the character sheets and don't recall there being any I.P. material there at all. At least nothing that wasn't already in the SRD. Maybe things changed? I stopped using his sheets at about the same time [go figger] I started playing Castles & Crusades. My group is back into 3.x for the time being, but I'm using HeroForge again and the rest of the group is either using PCGen or pen & paper.
> 
> Man, I wonder what HeroForge is up to...




The paid character manager could print out 4E power cards that were pretty much verbatim right out of the 4E books(though no maths), and the 4E is very much not part of the OGL/SRD. In addition, looking at a 4E character sheet I printed out using the character manager, in the upper left hand corner is the 4E D&D logo, just as it appears on the 4E books.


----------



## Mark

chriton227 said:


> This may have been why he was out of the country.  Ema's was based out of Italy.





Sorry, my bad.  Here's the post describing what he was up to, and it seems like it is different from what was dealt with in regard to Ema.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...d-4e-gaming-system-license-2.html#post4639669


----------



## xechnao

A stupid question. The GSL is incompatible with the service Ema was offering right? Can anyone explain?


----------



## Mark

xechnao said:


> A stupid question. The GSL is incompatible with the service Ema was offering right? Can anyone explain?




http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/GSL_20080617.pdf

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/4EGSLFAQ061708.pdf

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811



> Wizards of the Coast announces a forthcoming revision to the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License (GSL) and System Reference Document (SRD).
> 
> “We recognize the important role third party publishing support plays in the success of the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. We have listened to the community and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart. Our commitment to the health of the industry and hobby gaming lifestyle is reflected in the revisions to the Game System License.”
> --Linae Foster D&D Licensing Manager
> 
> While the delivery date is not yet firmly established, the revised documents will be available in the very near future.
> 
> The new fan site policy, to be made public at a later date, will be posted upon completion.




No fansite policy as of yet and no revised GSL.  In less than a week, it will be six months since the quoted statement though it is of note that the person who made the statement is no longer with the company and the fansite policy statement comes after, and is not part of the quote.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

xechnao said:


> A stupid question. The GSL is incompatible with the service Ema was offering right? Can anyone explain?




I'm not a GSL expert, but it basically allows you to create your own content for use with 4E and forbids reprinting most existing content(I'm positive it forbids reprinting power and ritual descriptions, which Ema's Character Manager did). There is also no GSL in place for websites and software, though there may be in the future.


----------



## xechnao

I see. Thanks


----------



## Keefe the Thief

I was afraid this was gonna happen. Combine the wotc-content with the pay-service, and you had a perfect situation for a C&D. I´m still surprised that Wizards didnt act earlier. Sad thing. I hope Ema comes out of this. 

Now to check the different fora on the internet. There are, after all, many people who are right now sharpening their knives over this. T$R and all that silly stuff...


----------



## Aus_Snow

If it was Ema's decision to shut down *the entire site*, well that's a shame. Ongoing costs, I suppose.

If it was WotC's. . . nah. 'Nuff said.


----------



## xechnao

Now that I come to think of it is it not technically illegal to have downloaded from that site copyrighted content?


----------



## Baumi

That character-creation sites get closed is nothing new, TSR did it, WOTC did it in 3E and now in 4E it's the same. While I find it sad that some great resources get lost, I do understand why it is done and I am therefore not angry about it.

Anyway I just came in to this treat to THANK EMA for helping me out for years with my 3E Characters and I hope that his future works are as awesome as his Sheets were!


----------



## Jack99

xechnao said:


> Now that I come to think of it is it not technically illegal to have downloaded from that site copyrighted content?




Pretty sure it is.


----------



## Shadowsong666

Jack99 said:


> Pretty sure it is.




And they will sue you. 
Come on - no one really cares what you downloaded and did on that site. There won't be anyone knocking at your door for having used ema's site.


----------



## Jack99

Shadowsong666 said:


> And they will sue you.
> Come on - no one really cares what you downloaded and did on that site. There won't be anyone knocking at your door for having used ema's site.




Of course not. But the question was if it was illegal to download those things.


----------



## Truth Seeker

Your Sheets will be missed.​


----------



## Mark

Baumi said:


> That character-creation sites get closed is nothing new, TSR did it, WOTC did it in 3E and now in 4E it's the same.






Character creation was not allowed under the d20 STL but was fine under the OGL without the d20 STL, so WotC can/could have asked someone to remove the d20 logo but an OGL site with character creation would be permissable provided they were careful to avoid copyright infringement, illegal use of trademarks, and some other stipulations in the OGL regarding compatibility claims and the like.  I'm not sure of the exact number of OGL games that have SRD 3.x materials as their base available now that also have character creation rules but they do exist.  I am sure other people could chime in with their favorites.


----------



## Xyxox

Mark said:


> Character creation was not allowed under the d20 STL but was fine under the OGL without the d20 STL, so WotC can/could have asked someone to remove the d20 logo but an OGL site with character creation would be permissable provided they were careful to avoid copyright infringement, illegal use of trademarks, and some other stipulations in the OGL regarding compatibility claims and the like.  I'm not sure of the exact number of OGL games that have SRD 3.x materials as their base available now that also have character creation rules but they do exist.  I am sure other people could chime in with their favorites.




Well, section 13 of the OGL may have ended up being the doom of any open content on Ema's site:



> 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.


----------



## Zaukrie

I'm with the crowd that understands why WotC did it, and thinks they should be doing it. If they don't protect their IP, then when someone really tries to use it to make big money, they won't be able to stop that either. We may all want cool toys from many sources, but WotC owns this IP. I understand the emotion, but I hope over time that people come to the realization that if WotC doesn't do stuff like this, there is no D&D brand.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Based on what I've read here and on WotC's boards, I think they did the right thing.

However, I think a lot of the reaction from us fans is one of fear/dissapointment. The lack of a revised GSL and of a fansite policy means every fansite is flying blind...and third party publishers who want to support 4e won't (Necro, Green Ronin).


I'm disgusted not by this, but by the fact that WotC seems to be actively discouraging (or at the very least, doing nothing to encourage) others to support the new system. 

Look for 4e fansites. Find any?


----------



## Mark

Xyxox said:


> Well, section 13 of the OGL may have ended up being the doom of any open content on Ema's site:






> 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.





It may be something that was threatened but it is something that is easily fixed.  I do not know if Ema actually used the OGL or simply had OGC on the website.  It's my impression, though, that this was not an OGL issue at all but rather a 4E IP situation.  Be careful not to confuse issues about 4E licensed content, such as that under the 4E SRD available for restrictive use under the GSL, and issues about using OGC such as materials opened under the 3.x SRD and the OGL.  The latter cannot be rescinded if properly followed while the former can be ended at the discretion of WotC.  Two very different things and the OGL section you quoted above probably does not enter into this.




Aberzanzorax said:


> The lack of a revised GSL and of a fansite policy means every fansite is flying blind...and third party publishers who want to support 4e won't (Necro, Green Ronin).
> 
> 
> I'm disgusted not by this, but by the fact that WotC seems to be actively discouraging (or at the very least, doing nothing to encourage) others to support the new system.
> 
> Look for 4e fansites. Find any?





I suppose, according to section 5.5 of the GSL, 4E fansites that use WotC 4E IP only exist if WotC wishes to turn a blind eye to them.


----------



## Mournblade94

xechnao said:


> D&D is a protected brand.




Spoken true.  That is about all it is at this point.


----------



## Xyxox

Mark said:


> It may be something that was threatened but it is something that is easily fixed.  I do not know if Ema actually used the OGL or simply had OGC on the website.  It's my impression, though, that this was not an OGL issue at all but rather a 4E IP situation.  Be careful not to confuse issues about 4E licensed content, such as that under the 4E SRD available for restrictive use under the GSL, and issues about using OGC such as materials opened under the 3.x SRD and the OGL.  The latter cannot be rescinded if properly followed while the former can be ended at the discretion of WotC.  Two very different things and the OGL section you quoted above probably does not enter into this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, according to section 5.5 of the GSL, 4E fansites that use WotC 4E IP only exist if WotC wishes to turn a blind eye to them.





Under the OGL, certain content is considered product identity and cannot be used. If Ema used "Dungeons and Dragons" in any context on the content presented, WotC would be within their rights to terminate the terms of the OGL regardless of the version supported with those terms.

Also, presenting OGC without a copy of the OGL is a violation of the OGL and would terminate the OGL.

In effect, the GSL is mutually exlusive with the OGL. 3PP can do one or the other, but not both as doing both negates both.


Regardless, based upon what people say Ema was doing, the site violated IP wholly owned by WotC. From the sounds of it, that included violations of WotC owned trademarks. If, in fact, there was any violation of WotC trademarks, WotC had no choice at all but to shut down the entire site. WotC must vigorously defend trademarks in all cases and can never "turn a blind eye" to such violations.


----------



## Mark

I hate doing this but you are kinda all over the place in your post so I am going to break it up to respond to separate issues more precisely.  Please forgive this tactic.



Xyxox said:


> Under the OGL, certain content is considered product identity and cannot be used. If Ema used "Dungeons and Dragons" in any context on the content presented, WotC would be within their rights to terminate the terms of the OGL regardless of the version supported with those terms.





Not quite.  Technically, if someone claims compatibility with a trademark without permission they are in violation of the license and it automatically terminates.  WotC does not actually get to terminate it by their choice.  WotC can, however, go after someone using their trademark wituout permission whether or not that same someone was doing so while claiming some sort of compatibility.




Xyxox said:


> Also, presenting OGC without a copy of the OGL is a violation of the OGL and would terminate the OGL.





Again, not quite.  If the OGL was not in use in the first place then would more precisely be an issue of copyright infringement since (in almost all cases) the copyright is retained by the contributor of the OGC.




Xyxox said:


> In effect, the GSL is mutually exlusive with the OGL. 3PP can do one or the other, but not both as doing both negates both.





(Leaving aside the suspected oxymoron status of "mutually exlusive with" ) Perhaps not in practice.  It may well be that even an individual could have two separate companies that individually produced materials for each format, or that a person might be a 3PP in the case of producing material for one but hold the status of freelancer while producing materials for the other.  There are some rather big holes in the concept of only allowing 4E support by persons willing to rescind ever support other D&D branded materials.  I am guessing we will see this crop up again and also feel that ultimately the fact that WotC can simply disallow anyone from supporting 4E trumps any loopholes that exist.  Time will tell.




Xyxox said:


> Regardless, based upon what people say Ema was doing, the site violated IP wholly owned by WotC. From the sounds of it, that included violations of WotC owned trademarks. If, in fact, there was any violation of WotC trademarks, WotC had no choice at all but to shut down the entire site. WotC must vigorously defend trademarks in all cases and can never "turn a blind eye" to such violations.





I don't disagree.


----------



## Obryn

Mournblade94 said:


> Spoken true.  That is about all it is at this point.



Are we going to pretend at this point that pre-4e WotC didn't protect their closed content in a similar way?

I mean, infringement was much rarer since the STL and OGL gave people an easy safe haven.  But I seem to remember a big brouhahah over use of mind flayers and beholders in some third-party products, too.

Somehow, I also doubt that WotC would have been fine and dandy with full PDFs of their books on pirate sites.

-O


----------



## avin

> I'm sorry to inform you that this site is no more.
> Wizards of the Coast asked me to take it down, and I complied.
> 
> I'm sorry for all the fans who will miss it - I will miss it, too - but it was the right thing to do.
> 
> Time to move on...
> 
> Ema.




It seems that whoever is Ema she agrees with Wotc decision.

I've never been there but, as some said, she was using non OGL/GSL content... that was more than expected.

*feeling dirty for agreeing with corporate decisions*


----------



## Mark

avin said:


> *feeling dirty for agreeing with corporate decisions*





I hear alcohol can wash that away, if applied internally.


----------



## jaerdaph

Lonely Tylenol said:


> I think you mean "he".




Thanks - I never knew that . Sorry 'bout that, Ema.


----------



## morgul97

Aus_Snow said:


> If it was Ema's decision to shut down *the entire site*, well that's a shame. Ongoing costs, I suppose.




This was likely settle amicably, with Ema getting a few bucks and having to sign a non-compete / non disclosure agreement.


----------



## Sammael

I must admit I was not aware of Ema's latest site features (4E power card generator and character storage), which are obviously stepping on WotC's toes entirely too much.

The 3.x part of the site did contain some WotC IP (names of spells from non-OGL books and brief spell descriptions, for example), but that should be allowed for a fan site/under the fair use clause - after all, a reviewer would be entitled to include as much in a review.

I apologize for my yesterday's comment which was made without full possession of the facts. I'm still not sure this was handled in the best possible manner, but WotC was within its rights to send a C&D.


----------



## Jack of Shadows

OK,

There's a lot of chatter with out a lot of facts. So here are some facts:

- Ema is short for Emanuele. Ema's a guy
- The Character Manager had a _one-time_ payment for lifetime access.
- This payment was to help Ema cover the extra expense of the increased server cost.
- Ema was most certainly running at a loss so calling it a business is absurd as it certainly wasn't for profit.
- The Character Manager was just form-fillable PDF's not a character generator. It was nowhere near what the DDI Character Creator does for you.
- The Character Manager did allow you to print off Power Cards for your 4E character but the descriptions weren't copied wholesale from the core books. They were contractions rewritten for brevity. You usually had to refer to the core rules to understand exactly how they functioned.

Some speculation:

- It's not the DDI Character Creator that pushed WotC to send the C&D but their upcoming release of Power Card packs. No one's going to buy this product if some one is letting you print them off for a small one time fee.
- Personally I think WotC could have avoided a lot bad blood if they'd just offered Ema a contract to design sheets for the DDI Character Creator in exchange for closing down his site. The one critical failure on the Creator for me is the butt-ugly, dysfunctional sheet it generates at the end.

JoS.


----------



## Xyxox

Jack of Shadows said:


> OK,
> 
> There's a lot of chatter with out a lot of facts. So here are some facts:
> 
> - Ema is short for Emanuele. Ema's a guy
> - The Character Manager had a _one-time_ payment for lifetime access.
> - This payment was to help Ema cover the extra expense of the increased server cost.
> - Ema was most certainly running at a loss so calling it a business is absurd as it certainly wasn't for profit.
> - The Character Manager was just form-fillable PDF's not a character generator. It was nowhere near what the DDI Character Creator does for you.
> - The Character Manager did allow you to print off Power Cards for your 4E character but the descriptions weren't copied wholesale from the core books. They were contractions rewritten for brevity. You usually had to refer to the core rules to understand exactly how they functioned.




Did it say "Dungeons and Dragons" anywhere on what Ema put up?



Jack of Shadows said:


> Some speculation:




There's a lot of that going around...


----------



## Mournblade94

Obryn said:


> Are we going to pretend at this point that pre-4e WotC didn't protect their closed content in a similar way?
> 
> I mean, infringement was much rarer since the STL and OGL gave people an easy safe haven. But I seem to remember a big brouhahah over use of mind flayers and beholders in some third-party products, too.
> 
> Somehow, I also doubt that WotC would have been fine and dandy with full PDFs of their books on pirate sites.
> 
> -O




No.

Ema's problem goes back to TSR.  It does not enrage me at all, I understand it.

With the merger with Hasbro came D&D having more importance as a BRAND rather than a GAME.  Dungeons and Dragons will sell well regardless of what rules system is placed between its covers, or what CD is placed in a box.


----------



## Sammael

Xyxox said:


> Did it say "Dungeons and Dragons" anywhere on what Ema put up?



Yes, it did. But the whole "must protect trademark at all costs" is blatantly false. Wait until one of the resident IP lawyers (there are at least two here) shows up, they'll be able to explain it much better than I would.


----------



## Xyxox

Sammael said:


> Yes, it did. But the whole "must protect trademark at all costs" is blatantly false. Wait until one of the resident IP lawyers (there are at least two here) shows up, they'll be able to explain it much better than I would.




IT still depends. If he embedded an actual logo, the trademark must be defended. IF it said "compatible for use with Dungeons and DragonsⓇ", then there's no need to defend that trademark. Please note, this only states two potential permutations and in no way is a listing of all possibilities.

My guess is, the issue involved trademarks.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

I just thought I cross post here what I said over on the WotC boards 



> I know some of you are upset of about Ema's web site. I wish that I could explain it for you, but I can't talk about the details as this is a legal issue.
> 
> What I will say is that what happened with Ema's should not be interpreted as a war against fan sites. We value fan sites like ENWorld, RPGnet, Athas.org, Dragonlance Nexus, Candle Keep and the others that add to the D&D community while respecting our IP and business.
> 
> Also, we are still working on our fan site policy which will provide guidelines for the use of Wizards’ IPs moving forward.
> 
> Regards,


----------



## davethegame

Jack of Shadows said:


> - It's not the DDI Character Creator that pushed WotC to send the C&D but their upcoming release of Power Card packs. No one's going to buy this product if some one is letting you print them off for a small one time fee.




There are multiple sites that allow you to print out power cards (copyrighted text and all) but none others that I know of that charge. So if those start to go down, you'll be proven right, but my feeling is that the charging are what summoned the lawyers.


----------



## avin

Mark said:


> I hear alcohol can wash that away, if applied internally.




Nice idea, we're having some brazilian barbecue and beer tonight, hooray for my sins


----------



## Mark

avin said:


> Nice idea, we're having some brazilian barbecue and beer tonight, hooray for my sins





Sounds delicious! 


Well, with that post from Scott it seems simple enough.  Respect the IP of WotC and all is good.  On a lighter note, as in less voluminous, please respect the IP of all publishers, big and small.


----------



## Shemeska

avin said:


> Nice idea, we're having some brazilian barbecue and beer tonight, hooray for my sins




Sounds like a plan to me. I'll be having sushi tonight, but the sinning won't commence till Saturday.


----------



## catsclaw227

Thanks for popping in Scott.  I appreciate the post.



			
				Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> - The Character Manager had a one-time payment for lifetime access.
> - This payment was to help Ema cover the extra expense of the increased server cost.
> - Ema was most certainly running at a loss so calling it a business is absurd as it certainly wasn't for profit.



Well... asking to pay for something, in this case WOTC IP, is still not right.  And if a business doesn't make profit, but still collects funds, it is STILL a business.  Profit is a preferable byproduct.

Also, if what people are saying is true, it was a pretty blatant violation of the GSL (if one was ever even signed).

Sounds like there were two different issues.  Illegal use of 4e content and use of non-OGL WOTC 3.5 content.  I would expect a C&D to be sent.

Also, Ema clearly states on the new homepage that it was the right thing to do.

The only "bad blood" appears to come from the posters that don't have all the facts and are jumping to conclusions about what really happened.


----------



## Wormwood

Mark said:


> Respect the IP of WotC and all is good.  On a lighter note, as in less voluminous, please respect the IP of all publishers, big and small.



Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## chriton227

catsclaw227 said:


> The only "bad blood" appears to come from the posters that don't have all the facts and are jumping to conclusions about what really happened.




My bad blood comes from losing access without notice to about a dozen characters that I don't know if I can find hardcopies of. I gladly would have used a similar service if WotC had provided it, but WotC didn't for almost 8 months after launch even though they advertised (falsely) that it was already available in the core 4e books.  I know legally they had every right to ask Ema to shut down, but I stand by my view that Ema was fulfilling a need, and that WotC promised to fulfill that same need and broke their promise.  

I feel that their primary commitment is to their legal team, not their product or their customers.  Perfect evidence of this was the prohibition on copying the character sheets in KotS, and then the delay in getting printable versions posted (this should have taken no more than 24 hours, especially given that this was their first launch product for 4e).  There were many people who were distributing Word or PDF versions of those sheets because once again WotC failed to keep their commitments in a timely manner.  Or the lack of a dungeon builder, when they already had a perfectly functional one (that they didn't bother to keep updated with the current dungeon tile sets despite saying right on the page that it will be updated with future sets) they could post as part of DDI until the new one is ready.

There is a sign on the wall where I work that says "If we don't serve our customers, someone else will".  That is 100% true, and when WotC failed to serve their customers, Ema was there to be the someone else.  If they continue to fail to serve their customers, next time that someone else may be a game company willing and able to serve those customers with a different game instead of a fan using WotC's IP.  

WotC has repeatedly misled their customers and failed to deliver on their promises since the 3.0 launch (if not before), they shouldn't be at all surprised if they've just about used up their customers' good will.  Once that good will is gone, even reasonable and justifiable actions will be looked on with suspicion.


----------



## Khairn

Scott_Rouse said:


> Also, we are still working on our fan site policy which will provide guidelines for the use of Wizards’ IPs moving forward.




Scott, thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts.  I do understand some of the legalities involved in a C&D, and why you can't discuss how that impacted Ema's shutting down.  Its a tough situation and probably can't help but leave some negative feelings for many gamers.

But as for WotC's new "fan site guidelines", I hope you can understand that given the current state of the GSL, (restrictive and long overdue) why I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation of something open, supportive or easy to understand & implement.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

POST REMOVED BY MODERATOR

I made it very clear that this kind of thing wasn't going to be tolerated in here.  You're banned for a week.


----------



## scruffygrognard

chriton227 said:


> I stand by my view that Ema was fulfilling a need, and that WotC promised to fulfill that same need and broke their promise.
> 
> I feel that their primary commitment is to their legal team, not their product or their customers.  Perfect evidence of this was the prohibition on copying the character sheets in KotS, and then the delay in getting printable versions posted (this should have taken no more than 24 hours, especially given that this was their first launch product for 4e).  There were many people who were distributing Word or PDF versions of those sheets because once again WotC failed to keep their commitments in a timely manner.  Or the lack of a dungeon builder, when they already had a perfectly functional one (that they didn't bother to keep updated with the current dungeon tile sets despite saying right on the page that it will be updated with future sets) they could post as part of DDI until the new one is ready.
> 
> There is a sign on the wall where I work that says "If we don't serve our customers, someone else will".  That is 100% true, and when WotC failed to serve their customers, Ema was there to be the someone else.  If they continue to fail to serve their customers, next time that someone else may be a game company willing and able to serve those customers with a different game instead of a fan using WotC's IP.
> 
> WotC has repeatedly misled their customers and failed to deliver on their promises since the 3.0 launch (if not before), they shouldn't be at all surprised if they've just about used up their customers' good will.  Once that good will is gone, even reasonable and justifiable actions will be looked on with suspicion.




Well said! I agree with you 100%.


----------



## Obryn

chriton227 said:


> My bad blood comes from losing access without notice to about a dozen characters that I don't know if I can find hardcopies of.



If the site wasn't legal, shouldn't you take this up with Ema?  In this transaction you were Ema's customer, not WotC's.

-O


----------



## catsclaw227

chriton227 said:


> My bad blood comes from losing access without notice to about a dozen characters that I don't know if I can find hardcopies of.




Now... this I understand.  Did Ema have a disclaimer on the site stating that your stuff could be yoinked off without prior notice or without time to allow users to export or download? 

I mean, as cool as the site was, it was still very questionable in it's legality, and it should have been disclosed up front.

In this respect, your complaint shouldn't be with WOTC, it should be with Ema for not at least exporting or emailing everyone their sheets before shutting down shop.  This assumes of course, that it was allowed. 




chriton227 said:


> There is a sign on the wall where I work that says "If we don't serve our customers, someone else will".  That is 100% true, and when WotC failed to serve their customers, Ema was there to be the someone else.



This may be the case, but it still wasn't Ema's right to do it.  



chriton227 said:


> WotC has repeatedly misled their customers and failed to deliver on their promises since the 3.0 launch (if not before), they shouldn't be at all surprised if they've just about used up their customers' good will.  Once that good will is gone, even reasonable and justifiable actions will be looked on with suspicion.



Maybe, maybe....  But from where I stand, they've been doing a good job in the past few months with gaining good will back and renewed faith in the DDI.  Dungeon and Dragon have been very good and the character builder is very nice.  Their bonus tools have been extraordinarily helpful for me as a DM these past few months too.

Either way, Ema confirms that it was right to take the site down.  I am guessing it was done amicably and without resistance, largely because Ema got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he knew it.


----------



## Aus_Snow

morgul97 said:


> This was likely settle amicably, with Ema getting a few bucks and having to sign a non-compete / non disclosure agreement.



That's not what I was alluding to. Presumably, WotC could have simply insisted that only the _offending material_ be removed. . . right?

Sooooo. . .

What the speculation was about? Whose 'idea' (i.e., or demand, perhaps) it was for **the entire site** (i.e., 3e character sheets and everything else) to be shut down. Ema's. Or WotC's. One or the other.

My perspective on the whole show, and on each party directly involved, would end up rather different, depending on the answer. But there might never be a straight one, so never mind anyway.


----------



## LightPhoenix

Having never even heard of the site, my speculation would be that given the removal of 4E data, the site wouldn't have made enough money to cover server costs.  Therefore, rather than stop charging and eating that server cost, Ema chose to shut the whole site down.

As for WotC; even if you are just covering server costs, that is a profit and thus Ema was making money off of the site.  They're not legally in the wrong.

Also, regarding characters on the website.  If the 4E material was in fact part of the C&D (for all we know it was simply "stop charging, otherwise whatever"), then I think it still falls under distribution for them to be given out.  In which case, that really sucks for everyone, but is also an excellent lesson in keeping backups and hard copies.


----------



## Aus_Snow

LightPhoenix said:


> Having never even heard of the site, my speculation would be that given the removal of 4E data, the site wouldn't have made enough money to cover server costs.  Therefore, rather than stop charging and eating that server cost, Ema chose to shut the whole site down.



Yeah. That was actually my first guess too, hence the comment I made along those lines in the previous post.

I'd still kinda like to know, for what it's worth. *shrug* But whatever.


----------



## Legildur

Khairn said:


> ...I do understand some of the legalities involved in a C&D, and why you can't discuss how that impacted Ema's shutting down....



Having no real legal understanding (except around a narrow section of Australian Social Security law) I'd appreciate a few dot points to summarise why these things can't be discussed. I've seen comments about numerous cases to this effect, and can only speculate from a common sense viewpoint why this might be the case.

As for the rest of the thread, it makes sense, based on what is written here, that WotC acted as they did - if a firm can't protect their IP then they won't invest in it.


----------



## arscott

Aus_Snow said:


> That's not what I was alluding to. Presumably, WotC could have simply insisted that only the _offending material_ be removed. . . right?
> 
> Sooooo. . .
> 
> What the speculation was about? Whose 'idea' (i.e., or demand, perhaps) it was for **the entire site** (i.e., 3e character sheets and everything else) to be shut down. Ema's. Or WotC's. One or the other.
> 
> My perspective on the whole show, and on each party directly involved, would end up rather different, depending on the answer. But there might never be a straight one, so never mind anyway.




For starters, you need to understand that basically every single thing on Ema's site was offending material in some way or another.

Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law.  The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use).

Worse, his sheets for WotC's licensed d20 games (such as Star Wars and Call of Cthulhu) used third party trademarks in ways that may have left WotC on the hook to those other companies (or at least might put those licenses in jeopardy).

So removing all 'offending' material is basically removing everything.  And while WotC is generally willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of these more minor violations, thats not really an option once the cease and desist letters start getting mailed.


----------



## Aus_Snow

arscott said:


> Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law.  The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use).



Ah. Didn't realise (well, I'd forgotten, because of a long period of not turning to said sheets now).

And the other stuff. . . hm. Yeah, fair enough. Consider my question answered, as far as I can tell. 

Thanks for clearing that one up.


----------



## Dragonhelm

I won't get into the discussion of the legalities of it all.

As a fan of Ema's site, I wanted to say that I enjoyed the resource while it lasted and am sad to see it go.

All the best, Ema.  Godspeed.


----------



## El Mahdi

arscott said:


> Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law. *The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists* (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use). ...




I understand the logo part completely but...


Just a few questions:


Were the copyright summaries of spell lists for 3E or 4E?
If 4E I can understand, but why is this wrong for 3E?
I've noticed that the Pathfinder rules are mostly a complete reprint of the 3E PHB, including verbatim spell descriptions - so if this was for 3E, and it was illegal, how is it legal for Pathfinder?


----------



## portermj

Jack of Shadows said:


> - Ema was most certainly running at a loss so calling it a business is absurd as it certainly wasn't for profit.




By that rational it would be absurd to call Ford, GM, Chrysler and what seems like most of the Banking System businesses.

Regardless, what the site was doing would have been problematic whether it was being run by Wal-Mart or Amnesty International.  Which is fine because it means we don't have to parse what exactly constitutes a fan site and what constitutes a business.  We don't even have to figure out what  makes "fan sites" so sacrosanct that their practices can't be called into question.


----------



## The Little Raven

El Mahdi said:


> If 4E I can understand, but why is this wrong for 3E?




Because not all of 3e's spells are OGC, and the ones that aren't are IP.



> I've noticed that the Pathfinder rules are mostly a complete reprint of the 3E PHB, including verbatim spell descriptions - so if this was for 3E, and it was illegal, how is it legal for Pathfinder?




They use the SRD, not the PHB.


----------



## arscott

El Mahdi said:


> I understand the logo part completely but...
> 
> 
> Just a few questions:
> 
> 
> Were the copyright summaries of spell lists for 3E or 4E?
> If 4E I can understand, but why is this wrong for 3E?
> I've noticed that the Pathfinder rules are mostly a complete reprint of the 3E PHB, including verbatim spell descriptions - so if this was for 3E, and it was illegal, how is it legal for Pathfinder?



Pathfinder gets away with it because it stays within the restrictions of the OGL, and only prints the spell summaries contained in the SRD.  Ema's character sheets also draw from non ogl splatbooks (spell compendium, phb2, complete series, etc).  Even if Ema only used those spells that Pathfinder did, though, it would still be illegal because he's not following the rules laid out in the OGL.  The ability to reprint SRD content is a privilege reserved for those companies that play by the rules.


----------



## El Mahdi

The Little Raven said:


> They use the SRD, not the PHB.




So they do.

(I guess it helps to actually read the SRD.)


----------



## Brix

*Solution*

Convert to the nice guys at paizo, and go pathfinder.


----------



## Sammael

Incidentally, if WotC had been able to produce a nice, usable, downloadable character sheet, all this wouldn't have mattered.

Instead, each WotC sheet is progressively worse than the previous one. It's as if they are intentionally making poor products to encourage 3rd party character sheets.

I don't have a clue as to why this is. Other companies have obviously managed to produce good sheets; for instance, I've never had the slightest inclination to use any 3rd party sheets for World of Darkness, since the official ones are good enough.

And it's not like it's very hard to make a good sheet. It took me about 5 hours to create a very usable sheet for my D&D 3.75 revision which manages to condense more information on one page than most official sheets do on two pages, and the layout is both usable and nice to look at. And I made it in _Word_, with text boxes and tables, not some fancy DTP tool.


----------



## Shroomy

Brix said:


> Convert to the nice guys at paizo, and go pathfinder.




Though experiment:  Even though I brand myself a fan-site, I will create a for-pay service that uses copyrighted and trademarked Pathfinder and Paizo IP without permission or license.  Then we'll take bets on how long it would take their lawyers to send me a C&D letter.

Just replace "WoTC " with any other company that you like, and you'll see how absurd this line of discussion has become.


----------



## catsclaw227

Shroomy said:


> Just replace "WoTC " with any other company that you like, and you'll see how absurd this line of discussion has become.



Yea, that's what I was thinking too.


----------



## Obryn

Brix said:


> Convert to the nice guys at paizo, and go pathfinder.



So if I scan the Pathfinder core book (when it comes out), put it up on a site, and charge $5 for a download, you don't think Paizo would come after me?

I think your glasses have a bit of a rosy tint.

-O


----------



## Oldtimer

Obryn said:


> So if I scan the Pathfinder core book (when it comes out), put it up on a site, and charge $5 for a download, you don't think Paizo would come after me?
> 
> I think your glasses have a bit of a rosy tint.
> 
> -O



Now people are getting extremely pro-WotC silly. Ema didn't scan WotC books and sell them. Don't make ridiculous accusations.

Ema's site was a fan site, pure and simple. He created some very fine character sheets. WotC sent a letter to his ISP ordering the site to be eradicated, which it was.

If this is not overly agressive and heavy-handed, I don't know what is. WotC gets no bonus points in my book.


----------



## Brix

I'm very sure that the good guys at paizo would have droped Ema a friendly note to remove the critical content  before taking legal action.
That's how wizards treats it's fans nowadays.


----------



## Obryn

Brix said:


> I'm very sure that the good guys at paizo would have droped Ema a friendly note to remove the critical content  before taking legal action.
> That's how wizards treats it's fans nowadays.



A C&D is considered a "friendly note" in the legal world.  After all, you're saying "Do this or else we _will_ sue."

A lawsuit is the mean way to do it.

Again, I think you aren't being realistic about what it means to be a business.



			
				Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Now people are getting extremely pro-WotC silly. Ema didn't scan WotC books and sell them. Don't make ridiculous accusations.
> 
> Ema's site was a fan site, pure and simple. He created some very fine character sheets. WotC sent a letter to his ISP ordering the site to be eradicated, which it was.
> 
> If this is not overly agressive and heavy-handed, I don't know what is. WotC gets no bonus points in my book.



No, of course he didn't scan books and sell them.  The point was, if you're infringing and profiting from it, any company will have to take action.  It's silly to assume that Paizo wouldn't, too.

And where are you getting the information about sending a letter to his ISP ordering them to shutter the whole site?

-O


----------



## Oldtimer

Obryn said:


> No, of course he didn't scan books and sell them.  The point was, if you're infringing and profiting from it, any company will have to take action.  It's silly to assume that Paizo wouldn't, too.



So your comparison was essentially pointless.
I think we have different views on what infringing and profiting means. Suddenly everyone is making Ema out to be some large-scale pirate.



> And where are you getting the information about sending a letter to his ISP ordering them to shutter the whole site?



Wizards Community - View Single Post - emass-web.com - Cease and Desist?
Not a lot of communication has been had so far, but is sure looks like a close-down operation to me.


----------



## darjr

The ISP 'DELETED' everything? Instead of just taking it offline?

That is one of the dumbest freaking things I have ever heard of an ISP doing, and depending on their local laws probably quite literally illegal. No matter the C&D.

Doubly especially if it becomes a lawsuit. 

What the freaking stars did they think they were doing?


----------



## Oldtimer

darjr said:


> The ISP 'DELETED' everything? Instead of just taking it offline?
> 
> That is one of the dumbest freaking things I have ever heard of and ISP doing, and depending on their local laws probably quite literally illegal. No matter the C&D.
> 
> Doubly especially if it becomes a lawsuit.
> 
> What the freaking stars did they think they were doing?



I agree with you, but according to that post, that was requested by WotC. And with the situation being what it is in Europe these days, most ISPs comply instantly when companies accuse some customer of copyright infringement. If they don't, they could well be closed down themselves.


----------



## Glyfair

Oldtimer said:


> I agree with you, but according to that post, that was requested by WotC. And with the situation being what it is in Europe these days, most ISPs comply instantly when companies accuse some customer of copyright infringement. If they don't, they could well be closed down themselves.



Also, let's be fair here.  From what I understand, Ema pretty clearly had copyright infringement on the site.  You might disagree about the remedies, but you probably have to give into that (if there indeed was complete verbatim text of non-open feats, spells, etdc. on the site).


----------



## darjr

Oldtimer said:


> I agree with you, but according to that post, that was requested by WotC. And with the situation being what it is in Europe these days, most ISPs comply instantly when companies accuse some customer of copyright infringement. If they don't, they could well be closed down themselves.




I started an ISP, and we would NEVER delete data. Take it off line, maybe, delete, never. It's asking for legal trouble, maybe even worse, than disobeying a C&D.

I don't know what it's like now. I especially don't know what it's like where the ISP is. But I think blindly following a C&D is just dumb, especially if it calls for the elimination of potential evidence.

Edit to add that we got C&D's too. Lots of them.


----------



## Glyfair

Double post.


----------



## Oldtimer

darjr said:


> I started an ISP, and we would NEVER delete data. Take it off line, maybe, delete, never. It's asking for legal trouble, maybe even worse, than disobeying a C&D.
> 
> I don't know what it's like now. I especially don't know what it's like where the ISP is. But I think blindly following a C&D is just dumb, especially if it calls for the elimination of potential evidence.
> 
> Edit to add that we got C&D's too. Lots of them.



I take it you don't live in Europe and try to run an ISP here. It's not nice these days. 

So you destroyed some customer data, that's hardly going to hurt you. Disobeying a C&D and being raided by the police will hurt you more.


----------



## darjr

Oldtimer said:


> I take it you don't live in Europe and try to run an ISP here. It's not nice these days.
> 
> So you destroyed some customer data, that's hardly going to hurt you. Disobeying a C&D and being raided by the police will hurt you more.





emass-web.com - Cease and Desist? - Page 2 - Wizards Community

Hey, like talking to you on two phones, with different delays.

I think I'll stay over here.


----------



## Oldtimer

Glyfair said:


> Also, let's be fair here.  From what I understand, Ema pretty clearly had copyright infringement on the site.  You might disagree about the remedies, but you probably have to give into that (if there indeed was complete verbatim text of non-open feats, spells, etdc. on the site).



I also understand that he put some text from PH on his site. Whether that was within Fair Use under italian law I don't know. In my book it seems to be a rather minor infringement made by a dedicated fan who put a lot of effort into that site.

So, do you consider such a fan your enemy or your ally? Leniency or all out war?


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> I also understand that he put some text from PH on his site. Whether that was within Fair Use under italian law I don't know. In my book it seems to be a rather minor infringement made by a dedicated fan who put a lot of effort into that site.
> 
> So, do you consider such a fan your enemy or your ally? Leniency or all out war?




Ema charged money for a service. Like it or not, the moment Ema did that, Ema's site was no longer a fan site. It was a business. Any  business that steals (yes STEALS) intellectual property gets what it deserves.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> Ema charged money for a service. Like it or not, the moment Ema did that, Ema's site was no longer a fan site. It was a business. Any  business that steals (yes STEALS) intellectual property gets what it deserves.



I feel like I'm repeating myself...

You are talking nonsense. Ema offered storage space on his server. What has that got to do with being a fan site or not? That's a completly different issue from his use of WotC materials. Like it or not, Ema's site was a fan site.

And yelling "STEALS" doesn't make you look more intelligent... or right.


----------



## xechnao

Oldtimer said:


> I feel like I'm repeating myself...
> 
> You are talking nonsense. Ema offered storage space on his server. What has that got to do with being a fan site or not? That's a completly different issue from his use of WotC materials. Like it or not, Ema's site was a fan site.
> 
> And yelling "STEALS" doesn't make you look more intelligent... or right.




From what I have been reading here it is about storage space that was connected to a specific service which was the actual attraction of the exchange. Perhaps Ema could have granted access to such storage space without charging and provided as an option the possibility to donate money for his work for who ever wished to do so. I want to believe he would not have had any problems this way.


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> I feel like I'm repeating myself...
> 
> You are talking nonsense. Ema offered storage space on his server. What has that got to do with being a fan site or not? That's a completly different issue from his use of WotC materials. Like it or not, Ema's site was a fan site.
> 
> And yelling "STEALS" doesn't make you look more intelligent... or right.




Ema charged money for storage space on his server.

That's a business.

Using WotC's intellectual property in that endeavor was theft.

There's no way around it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> Ema charged money for storage space on his server.
> 
> That's a business.



I am of a different opinion here.



> Using WotC's intellectual property in that endeavor was theft.



That is simply wrong. If you can't even understand what the word "theft" means, I'll have to give up discussing with you. That whole sentence is just nonsense.


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> I am of a different opinion here.
> 
> That is simply wrong. If you can't even understand what the word "theft" means, I'll have to give up discussing with you. That whole sentence is just nonsense.




If you don't understand that stealing intellectual property is stealing, there's no point in having a discussion.


----------



## The Little Raven

Oldtimer said:


> I am of a different opinion here.




So, what do you call a venture in which you offer a service in exchange for payment? Most people call that a business. And when that services provides another company's intellectual property to your customers without a license from that company, you run into legal trouble. You may disagree, but the person involved, Ema, obviously agrees as he has consistently said over and over again that WotC has done the right thing.


----------



## catsclaw227

Oldtimer said:


> You are talking nonsense. Ema offered storage space on his server. What has that got to do with being a fan site or not? That's a completly different issue from his use of WotC materials. Like it or not, Ema's site was a fan site.
> 
> And yelling "STEALS" doesn't make you look more intelligent... or right.



First, no one is trying to make Ema out to be some super-pirate.  

It has been clearly stated by Ema that they did the right thing.  It has also been shown that Ema's site charged for use of services and that these services included non-OGL 3.x information, as well as protected 4e IP, all without permission.  This is illegal, anyway you slice it.



> So, do you consider such a fan your enemy or your ally? Leniency or all out war?



I don't think that it's about "all out war".  That is stretching it a bit.  But strict adherence to a policy?  This is important.  

If WOTC knowingly allows Ema's site to provide protected content (while charging money), they set a precedence for other sites and companies to create a for-profit venture riding on that same IP.

They are following a standard process of protecting IP.  How is this problematic for you?


----------



## Xyxox

catsclaw227 said:


> if wotc knowingly allows ema's site to provide protected content (while charging money), they set a precedence for other sites and companies to create a for-profit venture riding on that same ip.




qft


----------



## chriton227

darjr said:


> The ISP 'DELETED' everything? Instead of just taking it offline?
> 
> That is one of the dumbest freaking things I have ever heard of an ISP doing, and depending on their local laws probably quite literally illegal. No matter the C&D.
> 
> Doubly especially if it becomes a lawsuit.
> 
> What the freaking stars did they think they were doing?




I don't think the ISP did anything, and I don't think they are the ones who received the C&D  (except maybe to forward it to Ema).  The site owner contact information is freely available in the WHOIS for the domain, and usually the C&D doesn't go to the hosting provider unless the site owner is unresponsive.


----------



## chriton227

Xyxox said:


> If you don't understand that stealing intellectual property is stealing, there's no point in having a discussion.




Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on that. According to Dowling v. United States (Dowling v. United States (1985) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):



			
				SCOTUS said:
			
		

> interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.'




RIAA and MPAA would like us all to believe that infringement = theft, but in the US legal system that just isn't true.


----------



## chriton227

Obryn said:


> If the site wasn't legal, shouldn't you take this up with Ema?  In this transaction you were Ema's customer, not WotC's.
> 
> -O




Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted.  So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own.   I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).  

Delete the infringing IP? Fine.  Delete references to spell names and copyrighted/trademarked class names (although wizard, fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, etc. are not WotC proprietary terms)?  Fine too.  Delete character names, descriptions, backgrounds, data/terms like level, armor class, movement, strength, dexterity etc. that are used across a large number of games?  That's just not kosher to me.


----------



## dvvega

@chriton227 re: your reference to the Dowling case.

Actually according to Dowling himself he infringed copyright (not challenging those charges). What he did challenge was the concept of stolen goods since he didn't steal the music, the records, or packaging that he sent via the postal service.

So even the person himself knows he was doing something illegal with copyright fraud. The supreme court's ruling creates an issue with file sharing since there is a near inability to detect if the files being shared are stolen or obtained legally - I buy a CD, I put it into iTunes (or other music program), I let you share files on my computer - to whit I have not dealt with stolen property and you have not either. Thus the court's ruling is that we haven't engaged in anything illegal regarding stolen goods.

We have still infringed copyright law. Dowling did not get that part of his charges overturned or challenged.

There was also a poster who mentioned something about copyright laws in Italy and if it allowed Ema to do what he did. Yes each country has their own copyright laws, however each country as also agreed with each other country that copyright laws from external places will be enacted inside their borders. 

This is why certain countries get away with bootlegging movies and music because they have not signed such agreements and given no such assurances.

From what I have read about Ema's case (and from looking at a sheet I printed out from his website a while ago) he has infringed on WOTCs copyright. Thus they are within their rights to protect their copyright across any country borders that have made the copyright agreements. This includes Italy.

Has he stolen from WOTC? No. He has bought a book, scanned/typed in material within that book, and placed it in an accessible location. So it would fall under the Dowling rulings.

Has he infringed copyright? Yes.


D


----------



## xechnao

chriton227 said:


> Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted.  So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own.   I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).




Could this be considered as derivative work?


----------



## roguerouge

For those dissatisfied with the current copyright system, I encourage people to look at copyleft alternatives: Creative Commons and, specifically, Licenses - Creative Commons .


----------



## darjr

chriton227 said:


> I don't think the ISP did anything, and I don't think they are the ones who received the C&D  (except maybe to forward it to Ema).  The site owner contact information is freely available in the WHOIS for the domain, and usually the C&D doesn't go to the hosting provider unless the site owner is unresponsive.




Read the comment in the thread pointed to by Old Timer. It is from Ema and he states that he was told the ISP followed the C&D from WotC to the letter and stupidly, like freaking sheep, deleted the data.


----------



## Legildur

darjr said:


> Read the comment in the thread pointed to by Old Timer. It is from Ema and he states that he was told the ISP followed the C&D from WotC to the letter and stupidly, like freaking sheep, deleted the data.



Including regular backups???


----------



## Hussar

So, we have a pretty clear case of IP violation.  There's all sorts of IP being violated that isn't covered under the OGL or the GSL.  And people have a problem with a company sending a C&D about it?  

So, where does it cut off?  Can I put up every feat created by Sword and Sorcery Press on the En World Wiki?  How about the stuff that I know for a fact that isn't covered by OGL?  If I include the flavour text of all the spells in Relics and Rituals, is that perfectly okay with people that I put it up on the En World Wiki?  And, should Morrus just look the other way?  After all, I'm just providing a fan service.



chriton227 said:


> Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted.  So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own.   I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).
> 
> Delete the infringing IP? Fine.  Delete references to spell names and copyrighted/trademarked class names (although wizard, fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, etc. are not WotC proprietary terms)?  Fine too.  Delete character names, descriptions, backgrounds, data/terms like level, armor class, movement, strength, dexterity etc. that are used across a large number of games?  That's just not kosher to me.




I would guess that that entails FAR more work than is feasible.  After all, you'd have to go into every single document, delete the offending material and then resave it and forward it to you.  This is quite likely too much work to be reasonable considering the number of files you're looking at.

And, let's not forget, the sheets you were using were NEVER kosher.  They were copyright infringing right from the get go.  Caveat Emptor comes to mind here.  You had to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the sheets you were using were in violation of IP.  You chose to ignore that fact and continue to use them.  I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for the loss of your data.


----------



## Dire Bare

chriton227 said:


> Delete the infringing IP? Fine.  Delete references to spell names and copyrighted/trademarked class names (although wizard, fighter, rogue, paladin, ranger, etc. are not WotC proprietary terms)?  Fine too.  Delete character names, descriptions, backgrounds, data/terms like level, armor class, movement, strength, dexterity etc. that are used across a large number of games?  That's just not kosher to me.




I got no sympathy for ya, sorry.  I just can't get worked up that you lost the data to several characters for a roleplaying game.  Your own "intellectual property"?!?!  Please.

I loved Ema's sheets, they were gorgeous.  But from the day I found them, downloaded them, and stared using them, I knew their days were numbered . . . and I was/am okay with that.

Ema's a great guy, a fan, and did what he did for the love of the game and not for profit.  Doesn't change the fact that what he did was illegal, wrong, and unwise.

I continue to feel WotC is a damn fine company that treats its fans well and puts out great product.  Do they make mistakes from time to time?  Hell yes!  But this was not one of them.


----------



## mudbunny

Hussar said:


> I would guess that that entails FAR more work than is feasible.  After all, you'd have to go into every single document, delete the offending material and then resave it and forward it to you.  This is quite likely too much work to be reasonable considering the number of files you're looking at.




It also depends on what his ISP's rules were/are for things like this. It is entirely possible (and highly probable) that their policies are "If you put up content that violates IP, and we are asked to take it down, your entire website disappears." There is no realistic way for the IP techs to have the required knowledge to determine what is infringing and what is not infringing.


----------



## chriton227

darjr said:


> Read the comment in the thread pointed to by Old Timer. It is from Ema and he states that he was told the ISP followed the C&D from WotC to the letter and stupidly, like freaking sheep, deleted the data.




In that case, Ema is giving different stories to different folks.  Here is what he sent me directly when I asked if there was any way to get any of the character info I had saved:



> Unfortunately not... part of my agreement with WotC was that I erased my databases
> I'm really sorry...
> 
> Ciao,
> Ema.


----------



## chriton227

dvvega said:


> We have still infringed copyright law. Dowling did not get that part of his charges overturned or challenged.




I didn't mean to imply that I thought copyright infringement wasn't wrong, just that copyright infringement and theft are two completely different things both by definition and by legal code and precedents.  

I'm just edgy and worked up because the tools Ema managed to create for his site were the types of tools WotC should have posted on their site on Jan 6 2008 for 4e, and should have had on their site before then for 3.x.  What I'm left with now is the atrociously ugly things that the DDI character creator can produce, where it doesn't even bother to do some of the calculations (how hard would it have been to calculate out 1/2 level plus stat mod for Resourceful Presence?), let you manually edit anything on the character sheet, or even export it to PDF or RTF to be able to send it electronically to your GM for review (important if you run an online game like I do). 

Technically almost any other 4e character sheet on the web, whether a fillable PDF, a Word doc, or an Excel sheet, violates WotC's IP, at least if it does anything at all automatically or lists the feats or powers.  I did a quick check of several D&D 4e sheets at RPGSheets, every one I looked at was in violation.  If you want to get technical, if I make my own status cards that detail out the effects of the 4e conditions to use in my own game, I'm reproducing WotC's content without prior written consent and distributing it to other individuals (the other players in the game), thus violating copyright law.  Would I even be allowed to enter someone else's character from the game I'm playing in into the Character Builder and print them out a character sheet without violating the DDI/CB licensing agreement or WotC's IP?  When Dungeons & Dragons starts to feel like Lawyers & Lawsuits, it's time to pack up and find a different game to play.

Did WotC have the right to shut down Ema's?  Definitely.  Do I feel doing so benefited the game or the community of players? Not a chance.  Do I feel that there should have been some form of middle-ground between ignoring Ema's site and ordering it razed? Absolutely.  I would have loved to have seen some sort of licensing agreement worked out, one that would have allowed the resource in some form to still exist, while at the same time allowing WotC to maintain control of their IP.  But WotC has made sure that will never happen.


----------



## darjr

Further Edit: actually, anyone who reads this, ignore my comments and take what you will from the quotes. I think it is reasonable that they are both right and upfront and most likely are, I just don't know the details, and now I'm loathe to speculate further.

Edit: after reading it again I think that both messages could fall in line, probably do. Ema got the letter, and the ISP got it from Ema...



chriton227 said:


> In that case, Ema is giving different stories to different folks.  Here is what he sent me directly when I asked if there was any way to get any of the character info I had saved:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately not... part of my agreement with WotC was that I erased my databases
> I'm really sorry...
> 
> Ciao,
> Ema.
Click to expand...



Ah... I'm not saying that.

Here is the post at WotC's forums, I have no way of confirming if it is actually from Ema. And actually it was from someone else.



			
				forsaken1111 said:
			
		

> In any case, it looks like there's no hope for data retrieval. Here's the response I got.
> 
> From: Emanuele Sacchi [emass_70 @t hotmail d.t com]
> 
> Hi xxxxx,
> 
> Unfortunately the data has gone for good... as soon as they were notified of the C&D, my service provider techies erased (as requested by WotC) all my databases, besides physically removing the site from the servers.
> To tell the truth, WotC letter didn't have margins for negotiation, so they did the right thing, even if giving me the time to retrieve at least some of the data would have been nice.
> 
> I'm really sorry, but I don't have any data - I lost myself all my PCs, my buddies' sheets and several NPCs I intended to use for our campaign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> Ema.




From Wizards Community - View Single Post - emass-web.com - Cease and Desist?


----------



## xechnao

chriton227 said:


> Technically almost any other 4e character sheet on the web, whether a fillable PDF, a Word doc, or an Excel sheet, violates WotC's IP, at least if it does anything at all automatically or lists the feats or powers.  I did a quick check of several D&D 4e sheets at RPGSheets, every one I looked at was in violation.  If you want to get technical, if I make my own status cards that detail out the effects of the 4e conditions to use in my own game, I'm reproducing WotC's content without prior written consent and distributing it to other individuals (the other players in the game), thus violating copyright law.  Would I even be allowed to enter someone else's character from the game I'm playing in into the Character Builder and print them out a character sheet without violating the DDI/CB licensing agreement or WotC's IP?  When Dungeons & Dragons starts to feel like Lawyers & Lawsuits, it's time to pack up and find a different game to play.



You should not be charging money. If you charge money for something then at least it should not leave your place. I think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ok so this is a quick couple of quastions for everyon posting here...


      Is there anyone here that feel the site was not performing an illigal act?

      Is there anyone here that thinks WotC did not have the right by law to send the C&D?

      Is there anyone here that honnestly belives that copyright and trademark infringment should just be accepted and not punished???


----------



## xechnao

GMforPowergamers said:


> Is there anyone here that honnestly belives that copyright and trademark infringment should just be accepted and not punished???




I am against copyright law and pro public-institution/state control. For example IMO drugs should be made public and sponsored by the states. This way drug research would deal less with marketable baldness and more with malaria that is not as marketable since the poor people of Africa cant afford to pay the companies the ROI they seek.


----------



## Sammael

GMforPowergamers said:


> Is there anyone here that feel the site was not performing an illigal act?



Not me.



> Is there anyone here that thinks WotC did not have the right by law to send the C&D?



Again, not me.



> Is there anyone here that honnestly belives that copyright and trademark infringment should just be accepted and not punished???



Each case of copyright and trademark infringement should be treated on its own and handled with care. Treating a website which offered a needed service (yes, it was needed, because WotC sheets are unusable crap) for thousands of people for several years without profit the same as a shipment of Chinese-manufactured Rolex forgeries is not, in my opinion, a good way to handle these things.


----------



## Mistwell

chriton227 said:


> Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted.  So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own.   I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).




Dictating? You were told it was part on an agreement.  WOTC didn't dictate, they came to a settlement with EMA.  And you do not like the settlement EMA and WOTC agreed to.  So, you have decided to blame WOTC for it?  How about you are not happy that EMA breached copyright and trademark laws thus leading them to decide to settle with WOTC out of court for a settlement which included losing your data?


----------



## Mistwell

darjr said:


> Read the comment in the thread pointed to by Old Timer. It is from Ema and he states that he was told the ISP followed the C&D from WotC to the letter and stupidly, like freaking sheep, deleted the data.




I think they followed the settlement agreement reached between EMA and WOTC which included EMA sending the C&D to the ISP...not just a C&D sent by WOTC to them blindly.


----------



## Oldtimer

Xyxox said:


> If you don't understand that stealing intellectual property is stealing, there's no point in having a discussion.



Obviously not. But, you are welcome back when you have read up on the law.


----------



## Oldtimer

The Little Raven said:


> So, what do you call a venture in which you offer a service in exchange for payment? Most people call that a business.



So, I must ask, do you consider ENWorld a fan site or a business?


----------



## crazy_cat

Oldtimer said:


> So, I must ask, do you consider ENWorld a fan site or a business?



A business. A business that primarily exists to operate a website for RPG fans, but it is most definitely a business by most reasonable definitions.


----------



## Oldtimer

dvvega said:


> There was also a poster who mentioned something about copyright laws in Italy and if it allowed Ema to do what he did. Yes each country has their own copyright laws, however each country as also agreed with each other country that copyright laws from external places will be enacted inside their borders.



That poster would be me.

Ah, yes, the Berne Convention. I think you'll find that _copyright_ from external places will be enacted inside their borders, not copyright _laws_. It would be very strange if I could force a US jurisdiction to follow the details of swedish laws. I doubt a US judge is that well read on swedish law.

So the details of this case would need to be according to italian law. And, as they say, the devil is in the details.


----------



## Oldtimer

crazy_cat said:


> A business. A business that primarily exists to operate a website for RPG fans, but it is most definitely a business by most reasonable definitions.



Then the fan site policy (whenever it appears) would not apply to ENWorld. So isn't ENWorld infringing on WotC copyright? I mean, the forum 4e Fan Creations and House Rules - EN World D&D / RPG News is full of derivative material produced without a license. And ENWorld is encuraging people to produce and publish such infringing material.

Or is there something obvious I'm missing? Is this business allowed to use WotC material due to some private agreement? Couldn't a similar agreement been made with Ema?


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Oldtimer said:


> So, I must ask, do you consider ENWorld a fan site or a business?



I consider EN World first and foremost the best D&D website with some of the most imaginative, caring, sensible yet passionate members and posters on the web. A fair percentage of my spare time, attention and inspiration has been poured onto this site... and freely given too. However, I also accept that this site is a business. It has become a commercial venture so as it can keep going. However, as Scott Rouse pointed out, it is also a site that has respected and will obviously continue to respect intellectual property.

From your posts Oldtimer, I'm not too sure if you had seen or used Ema's site recently. Not back when it was *the *place to go for a character sheet, but when it became a commercial venture? While I respect the intent of what Ema was doing (filling a fairly large gap), he obviously did not have the legal right to fill that gap. Unfortunate as it is (my friend has lost data from the plug being pulled), neither of us are surprised that it had to come to an end sometime.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Jack99

Oldtimer said:


> Then the fan site policy (whenever it appears) would not apply to ENWorld. So isn't ENWorld infringing on WotC copyright? I mean, the forum 4e Fan Creations and House Rules - EN World D&D / RPG News is full of derivative material produced without a license. And ENWorld is encuraging people to produce and publish such infringing material.
> 
> Or is there something obvious I'm missing? Is this business allowed to use WotC material due to some private agreement? Couldn't a similar agreement been made with Ema?




How is that even remotely the same. Everything posted in the 4e fan forums is *free*. If ENworld or the poster were charging people for viewing or downloading the stuff posted there, I can assure you that WotC would step in. And that's basically the whole issue. The moment Ema started earning money based on what belongs to WotC, his site stopped being a fansite. As it is, ENworld is not a business. EN Publishing is.


----------



## avin

It seems pretty clear to me that Ema was getting $ using Wotc IP, no matter what his good intentions were.


----------



## darjr

Mistwell said:


> I think they followed the settlement agreement reached between EMA and WOTC which included EMA sending the C&D to the ISP...not just a C&D sent by WOTC to them blindly.




I said I wasn't going to speculate any more. But I feel I must say that I think it is possible that the ISP deleted stuff only AFTER talking with Ema, I don't know that, but it seems like it could have worked out that way.

If Ema requested the deletion, then my criticism of them is wrong.


----------



## roguerouge

Since people are being all snippy and saying things like "You don't know the law! *SNAP*" I thought I'd post a link to a beginner's understanding of a relevant US law, fair use: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright law was not designed to give owners a monopoly on their work. It was designed to "promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts." In doing so, the US gave creators and inventors a limited control over the use of the work. 

In addition, the burden of proof is on the copyright holder to prove harms, as shown in the case of Sony v. Universal, and it is the single most important prong of the fair use test. 

Finally, fair use exceptions should be encouraged according to corporations like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc.: "Fair Use exceptions to US copyright laws were responsible for more than $4,500 Billion dollars in annual revenue for the United States economy representing one-sixth of the total U.S. GDP.... fair use dependent industries are directly responsible for more than 18% of U.S. economic growth and nearly 11 million American jobs." 

So, perhaps we can start to consider those people who err on the side of permissiveness as NOT being thieves and have a rational conversation, hmm?


----------



## Umbran

Oldtimer said:


> But, you are welcome back when you have read up on the law.





Dude, you do not have the authority to tell folks here whether or not they may speak.  

You are free to ignore others or not, as you choose.  But, if you speak to them, we expect and require you to treat them and their opinions with respect. 

Anyone who cannot do that will be welcome back when they have read up on The Rules, and can abide by them.


----------



## Jack99

roguerouge said:


> SSo, perhaps we can start to consider those people who err on the side of permissiveness as NOT being thieves and have a rational conversation, hmm?




I agree that calling Ema a thief is a little harsh. None the less, I still think (based on what was on his website and what others have reported) that what he did was illegal and that WotC was well within their rights to shut him down. 

I mean, I fail to see how a C&D letter and shutting down his website is seen as harsh. While I am no law expert, I am pretty sure WotC could have done much worse, if they wished to do so, while still sending out the message that this kind of erring on the side of permissiveness will not be tolerated.


----------



## Khairn

Jack99 said:


> The moment Ema started earning money based on what belongs to WotC, his site stopped being a fansite. As it is, ENworld is not a business. EN Publishing is.




I was able to download Ema's version of the 4E character sheets for free.  Ema's asked for for money for the ability to store your character data on *his *site and to pay for its upkeep.  The product itself (character sheets) was available for free.

EN World has a Wiki and other services that provide information on WotC's IP, some taken straight from the PHB, others being interpretations made by fans like Ema.  EN offer's that information for free but request that you contribute to the upkeep of the site by becoming a community suporter.  Both sites request money (optional) to help in the payment of the site.

Given the arguements many posters are making about WotC's rights, if WotC views Ema's site as an infringement of their IP what's to stop them from sending a C&D to Morrus to shut down EN World?

I'd love to think its just Morrus and Eric's bubbly personality, but I doubt that's enough for WotC.


----------



## Psion

Khairn said:


> Ema's asked for for money for the ability to store your character data on her site and to pay for its upkeep.




_*HIS*_ site



> Given the arguements many posters are making about WotC's rights, if WotC views Ema's site as an infringement of their IP what's to stop them from sending a C&D to Morrus to shut down EN World?




That's why this event has those of who were around for the TSR/Rob Repp fracas are just a bit spooked by this. TSR was well within their rights _then_. But they were also, IMHO, not so wise in their course of action.


----------



## Mirtek

Xyxox said:


> The more I see, the more convinced I am that the OGL is the only way to go for gaming. NO issues whatsoever so long as you stay away from everything Wot¢ cosniders IP and closed.



Wasn't ema also far beyond the OGL as far as the offered 3.x content was concerned? I heard he was offering not only from the SRD and other OGL sources but also from the various 3.x splatbooks and campaign settings.


----------



## Khairn

Psion said:


> _*HIS*_ site




DOH!

And I even knew that before I wrote that.  Thanks for the correction.



> That's why this event has those of who were around for the TSR/Rob Repp fracas are just a bit spooked by this. TSR was well within their rights _then_. But they were also, IMHO, not so wise in their course of action.




Agreed.  I was there and remember it well.  Given WotC's approach to the GSL, its a very valid concern.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Mirtek said:


> Wasn't ema also far beyond the OGL as far as the offered 3.x content was concerned? I heard he was offering not only from the SRD and other OGL sources but also from the various 3.x splatbooks and campaign settings.



Not in its entirety, but the character sheets could include the spell lists (including short description of the spells, i.e. level, range, components and o on plus very short summary) for about every spell that ever appeared in WotC books.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Jack99

Khairn said:


> I was able to download Ema's version of the 4E character sheets for free.  Ema's asked for for money for the ability to store your character data on her site and to pay for its upkeep.  The product itself (character sheets) was available for free.
> 
> EN World has a Wiki and other services that provide information on WotC's IP, some taken straight from the PHB, others being interpretations made by fans like Ema.  EN offer's that information for free but request that you contribute to the upkeep of the site by becoming a community suporter.  Both sites request money (optional) to help in the payment of the site.




For the sake of argument, let's just imagine that ENworld had anywhere near the same amount of things who aren't comme il faut as Ema's site had.

The difference is still the following. At ENworld you can get everything you want, for free (except the search function! but that's hardly related to WotC's IP or whatnot). At Ema's you could get some things for free, but if you wanted everything, you had to pay. 

Analogy:
Two guys make their own adventures, set in forgotten realms. They use monsters, items and traps straight out of the three core books. They both distribute these via their website.

WotC doesn't care. It's fan-stuff, and WotC likes their fans, because lets face it, they wouldn't exist without.

Then something changes. One site says: hey, if you guys want to be able to search all our adventures for key-words, you have to pony up some cash.

WotC still doesn't care. The site makes money off a search function, it's not their business.

Then the other guy says: Hey, from now on, you can still get some of my adventures for free, but the new stuff, you have to pay for it.

Suddenly WotC cares. Because the second guy is now in fact selling and making money directly of WotC's IP.

Okay, someone could probably come up with a much better analogy, but the point was just to show that there is a  huge difference between what ENworld is and what Ema's site was.


----------



## Moon_Goddess

I thought the key was that Ema was using officail art from the core rule books and FR books.

I don't see morrus using any of the art from the phb,    I don't see anyone else using WOTC copyright, background images for their characters sheets, I could be wrong but in my imagination that was the real killer to Ema not any of the rules he used.


----------



## dvvega

@roguerouge
Actually the holder of the copyright does not even have to state his material is copyrighted in many cases, artistic being one of them. In addition fair use differs from country to country. For example in the US you are pretty much allowed to enact a very wide base fair use with music, software etc. Here in Australia there is no such "fair use" for Australian materials. Luckily the Berne convention lets us use the copyright of the originating country.

@ Oldtimer
I have used copyright and copyright law interchangeably since the Berne convention set this up. Any outside copyright is given the same rights as any internal copyright within any country that signed up. My mistake that may confuse some readers.

@ Bemoaners of lost data
Because of the copyright infringement, all services Ema offers related to that infringement become a legal issue. Yes he was charging for "storage" of data but that data represented some copyrighted material. Unfortunately in the process all of your works are derived from that material even if it was a character name or the background of said character. Which is a bit of a pain but that is the law in all those countries that signed up to Berne. 

Do I think that deleting all of Ema's data without consultation was wrong? No. Because even allowing a backup of said data would have implied that WOTC was waiving their copyright to the material on Ema's site.

Do I feel for you? Yes I do.

Should you get your money back? That is something you need to decide within yourselves. Did you get your money's worth? Do you feel that you did?

D


----------



## xechnao

Jack99 said:


> How is that even remotely the same. Everything posted in the 4e fan forums is *free*. If ENworld or the poster were charging people for viewing or downloading the stuff posted there, I can assure you that WotC would step in. And that's basically the whole issue. The moment Ema started earning money based on what belongs to WotC, his site stopped being a fansite. As it is, ENworld is not a business. EN Publishing is.




It is the same thing on this matter. ENWorld charges for advertisements and you are exposed to them in the forums. Ironically Wotc advertises too. The deal here is that ENWorld does NOT COMPETE with Wotc business but helps it. I guess if it did compete it would receive a C&D letter too.


----------



## Khairn

Jack99 said:


> The difference is still the following. At ENworld you can get everything you want, for free (except the search function! but that's hardly related to WotC's IP or whatnot). At Ema's you could get some things for free, but if you wanted everything, you had to pay.




Sorry, but I think you're trying to split a hair.  

Ema's product was his character sheets.  EN's product is a fan site filled with all sorts of 4E and WotC IP information.  The products from both sites were available for free.

Ema's had an option for those who wanted  to support the site to donate and get an additional service (ie store character data).  EN has an option for those who want to support the site to donate and get an additional service (search function, PM etc) which is used to get better access and use out of their product.

Both sites used D&D and its IP to attract their customer.  If you want "everything" from either site, you had to pay.  

I really don't see much of a difference.


Aside from that bubbly personality thing I mentioned earlier.


----------



## dvvega

@Khairn

Actually Ema's site in the no-pay mode was still giving out mechanical information on powers in the 4th edition section without permission. Granted, SOME of that information was in summary, but the currently licensing of 4th Edition pretty much only allows names to be mentioned, not complete information.

I have sitting right in front of me a file of Warlord Attack powers I printed off Ema's site only recently 7th Jan 2009 which clearly has ALL the power text and even the power quote for Hammer and Anvil for example.

That is a big difference to what ENWorld does.

D


----------



## Jack99

Khairn said:


> Sorry, but I think you're trying to split a hair.
> 
> Ema's product was his character sheets.  EN's product is a fan site filled with all sorts of 4E and WotC IP information.  The products from both sites were available for free.
> 
> Ema's had an option for those who wanted  to support the site to donate and get an additional service (ie store character data).  EN has an option for those who want to support the site to donate and get an additional service (search function, PM etc) which is used to get better access and use out of their product.
> 
> Both sites used D&D and its IP to attract their customer.  If you want "everything" from either site, you had to pay.
> 
> I really don't see much of a difference.
> 
> 
> Aside from that bubbly personality thing I mentioned earlier.




Fair enough. Please show me where I can find all the powers (with full text) from PHB, MP and FRPG on ENworld. Or the rituals. 

If you do not see that there is a difference between ENworld, which might have a few spread out over 1.000.000 threads and Ema's where you could just press a few buttons and get them added to your sheet, then I guess we will really have to agree to disagree.

Cheers


----------



## Morrus

For those engaged in the "what's the difference between Ema's and EN World?" discussion, while I'm not particularly inclined to get into a debate of the semantics involved, I can certainly take this opportunity to clarify policy here without offering any opinion on the policies of Ema's web site: we don't condone (or knowingly allow) wholesale reproduction of third-party IP ("third party" in this context meaning "not EN World's").  If you see something like this being hosted on EN World, please privately let us know, so that we can deal with it appropriately - using the report post button is the ideal way to do this.

Note that discussion _of_ a third-party's IP is completely acceptable, as, indeed, are small snippets of IP pertaining to that discussion, especially in the context of news, a review or a public debate; reproduction of significant amounts of third-party IP without permission, however, is not allowed here.


----------



## chriton227

*deleted by poster*


----------



## Xyxox

Oldtimer said:


> Obviously not. But, you are welcome back when you have read up on the law.




You quoted a case regarding piracy where no sale of pirated material occured and the sharing act was, in fact, the act of piracy.

It has no relevence to what Ema did. Nor does it apply to Ema even when Ema's site was merely a fan site and not a business as the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in Italy.


----------



## chriton227

Mistwell said:


> Dictating? You were told it was part on an agreement.  WOTC didn't dictate, they came to a settlement with EMA.  And you do not like the settlement EMA and WOTC agreed to.  So, you have decided to blame WOTC for it?  How about you are not happy that EMA breached copyright and trademark laws thus leading them to decide to settle with WOTC out of court for a settlement which included losing your data?




Without knowing the details of the agreement, no one can know for sure how much negotiation happened and how much influence each side had on the final terms of the agreement, but I don't know of very many cases where in a settlement between a multi-billion dollar corporation and a single infringing individual, the single individual had much of any say beyond "accept the terms the corporation specifies" or "be plowed so far under with legal expenses and eventual penalties that you will be eating ramen noodles until the day you die". 

You are right, I am not happy that Ema breached the laws and as a result the site is no more. I'm not happy that the current state of copyright law (and the ever increasing duration) in the US is "protect corporate interests" over "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts".  In my assessment, Ema's didn't reproduce enough of the content to replace the need for the books.  It didn't tell you how many HP per level a class got or how many powers you could pick.  It didn't give you the 4e feat, race, or skill descriptions.  All of the power and spell descriptions cited the source and page of the original information (which is what I though was the acceptable way of reproducing information from other sources, although Ema could have used more formal citations rather than PHB.106).  It did include logos, but those are fairly easy to strip back out of PDFs, especially ones generated dynamically (just replace with a blank graphic of the same dimensions).  The power cards and power/spell sheets could have easily been turned off, or replaced with simple blank versions that the user could fill in on their own.  But I am not a lawyer, and I really don't know IP law that well, so my assessment on the matter is nothing but a personal opinion.

In any case, what is done is done, and no amount of arguing with people on the internet, especially those of us discussing it had absolutely no direct involvement in the proceedings, will do anything to change that.  I've stated my opinions on the matter; I don't think there is much chance of my opinion changing, and I don't think I have much chance of changing the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, so I'm going to step out of the discussion.


----------



## catsclaw227

Sammael said:


> Each case of copyright and trademark infringement should be treated on its own and handled with care. Treating a website which offered a needed service (yes, it was needed, because WotC sheets are unusable crap) for thousands of people for several years without profit the same as a shipment of Chinese-manufactured Rolex forgeries is not, in my opinion, a good way to handle these things.



I agree that the original 3.5 WOTC sheets were poorly done, but I know lots of people that used them without problem in lots of games. And they were able to enjoy the D&D game and knew their PC just fine.  Just because we didn't like the layout doesn't mean they were unusable crap.



chriton227 said:


> I'm just edgy and worked up because the tools Ema managed to create for his site were the types of tools WotC should have posted on their site on Jan 6 2008 for 4e, and should have had on their site before then for 3.x.  What I'm left with now is the atrociously ugly things that the DDI character creator can produce, where it doesn't even bother to do some of the calculations (how hard would it have been to calculate out 1/2 level plus stat mod for Resourceful Presence?), let you manually edit anything on the character sheet, or even export it to PDF or RTF to be able to send it electronically to your GM for review (important if you run an online game like I do).



I export them to PDF just fine, and there's a thread out there that has many people discussing just how they do this.  Should WOTC have made "export to pdf" native to the application?  Maybe, but it's not really critical.  One additional thing to note, with the CB you can send your DM the sheet as a *.dnd4e file and (s)he can load it into their copy of the CB as well.  And if they don't have a DDI sub, and they are a DM, your group might wnat to consider buy it for them.  It will save your poor hard-working DM a TON of time with adventure prep.




> Technically almost any other 4e character sheet on the web, whether a fillable PDF, a Word doc, or an Excel sheet, violates WotC's IP, at least if it does anything at all automatically or lists the feats or powers.  I did a quick check of several D&D 4e sheets at RPGSheets, every one I looked at was in violation.  If you want to get technical, if I make my own status cards that detail out the effects of the 4e conditions to use in my own game, I'm reproducing WotC's content without prior written consent and distributing it to other individuals (the other players in the game), thus violating copyright law.  Would I even be allowed to enter someone else's character from the game I'm playing in into the Character Builder and print them out a character sheet without violating the DDI/CB licensing agreement or WotC's IP?  When Dungeons & Dragons starts to feel like Lawyers & Lawsuits, it's time to pack up and find a different game to play.



They weren't that harsh.  A C&D is totally appropriate for what Ema was doing, and it appears that Ema and WOTC came to an agreement about what should be done. 



> Did WotC have the right to shut down Ema's?  Definitely.  Do I feel doing so benefited the game or the community of players? Not a chance.  Do I feel that there should have been some form of middle-ground between ignoring Ema's site and ordering it razed? Absolutely.  I would have loved to have seen some sort of licensing agreement worked out, one that would have allowed the resource in some form to still exist, while at the same time allowing WotC to maintain control of their IP.  But WotC has made sure that will never happen.



Again, I think it bears repeating...

If WOTC knowingly allows Ema's site to provide protected content (while charging money), they set a precedence for other sites and companies to create a for-profit venture riding on that same IP.  I am sure there is a technical term for this, but they really had no choice.  Ema's site, especially because it was well liked by the fandom, put WOTC in a terribly compromising situation and they had to act in the way they did.

I can envision a conversation like this....

WOTC: I know a lot of people like your site and the fans use it for character sheets, but you KNOW you shouldn't have used all this non-OGL and 4e material.
Ema:  Yea, but to make the sheets a valuable resource for the player, I needed to add it.
WOTC: Yes, but it was illegal.
Ema:  I know...... sorry.
WOTC: You know you have to shut it down, right?  I wish we didn't have to do this, because the fans like it, but if we don't someone else will do something worse and then we're screwed.
Ema:  yea... I know.
WOTC: As much as we don't like to, you know we have to send you an official C&D letter, right?
Ema:  yea... I know...​
Just speculating and all....

EDIT: and who knew that the INDENT tag puts the text in scary MOD-SPEAK colors.


----------



## Khairn

Jack99 said:


> If you do not see that there is a difference between ENworld, which might have a few spread out over 1.000.000 threads and Ema's where you could just press a few buttons and get them added to your sheet, then I guess we will really have to agree to disagree.




I guess then we'll just have to agree to disagree then.  

The "right" of WotC (that is supported by many on this thread) to send out C&D letters in support of unauthorized use of their IP, doesn't appear to ber limited between IP that is spread out over a few thousand posts, as opposed to that which is spread out over a couple of character sheets.  

Morrus has made it clear that EN does not condone the listing of WotC's IP in threads, but at the same time EN isn't actually doing anything to stop it.  The same "right" that WotC has apparently used to shut down Ema's can be used on any other site that has any unauthorized IP.  And I don't think anyone can claim that EN doesn't have WotC IP on their site, and is collecting money to support it.

Just an opinion.


----------



## catsclaw227

chriton227 said:


> I'm not happy that the current state of copyright law (and the ever increasing duration) in the US is "protect corporate interests" over "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts".



You are right, this sucks.  (And I think we are teetering on a borderline political discussion, so I will just say that.)



chriton227 said:


> All of the power and spell descriptions cited the source and page of the original information (which is what I though was the acceptable way of reproducing information from other sources, although Ema could have used more formal citations rather than PHB.106).



If I am not mistaken, following the GSL, you can't reproduce the text, only the name of the power and the source location (book, page).  Though I am guessing that Ema didn't sign the GSL, so this little detail is irrelevant.


----------



## Xyxox

chriton227 said:


> <snip>It did include logos...<snip>




Then it wasn't a case about copyright at all. It was a case about trademarks.

That makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Morrus

Khairn said:


> Morrus has made it clear that EN does not condone the listing of WotC's IP in threads, but at the same time EN isn't actually doing anything to stop it.




Sure we are.  We tell people they're not allowed to do it; and if we see it, we delete it.  And I'm pretty sure WotC is more than happy with that.


----------



## Xyxox

Khairn said:


> Morrus has made it clear that EN does not condone the listing of WotC's IP in threads, but at the same time EN isn't actually doing anything to stop it. <snip>





Not true. ENWorld has a policy against it and takes measures to correct the actions of a few posters when violation of that policy is brought to ENWorld's attention.

That proves ENWorld IS doing something about it.


----------



## Jack99

Khairn said:


> I guess then we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
> 
> The "right" of WotC (that is supported by many on this thread) to send out C&D letters in support of unauthorized use of their IP, doesn't appear to ber limited between IP that is spread out over a few thousand posts, as opposed to that which is spread out over a couple of character sheets.
> 
> Morrus has made it clear that EN does not condone the listing of WotC's IP in threads, but at the same time EN isn't actually doing anything to stop it.  The same "right" that WotC has apparently used to shut down Ema's can be used on any other site that has any unauthorized IP.  And I don't think anyone can claim that EN doesn't have WotC IP on their site, and is collecting money to support it.
> 
> Just an opinion.






Morrus said:


> Sure we are.  We tell people they're not allowed to do it; and if we see it, we delete it.  And I'm pretty sure WotC is more than happy with that.




So, we have established that EN world does indeed do something about it. But maybe you will prove Morrus wrong and show us where significant parts of the rules are posted wholesale on the site?

Because if not, then there is a difference, aside from Morrus' alleged bubbly personality.


----------



## Xath

It's a shame that the entire site had to be taken down.  I still really like Ema's 3.5 character and spell sheets.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hey,

If we could be clear ...

Based on a read of the recent ruling re: The Harry Potter index, the summary of the ruling that I read commented that the creation of the index was fair use as a transformative work, and that the problem was that the entries had too much of the original content.  (Large sections of text placed verbatim, if I understand correctly.)

If I view character creation and power code software as transformative of the original books, and have abandoned the GSL for general copyright law, and I am clear to use my own text in the power cards, and do not use any art or trademark symbols, wouldn't that put the Character Creator and Power Card software clearly in fair use?

And, even if WotC created their own software for character creation and for printing power cards, any infringement of the _software_ copyrights would be centered on UI elements, and on the source code itself.

For those interested, see:

Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials

And:

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/harrypotterrev2.pdf

In particular, (quoting from the harry potter link):



> Considering the fourth fair-use factor, the effect of the use on the potential market for the work, Judge Patterson rejected J. K. Rowling’s argument that the Lexicon would impair the market for an encyclopedia she planned to write. Judge Patterson ruled that “the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works.” Judge Patterson added that “[t]he market for reference guides does not become derivative simply because the copyright holder seeks to produce or license one.”


----------



## catsclaw227

tomBitonti said:


> Based on a read of the recent ruling re: The Harry Potter index, the summary of the ruling that I read commented that the creation of the index was fair use as a transformative work, and that the problem was that the entries had too much of the original content.  (Large sections of text placed verbatim, if I understand correctly.)
> 
> If I view character creation and power code software as transformative of the original books, and have abandoned the GSL for general copyright law, and I am clear to use my own text in the power cards, and do not use any art or trademark symbols, wouldn't that put the Character Creator and Power Card software clearly in fair use?



I am not sure the legalities of that, but according to dvvega's post earlier, the power cards didn't have Ema's own text, but instead the full text.



			
				dvvega said:
			
		

> I have sitting right in front of me a file of Warlord Attack powers I printed off Ema's site only recently 7th Jan 2009 which clearly has ALL the power text and even the power quote for Hammer and Anvil for example.


----------



## tomBitonti

catsclaw227 said:


> I am not sure the legalities of that, but according to dvvega's post earlier, the power cards didn't have Ema's own text, but instead the full text.




That would be a problem, I wholly agree.

But, if the cards were amended to have text which was rewritten to convey the rules content, but which still had the power titles, would that bring the site into compliance?

Updating the software to leave out the text seems to be pretty straightforward.

Rewriting the text would be a chore, but not too hard of one.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Khairn

Jack99 said:


> So, we have established that EN world does indeed do something about it. But maybe you will prove Morrus wrong and show us where significant parts of the rules are posted wholesale on the site?
> 
> Because if not, then there is a difference, aside from Morrus' alleged bubbly personality.




Hey, I've got no problems with being being proven wrong.  It happens all the time.  So EN world does take action when they find anyone has posted anything verbatim.  Got it. 

But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.  If the only difference between the 2 sites is the use of a logo or the copying of a few power cards, then I really don't understand why a C&D was required.

Having lived through those heady days of TSR using similar tactics to protect the very same IP, I can't help but see this as a sad situation.


----------



## Jack99

Khairn said:


> But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.  If the only difference between the 2 sites is the use of a logo or the copying of a few power cards, then I really don't understand why a C&D was required.




Yeah. Well the biggest problem is that we seem to lack some details. Mostly, we do not exactly know what caused the C&D letter and following shut-down. Maybe if we had all the information, it would be easier to agree (or not).

Cheers


----------



## Shroomy

I think there is a big difference, TSR tried to sue everyone, while WotC sent a C&D letter (and got the content pulled) to a site that was charging for a service that incorporated their trademarked and copyrighted IP.


----------



## Morrus

Khairn said:


> Hey, I've got no problems with being being proven wrong.  It happens all the time.  So EN world does take action when they find anyone has posted anything verbatim.  Got it.
> 
> But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.  If the only difference between the 2 sites is the use of a logo or the copying of a few power cards, then I really don't understand why a C&D was required.
> 
> Having lived through those heady days of TSR using similar tactics to protect the very same IP, I can't help but see this as a sad situation.




"Using IP" is not the issue; every newspaper and magazine in the world does it.  The difference lies in the fair use uses which everybody keeps talking about; replicating content wholesale is not fair use; talking about IP and using it in reference in the ocntext of news, reviews and discussion, is.

There's no problem using IP; it's _how_ you use it that matters.


----------



## Volcom Stone

If you look there is lots of info out there

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.emass-web.com

Ema's Charsheets

Sources for Ema's Charsheets

Ema's Charsheets

Response from emass-web.com - Pen & Paper Games

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.emass-web.com/sources.htm


----------



## tomBitonti

Morrus said:


> "Using IP" is not the issue; every newspaper and magazine in the world does it.  The difference lies in the fair use uses which everybody keeps talking about; replicating content wholesale is not fair use; talking about IP and using it in reference in the ocntext of news, reviews and discussion, is.




I would add that the qualifier "in the context of news, reviews, and discussion" helps but is not necessary.  From my read of *Harry Potter*, creating a reference listing all powers, along with the rules information about those powers, and including a text synopsis (not the original text) would be fair use.  (I'm not a lawyer, so that is IMO.)



> There's no problem using IP; it's _how_ you use it that matters.




100% agreement here.


----------



## Thasmodious

Khairn said:


> But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.




Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

EnWorld is a place to discuss something.  The public is allowed to discuss something.  They make money by hosting a place in which to discuss something.  If a bunch of gamers went to a pub to play and discuss and the management began having Gaming Night, with drink specials, and advertised it, they are not "using" a game companies IP.  That is in essence what EnWorld and other forums do.  A company cannot tell people that they are not allowed to meet somewhere and discuss their products.  That some of that discussion will involved IP is a part of well established Fair Use guidelines.  

The difference is that a website like Ema's (which I loved, used throughout 3e, donated to on several occasions, and wish to offer thanks to for the years of awesome support) was providing services which included the direct presentation of copywrited material in exchange for money.  You can't do that.  Providing a place to gather and discuss a game, or a sports team, or a movie, even charging for it, is not close to the same thing.  It's not splitting hairs.  The difference is well established, logically and legally.


----------



## The Little Raven

Oldtimer said:


> So, I must ask, do you consider ENWorld a fan site or a business?




I consider ENWorld to be a business. A legally sound one, because ENWorld doesn't provide another company's IP to its customers in violation of that company's IP rights, so it isn't even comparable to a site that does.


----------



## The Little Raven

Psion said:


> That's why this event has those of who were around for the TSR/Rob Repp fracas are just a bit spooked by this.




Not all of us. I received a cease and desist letter when I was 13 years old from TSR about "copyright infringement" for putting up a small, poorly designed website that describe the campaign I was running for my other 13-year-old friends at the time. Not a single piece of IP was present anywhere on my site.



> TSR was well within their rights _then_.




No, they weren't. They were claiming that phrases like "Armor Class" and such were their property and any use of that was a violation of their rights. They stepped over the line from protecting their IP from being spread around (there were sites that transcribed whole TSR books) to attack fan sites creating derivative works (kids posting their characters and campaign summaries).

WotC isn't even remotely crossing that line, as Ema freely admits he was in the wrong, and anyone who had been to his site can see he was providing WotC's IP without consent.


----------



## pawsplay

The thing is, people don't create unauthorized sites because they are the sort of people who shoplift or hack the CIA or whatever. Unfortunately, we are living in a time where many new issues are cropping up, and we have not yet come up with solutions to how this is all supposed to work. On the one hand, i think just about everyone agrees that creators should be able to make money off their work. On the other hand, there are some real problems with how IP has been implemented. Situations come up that simply don't come up with when you are dealing with real property. If you come up with a cheaper way to make a product, the market adjusts, and if I wanted to loan someone a shovel I own, that's not a problem. But no one has been able to come up with an adjustment to deal with the ease with which electronic copies can be generated. Most of our current IP laws are written in the interest of powerful corporations who are trying to retain a traditional control over their IP. It isn't working, but that is how business has always been done.

So you end up with a situation where you have people on both sides who have no intention of being villains, but in order to assert their interests, end up in conflict.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Greylock said:


> ... I stopped using his sheets at about the same time [go figger] I started playing Castles & Crusades. My group is back into 3.x for the time being, but I'm using HeroForge again and the rest of the group is either using PCGen or pen & paper.
> 
> Man, I wonder what HeroForge is up to...




www.heroforgesoftware.com

We are still here... for now


----------



## arscott

Khairn said:


> But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.  If the only difference between the 2 sites is the use of a logo or the copying of a few power cards, then I really don't understand why a C&D was required.



Khairn, what you don't seem to realize is that logo and the power card text ARE the WotC IP we're talking about.  ENWorld doesn't "attract users using WotC IP" because they don't have that kind of stuff on here.

Putting up nifty character sheets as detailed and useful as the ones Ema had isn't illegal.  Having a character generator isn't illegal, even if you charge for it.  Ema could have provided services and content substantially similar to what he actually provided and stayed well within the bounds of law (or at minimum, in a light enough gray area that he wouldn't have gotten a C&D letter).

But instead, Ema chose to use WotC trademarked logos and trade dress when designing his character sheets, rather than creating his own artwork.  He copied spell summaries directly from the books when he could have easily created his own.


----------



## xechnao

Morrus said:


> "Using IP" is not the issue; every newspaper and magazine in the world does it.  The difference lies in the fair use uses which everybody keeps talking about; replicating content wholesale is not fair use; talking about IP and using it in reference in the ocntext of news, reviews and discussion, is.
> 
> There's no problem using IP; it's _how_ you use it that matters.




Dont know about Enworld and business sites that behave as fan sites. These can be a problem. Fan derivative work is derivative work. IMO if Gleemax was to compete with Enworld and Hasbro saw that it would be more convenient for their business to act this way (C&D letters), they would have done so. Fact is that it is no convenient - the investment they would have to do to not allienate people in a harmful way for their business simply is not sound economically (and I believe this is true for all internet community businesses). So they approach and deal with it the different way: not the competing one but the collaborating one.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

dinelendarkstar said:


> www.heroforgesoftware.com
> 
> We are still here... for now





To add to this:

After now reading not only the entrie thread on the Wizards boards, and posting my opinion there, Wizards Community - View Single Post - emass-web.com - Cease and Desist?, and now all the posts in this thread, I have to say that this is a sad affair to say the least.

Since nobody does know what really happened it is hard to say how well anyone out there doing, or planning any, 4E stuff will fair.

I for one would love to see the actual C&D so we as a company in the possible same boat, could see exactally what we could be in for.

I just know as stated in my posts on the Wizards boards, that we went the route of actually trying to talk to WotC regarding what we planned on doing. And I am very sure in the knowing that they are not above the use of someone elses IP when they feel like it.


----------



## The Little Raven

dinelendarkstar said:


> Since nobody does know what really happened it is hard to say how well anyone out there doing, or planning any, 4E stuff will fair.




We do know that Ema's site wholly reprinting closed content, which is a legal no-no.



> I for one would love to see the actual C&D so we as a company in the possible same boat, could see exactally what we could be in for.




If I made a 3.X character on your program with spells from Complete Mage, would you wholly reprint the entire text of the spell from the book? If so, then you're in trouble. If not, I doubt you'll be.



> And I am very sure in the knowing that they are not above the use of someone elses IP when they feel like it.




Can you provide an example of WotC using someone else's IP without permission?


----------



## xechnao

The Little Raven said:


> Can you provide an example of WotC using someone else's IP without permission?



*
The most recent:
Suing WoTC?

EDIT I: I also have read somewhere here about some monsters regarding I think Necromancer games (necromancer asked permission to publish some monsters but Wotc later screwed up with OGL)-or something like that. And before Wizards produced D&D 3.0 there was a case about another rpg, do not remember the name though.

EDIT II: And there was another recent instance with their character visualizer user interface.

*


----------



## dinelendarkstar

The Little Raven said:


> We do know that Ema's site wholly reprinting closed content, which is a legal no-no.
> 
> 
> 
> If I made a 3.X character on your program with spells from Complete Mage, would you wholly reprint the entire text of the spell from the book? If so, then you're in trouble. If not, I doubt you'll be.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide an example of WotC using someone else's IP without permission?




Let's just say that the current Character Builder form WotC, at the time of GenCon this past year, didn't have certain features in it. As of now they do. Features that are not present in ANY of the other 3.5 or 4E character gens out right now.

Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our upcoming app. These features had nothing to do with WotC IP but in all cases is our IP when it comes to the UI design of our app. 

Now here comes the big question?
So should we be looking to C&D WotC for their use of our IP and design elements in a product that they make money on? I would love to hear some thought on that. 

And no I am not saying that is what we are going to do but just asking the opinion of the board. I actually enjoy and respect the opinions of the members of this fine "FAN SITE - That is a business".

When it comes to the Ema site, what's done is done but now the question becomes, what is to come form this point forward?

I mean there are a lot of great companies out there that make Character Gens, PCGen, RPGxploer, HeroLab, ourselves (HeroForge) just to name a few. I feel WotC could be looking at this a lot different. They could be looking at this as a way to make money by granting a profitable licensing agreement too all of us in the business and see how a little friendly compition helps drive their sales not take from them.

I mean D&DI is a lot more than a Character Gen and is still very much worth paying for. So I don't see how companies like ours should be looked at as anything more than a possible avenue for helping them generate more income not less.


----------



## alleynbard

dinelendarkstar said:


> Let's just say that the current Character Builder form WotC, at the time of GenCon this past year, didn't have certain features in it. As of now they do. Features that are not present in ANY of the other 3.5 or 4E character gens out right now.
> 
> Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our upcoming app. These features had nothing to do with WotC IP but in all cases is our IP when it comes to the UI design of our app.
> 
> Now here comes the big question?
> So should we be looking to C&D WotC for their use of our IP and design elements in a product that they make money on? I would love to hear some thought on that.




Do you honestly have proof that WotC took anything from you? Do you have any proof that the material in question wasn't in development independently of your product?


In the end, the burden of proof lies on you.  If you don't have proof, then sending out a C&D letter to Wizards will do nothing.  But if you do believe something is fishy, then you need better advice than you can find here.

Quite honestly, asking about legal information from the ENWorld message board strikes me as odd.  If you truly think your IP was violated, talk to a lawyer. Otherwise, it seems like you are stirring the pot with a company you want to have a good working relationship with in the future.


----------



## The Little Raven

dinelendarkstar said:


> So should we be looking to C&D WotC for their use of our IP and design elements in a product that they make money on?




Can you actually prove that these elements are in fact IP and protected by laws? Can you prove that they are using YOUR IP directly, as opposed to parallel development? Just vaguely saying "I didn't see them having this feature until after we openly stated we'd have it" isn't legally sound unless you can prove these things.



> When it comes to the Ema site, what's done is done but now the question becomes, what is to come form this point forward?




I expect that more people would understand not to wholly reprint WotC's content without permission.



> I mean D&DI is a lot more than a Character Gen and is still very much worth paying for. So I don't see how companies like ours should be looked at as anything more than a possible avenue for helping them generate more income not less.




I agree, so long as your program doesn't do what Ema's site did: wholly reprint WotC's closed content.


----------



## alleynbard

xechnao said:


> *
> The most recent:
> Suing WoTC?
> 
> EDIT I: I also have read somewhere here about some monsters regarding I think Necromancer games (necromancer asked permission to publish some monsters but Wotc later screwed up with OGL)-or something like that. And before Wizards produced D&D 3.0 there was a case about another rpg, do not remember the name though.
> 
> EDIT II: And there was another recent instance with their character visualizer user interface.
> 
> *




In the first instance, I find it strange nothing else was heard from the original poster. Either his lawyer told him to shut his mouth about the case or nothing came from it.  

The second situation you mention has to do with the MMII.  They used monsters that were open source but forgot to place the OGL in the book. 

The third situation has to do with Palladium.  In the early days of Wizards, they created a book called Primal Order which referenced Palladium IP.  The case was settled out of court and Wizards promised never to reference Palladium material ever again.

Finally, the last thing you cite has to do with the game table and not the visualizer.  Images that were meant to stay in-house were released to the public. They contained images of dice from Fantasy Grounds.  The company sent WotC a C&D.  Wizards apologized and the offending material was removed and replaced with the proper images.


----------



## The Little Raven

xechnao said:


> *
> The most recent:
> Suing WoTC?*



*

Okay, so a thread on another site from June, 2008 in which a guy claims to have a case against WotC for 'stealing his font,' with no indication of whether the case was successfully executed, nor whether the judge agreed there was a violation. I see some guy making a claim, saying his lawyer agrees he has a case, and he plans on filing it. A lawyer agreeing he has a case doesn't prove anything about whether WotC did, in fact, use his IP without permission. Lawyers have been known to agree that a client has a case, even when the court has thrown them out, since they get paid for taking on the case (not saying the lawyer doesn't honestly agree with the client in all cases).




			EDIT II: And there was another recent instance with their character visualizer user interface.
		
Click to expand...



I remember that. The dice looked exactly the same, except for color. Anyone got any links on how that went? I remember a few years back, a game was accused of stealing art assets directly from Half-Life 2 and later it was discovered that both Valve and the "thief" company bought their textures from a 3rd-party company and the accusations were just knee-jerk internet reactions.*


----------



## dinelendarkstar

xechnao said:


> *The most recent:*
> *Suing WoTC?*
> 
> *EDIT I: I also have read somewhere here about some monsters regarding I think Necromancer games (necromancer asked permission to publish some monsters but Wotc later screwed up with OGL)-or something like that. And before Wizards produced D&D 3.0 there was a case about another rpg, do not remember the name though.*
> 
> *EDIT II: And there was another recent instance with their character visualizer user interface.*




Well it sure seems to me that isn't the first time it has happened.


As for seeking leagl advice from this forum, that isn't what I asked for. I asked for an opinion. 

I know for a fact that their are IP guys on this forum. But I don't expect anyone but my lawyer to act as it. But I do enjoy good discussion and debate.


----------



## xechnao

alleynbard said:


> Finally, the last thing you cite has to do with the game table and not the visualizer.  Images that were meant to stay in-house were released to the public. They contained images of dice from Fantasy Grounds.  The company sent WotC a C&D.  Wizards apologized and the offending material was removed and replaced with the proper images.




Yes, I figured that when dinelendarkstar posted


----------



## dinelendarkstar

xechnao said:


> Yes, I figured that when dinelendarkstar posted





What does your quote have anything to do with me? I didn't make that post that you quoted.


----------



## alleynbard

dinelendarkstar said:


> As for seeking leagl advice from this forum, that isn't what I asked for. I asked for an opinion.
> 
> I know for a fact that their are IP guys on this forum. But I don't expect anyone but my lawyer to act as it. But I do enjoy good discussion and debate.




That's cool.  Don't let me stop a good debate. 

My only thought is this, if you think you might have a legitimate case, I wouldn't discuss it too deeply here.  It would seem prudent to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible and try to play things close to your chest.  

Otherwise, I not sure what a discussion of this caliber would achieve.  That isn't meant to be condemnation, just honest confusion. But like I said, if you want to chat about it, that sounds fine to me.


----------



## catsclaw227

alleynbard said:


> In the first instance, I find it strange nothing else was heard from the original poster. Either his lawyer told him to shut his mouth about the case or nothing came from it.



Also, I noticed that in this thread on Penny Arcade, a poster is talking about using a Lovecraftian font for a personal gift.  He says he opened up a font file (or something like that) and there were three different fonts.  

Glyphis 1 had 260+ symbols, and Glyphis 2 and 3 had 60 symbols each.  

The glyphis font that the poster on The Forge forums  mentioned is stored on Miskatonic website.  

Interestingly, the same font is also found on MetaMythos but it only has Glyphis 2 and Glyphis 3 in it.  I wonder if they pulled Glyphis 1 for some reason.


----------



## xechnao

dinelendarkstar said:


> What does your quote have anything to do with me? I didn't make that post that you quoted.




No, you are right. I got confused. I wasn't sure if it was about the visualizer or something else of their software (I do not follow their software really and I suspected I could be in error) and when I glanced at your post and saw "character builder" I guess you were talking about this.
Anyway visualizer, builder or gametable what's the difference here? No big deal.


----------



## Hussar

Khairn said:


> Hey, I've got no problems with being being proven wrong.  It happens all the time.  So EN world does take action when they find anyone has posted anything verbatim.  Got it.
> 
> But I still see very little difference between 2 sites that both attract users using WotC IP,  provide content and support for that IP and collect money to gain full access to tools and services on their respective sites.  If the only difference between the 2 sites is the use of a logo or the copying of a few power cards, then I really don't understand why a C&D was required.
> 
> Having lived through those heady days of TSR using similar tactics to protect the very same IP, I can't help but see this as a sad situation.




The difference is simple.  En World is a site devoted to discussing the game.  Nearly all of that discussion falls under fair use laws.  You can certainly quote parts of a work when discussing it.  If you couldn't every university student in the world would have a problem.  

Ema's site was a site devoted to providing a service for gamers.  Fair use certainly does not cover this sort of thing.  In addition, Ema was clearly violating copywrite and trademark left, right and center.  

That's the difference.  

Now, if En World started putting up complete texts of 4e powers on the En WIki, you'd certainly have a point.  Same as if they started putting up complete texts from Complete Mage on the wiki as well.  That is most certainly not covered under fair use.


----------



## alleynbard

catsclaw227 said:


> Also, I noticed that in this thread on Penny Arcade, a poster is talking about using a Lovecraftian font for a personal gift.  He says he opened up a font file (or something like that) and there were three different fonts.
> 
> Glyphis 1 had 260+ symbols, and Glyphis 2 and 3 had 60 symbols each.
> 
> The glyphis font that the poster on The Forge forums  mentioned is stored on Miskatonic website.
> 
> Interestingly, the same font is also found on MetaMythos but it only has Glyphis 2 and Glyphis 3 in it.  I wonder if they pulled Glyphis 1 for some reason.




That is interesting.  It might be Glyphis 1 was the designer's font?  In the end, Wizards could have started using that font for a number of reasons and may not have been aware of what they were doing.  I also wonder if they weren't using a free version of the font and the designer simply thought his font was the one being used.

Of course, if they were using an illegally obtained font, they should have been held accountable.  But, the way fonts float around I can't imagine there aren't tons of mistakes like this everyday.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

alleynbard said:


> That's cool. Don't let me stop a good debate.
> 
> My only thought is this, if you think you might have a legitimate case, I wouldn't discuss it too deeply here. It would seem prudent to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible and try to play things close to your chest.
> 
> Otherwise, I not sure what a discussion of this caliber would achieve. That isn't meant to be condemnation, just honest confusion. But like I said, if you want to chat about it, that sounds fine to me.





That is why I refuse to go into any more detail about the subject of the aledged violation, but it is a good question none the less. If it were you and it was your work, what would you do? How would you feel?

It is us the fans that should be driving this machine in a sense. We are the ones that buy it and play it and you would think that a company in this day and age would do everything possible to retain, not alienate customers. And Bad PR like this is definatly not a good thing.

All I am saying is that IP and Copyright aside. This is a huge red flag for any business that wants to be a part of the 4E game.

But if there are any game designers out there that want to have a cool "Forge" designed for their systems feel free to drop us a line. We'd love to help all the littler guys or even bigger guys have cool tools for their systems too.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Hussar said:


> The difference is simple. En World is a site devoted to discussing the game. Nearly all of that discussion falls under fair use laws. You can certainly quote parts of a work when discussing it. If you couldn't every university student in the world would have a problem.
> 
> Ema's site was a site devoted to providing a service for gamers. Fair use certainly does not cover this sort of thing. In addition, Ema was clearly violating copywrite and trademark left, right and center.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> Now, if En World started putting up complete texts of 4e powers on the En WIki, you'd certainly have a point. Same as if they started putting up complete texts from Complete Mage on the wiki as well. That is most certainly not covered under fair use.





Ok what about this neat Avatar I have. Last I checked that wasn't created by ENWorld but is a part of someone elses IP. Not that I am saying that I feel that is any violation but wouldn't this be an example of a Fan Site using something without permission? Unless of course they do have the right to use this art in some agreement somewhere. I mean there are alot of Avatar choices that look alot like WotC IP.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> I just know as stated in my posts on the Wizards boards, that we went the route of actually trying to talk to WotC regarding what we planned on doing. And I am very sure in the knowing that they are not above the use of someone elses IP when they feel like it.




None of the examples of WotC stealing other's IP presented in this thread carry with them even the faintest shred of evidence.  None.

The closest is the dice image from early promotional images of the D&D Game Table that were originally from Fantasy Grounds.  And, as a prior poster noted, this was an honest mistake quickly fixed once Fantasy Grounds let WotC know of the violation.

If you truly do feel you have a case against WotC in regards to IP from HeroForge, I can understand if you can't go into further detail as it may become a legal matter if you so choose to pursue it.

But until actual, solid proof of WotC stealing IP surfaces . . . . I can only lump it all in with the tons of silly, unreasonable WotC hate that pervades D&D fansites.

From what you have posted in this thread, it seems that the D&D Character Builder may enjoy some parallel development to HeroForge.  Some features of the Character Builder may even be inspired by features in HeroForge.  But that would be a far cry from actual IP theft.  If my company is developing an anti-virus software package, and we see a cool feature in a competitor's anti-virus package . . . . I'd come up with my own version of that very same feature to improve my own software package, that's not theft, it's healthy competition.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> Ok what about this neat Avatar I have. Last I checked that wasn't created by ENWorld but is a part of someone elses IP. Not that I am saying that I feel that is any violation but wouldn't this be an example of a Fan Site using something without permission? Unless of course they do have the right to use this art in some agreement somewhere. I mean there are alot of Avatar choices that look alot like WotC IP.




Now you're being silly (to put it kindly), and you know it.  WotC would be well within their rights to contact ENWorld and ask for all pieces of WotC owned artwork to be removed . . . . but they haven't, and won't, because they are smart enough to realize this would do them no good, serve no real purpose, and would be hard to track across all the fansites that also use snippets of WotC artwork.

Ema used WotC IP in a similar way for years and WotC didn't do anything about it until now.  Why now?  Because Ema went beyond just using logos, artwork, and trade dress, he created a character generator that used complete text (the IP we are all arguing about) and directly competes with WotC's own products . . . the Character Builder AND the physical books the material was taken from.

Ema was not a villian, but he crossed a line that rightfully got his site shut down.  You wonder what this means for other fans and companies thinking about supporting 4e?  It's dead simple really.  If you are charging for a product (whether you turn a profit in the end or not), follow the GSL and you'll be fine.  If you are a fangroup wanting to put up a website full of tools, don't include the full text of WotC's IP and don't use the official logos.  It boggles me how hard this is for some to see.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Dire Bare said:


> ...If my company is developing an anti-virus software package, and we see a cool feature in a competitor's anti-virus package . . . . I'd come up with my own version of that very same feature to improve my own software package, that's not theft, it's healthy competition.





Exactally healthy competition is a good thing for business. It makes the competitors have to keep progressing to the benefit of the consumer.So what is WotC's problem? It seems that they are afraid of that competition (IMO). And that is all it is, an opinion.

Or is this Competition ala Microsofts school of business? Not that I need to open that can but oh well.


----------



## xechnao

Dire Bare said:


> But until actual, solid proof of WotC stealing IP surfaces . . . . I can only lump it all in with the tons of silly, unreasonable WotC hate that pervades D&D fansites.



In a drama there is hate and there is love. And Wotc needs some drama. It keeps the fans interested. Do you love, hate, nothing...? What?


----------



## dinelendarkstar

xechnao said:


> In a drama there is hate and there is love. And Wotc needs some drama. It keeps the fans interested. Do you love, hate, nothing...? What?




I love playing D&D and love the work I do that revolves around it. I hate that it is a good possibility this work might be all for not.

I hate knowing that in the end it is the consumer that will suffer by not having options.

So goes the drama of the current state of roleplaying in D&D.


----------



## xechnao

Dire Bare said:


> Now you're being silly (to put it kindly), and you know it.  WotC would be well within their rights to contact ENWorld and ask for all pieces of WotC owned artwork to be removed . . . . but they haven't, and won't, because they are smart enough to realize this would do them no good, serve no real purpose, and would be hard to track across all the fansites that also use snippets of WotC artwork.




No, he aint silly. It has been said here that one has to defend his copyright or may risk disputes about his rights if he knowingly allow use of his copyright to thirds. Why this isn't the case here? Arguments can come from both sides in a drama. Unless you admit even passionate loving fans can be a bit silly too


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> No, he aint silly. It has been said here that one has to defend his copyright or may risk disputes about his rights if he knowingly allow use of his copyright to thirds. Why this isn't the case here?




Because there is a big difference between IP infringement (as is the case with Ema's site) and "Hey, that's a good idea to have in a character builder!!"

If Heroforge can make a character builder that doesn't use any of the IP from WotC beyond what simple Copyright allows them to use, there is not a lot that WotC can do about it.

_Note, not a lawyer_



> Arguments can come from both sides in a drama. Unless you admit even passionate loving fans can be a bit silly too




Silly is not a term that can only be applied to one side.


----------



## Hussar

dinelendarkstar said:


> Ok what about this neat Avatar I have. Last I checked that wasn't created by ENWorld but is a part of someone elses IP. Not that I am saying that I feel that is any violation but wouldn't this be an example of a Fan Site using something without permission? Unless of course they do have the right to use this art in some agreement somewhere. I mean there are alot of Avatar choices that look alot like WotC IP.




I would say your avatar most certainly violates IP.  

And, yup, they could ask them to be taken down.  Granted, it's not worth the money or the hassle, so it's pretty unlikely to happen, but, they would most certainly be within their rights to do so.

Now, if a situation arose where Morrus started charging for "premium avatars" and was using your image, would your opinion change?


----------



## alleynbard

dinelendarkstar said:


> That is why I refuse to go into any more detail about the subject of the aledged violation, but it is a good question none the less. If it were you and it was your work, what would you do? How would you feel?





Silly question and one I already answered.  I would talk to my lawyer and see what my options are.  I would not drag it out in a public forum and only give vague details to create a heightened sense of drama.  If you can't provide details then what do you expect people to talk about?

Are you looking for the rallying cry to take legal action?  If you have a problem, act professionally and take action.

Nothing about Ema's situation sends up any red flags as it pertains to your business.  What he did was illegal, pure and simple.  He admits as such.  If you aren't doing anything illegal then you shouldn't have to worry.  If you don't know if what you are doing is illegal then you need to talk to a lawyer, fast.  

As far as I can tell, this is all pretty clear.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> Because there is a big difference between IP infringement (as is the case with Ema's site) and "Hey, that's a good idea to have in a character builder!!"
> 
> If Heroforge can make a character builder that doesn't use any of the IP from WotC beyond what simple Copyright allows them to use, there is not a lot that WotC can do about it.
> 
> _Note, not a lawyer_



Eh, the point was about the point of the avatars. 
But nevermind, nothing serious. 




mudbunny said:


> Silly is not a term that can only be applied to one side.



hehe true.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Hussar said:


> I would say your avatar most certainly violates IP.
> 
> And, yup, they could ask them to be taken down. Granted, it's not worth the money or the hassle, so it's pretty unlikely to happen, but, they would most certainly be within their rights to do so.
> 
> Now, if a situation arose where Morrus started charging for "premium avatars" and was using your image, would your opinion change?




I think that you misunder stand where I am coming from here. This site does get money for the right to have special member perks, even a special Avatar option. So when it comes to the discussion of what is the difference between how Ema made money, selling a premium service and used WotC IP on the site and what this site does in all honestly is the same. 

If you are asking what if it was MY art that was used? I say cool it gets people seeing it and wanting to know where it comes from. Free advertising. Always the best kind.

Am I saying that WotC should stomp in, no! That would be a stupid move. But in the end it is all the same.

Also I would like to make myself clear on a few points before I continue the dialog I started, in regards to other replies to my posts.

1. I am not looking for anyones official legal advice, nor would I hunt for it here. Nor am I asking for an outcry of any kind, I simply asked for people's opinion. 
2. I asked for the opinion of this community to create a dialog with them on a subject that affects a lot of us in one way or another.
3. Am I not taking Ema's side and I am not taking WotC side. I am taking my own side and speaking as an idividual who has a lot at stake in the the current events.
4. Whether anyone deams my opinion stupid or silly or whater is ok by me. They have as much right to their Opinion as I do to mine. And after all this is what I asked for, people's opinion.
5. That said I am not here to bash or flame anyone, and I would hope the same in return, but again everyones opinion, no matter what form it come in is appriciated.
​One thing I have learned being a member of this community, if you want to know what is going on in the RPG world, you can usually find most of that here by just asking.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

alleynbard said:


> ... If you have a problem, act professionally and take action.
> 
> Nothing about Ema's situation sends up any red flags as it pertains to your business. What he did was illegal, pure and simple. He admits as such. If you aren't doing anything illegal then you shouldn't have to worry. If you don't know if what you are doing is illegal then you need to talk to a lawyer, fast.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this is all pretty clear.




As far as the being professional, I feel that we have been very professional in our dealings with WotC. And I know that we will continue to be. Whether they choose the same path, I can not speak for.

I am not of the sue over everything mentality. I am of the "hey we are all on the same team here," way of looking at things.

I would rather have a healthy business enviornment between RPG companies where colaboration is rewarded not hindered.

As for Ema,

I read it as he pleaded No contest, he only said the ISP did the right thing. He never said he did anything wrong.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> Exactally healthy competition is a good thing for business. It makes the competitors have to keep progressing to the benefit of the consumer.So what is WotC's problem? It seems that they are afraid of that competition (IMO). And that is all it is, an opinion.
> 
> Or is this Competition ala Microsofts school of business? Not that I need to open that can but oh well.




Please.  How many companies allow their competitors to use their own work?  Reacting to your competition to improve your product and allowing your competition to use your own work are two different things.

There are a number of fan character sheets and character generators out there that WotC has left alone.  Why did WotC single Ema out?  Because Ema used their IP to compete with them.  Only a fool would allow this to continue.  If Ema's generator was like so many others out there, and didn't use WotC IP, he'd never have receive a C&D.

Just by your tone of argument I'm convinced of one thing, you don't have a case against WotC and there is no infringement on WotC's part against HeroForge.

But as long as you keep HeroForge clean of protected WotC IP, you'll be fine.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> I think that you misunder stand where I am coming from here. This site does get money for the right to have special member perks, even a special Avatar option. So when it comes to the discussion of what is the difference between how Ema made money, selling a premium service and used WotC IP on the site and what this site does in all honestly is the same.




There's a huge difference.  Ema infringed on WotC IP in a major way and in direct competition to WotC products.  He got a C&D.  The use of WotC artwork for messageboard avatars infringes on WotC IP in a minor way that does not compete with WotC products.  ENWorld (and many other D&D fansites) have not received a C&D.  Simple.

The money ENWorld charges for "premium" membership has nothing to do with avatar pictures.  The money Ema charged had everything to do with his IP violation.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> As far as the being professional, I feel that we have been very professional in our dealings with WotC. And I know that we will continue to be. Whether they choose the same path, I can not speak for.




Just my opinion of course, but I don't think it is very professional to imply that a company, especially a company you wish to have a working relationship with, has stolen your IP.  It may be true, but bringing it up in a public forum like this is quite unprofessional, IMO.

Note how no one from WotC dropped by on ENWorld before Ema got his C&D and started throwing around how Ema's a big IP infringer.  They simply gathered the facts, decided how to respond, and then sent the C&D.  Ema complied with the C&D, and the situation is resolved and over.  Well, except for internet fan angst, that is.  If WotC had decided that Ema wasn't infringing, or that his infringement wasn't worth legal action, we'd never have even heard about it.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Dire Bare said:


> Please. How many companies allow their competitors to use their own work? Reacting to your competition to improve your product and allowing your competition to use your own work are two different things.
> 
> There are a number of fan character sheets and character generators out there that WotC has left alone. Why did WotC single Ema out? Because Ema used their IP to compete with them. Only a fool would allow this to continue. If Ema's generator was like so many others out there, and didn't use WotC IP, he'd never have receive a C&D.
> 
> Just by your tone of argument I'm convinced of one thing, you don't have a case against WotC and there is no infringement on WotC's part against HeroForge.
> 
> But as long as you keep HeroForge clean of protected WotC IP, you'll be fine.




My tone of argument? What argument? Last I checked I am not arguing anything. Unless the word opinion = argument to you?

As far as my feeling on what WotC might have or not have gotten from HF, I don't really care in the end, because imitation is the highest form of flattery. But I only speak for me right now not as or for HF. 

And really that is what I would like to see. Open colaberation between WotC and the companies that want to support their products. Could actually prove to be more profitable for all parties especially WotC.

Here's a good one.

How many of you out there, and don't lie, have ever used a pirated peice of software or downloaded a illegal music file or movie, just to in the end go buy an actual copy? 

In the end the company still made it's money and lost nothing. People are still going to buy the books and get their D&DI accounts no matter what other options are out there.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dire Bare said:


> Please.  How many companies allow their competitors to use their own work?  Reacting to your competition to improve your product and allowing your competition to use your own work are two different things.
> 
> There are a number of fan character sheets and character generators out there that WotC has left alone.  Why did WotC single Ema out?  Because Ema used their IP to compete with them.  Only a fool would allow this to continue.  If Ema's generator was like so many others out there, and didn't use WotC IP, he'd never have receive a C&D.




I don't think that simply creating character sheets or character generators is infringing.  (See my earlier posts, where I argued that such products, if they do not imbed too much protected content, were transformative, and therefore fair use.  For example, a list of feats that includes the feat names but does not include the full original text of the feats is fair use.  A list that exactly reproduces the full original text is not fair use.)



Dire Bare said:


> Note how no one from WotC dropped by on ENWorld before Ema got his C&D and started throwing around how Ema's a big IP infringer.  They simply gathered the facts, decided how to respond, and then sent the C&D.  Ema complied with the C&D, and the situation is resolved and over.  Well, except for internet fan angst, that is.  If WotC had decided that Ema wasn't infringing, or that his infringement wasn't worth legal action, we'd never have even heard about it.




I don't think that WotC would post such comments in any case in a public forum.  That sounds defamatory, and right or wrong, I'm thinking they would very much avoid making such a statement.


----------



## xechnao

My opinion is that Wotc wants the less direct competition possible for its commercial products. If you do compete pay attention to cover your ass by the law.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Dire Bare said:


> Just my opinion of course, but I don't think it is very professional to imply that a company, especially a company you wish to have a working relationship with, has stolen your IP. It may be true, but bringing it up in a public forum like this is quite unprofessional, IMO.
> 
> Note how no one from WotC dropped by on ENWorld before Ema got his C&D and started throwing around how Ema's a big IP infringer. They simply gathered the facts, decided how to respond, and then sent the C&D. Ema complied with the C&D, and the situation is resolved and over. Well, except for internet fan angst, that is. If WotC had decided that Ema wasn't infringing, or that his infringement wasn't worth legal action, we'd never have even heard about it.




But this is a very public matter. It affects the public that wants to use alternate game aids and are being denied the option. Is this not a discussion about IP infringment? Im just stating how I see other companies, namely the one acting upon their said IP being infringed, doing the same thing IMO, be that as it may.

Again the difference is I really don't care if they did it or not, intentional or not, reality or not. Because again I choose to look at it as, *if* that is the reality, wow what a compliment that would be.

Hats off to what WotC has done with their Character Builder, can't wait to see the game table, but given my choice I would like to see more options open the the Public, the consumer.


----------



## xechnao

dinelendarkstar said:


> But this is a very public matter. It affects the public that wants to use alternate game aids and are being denied the option. Is this not a discussion about IP infringment? Im just stating how I see other companies, namely the one acting upon their said IP being infringed, doing the same thing IMO, be that as it may.
> 
> Again the difference is I really don't care if they did it or not, intentional or not, reality or not. Because again I choose to look at it as, *if* that is the reality, wow what a compliment that would be.
> 
> Hats off to what WotC has done with their Character Builder, can't wait to see the game table, but given my choice I would like to see more options open the the Public, the consumer.




The public wants a lot of things changed regarding what there is now in the world. It is struggling with the current system. It is not something automatic, easy and that simple that we can solve in a forum -even for the specific case here which is rather deeper I think regarding what a forum discussion can do.


----------



## Echohawk

alleynbard said:


> The second situation you mention has to do with the MMII.  They used monsters that were open source but forgot to place the OGL in the book.



My MMII has the OGL on page 222.


----------



## Dire Bare

dinelendarkstar said:


> My tone of argument? What argument? Last I checked I am not arguing anything. Unless the word opinion = argument to you




Well, not an argument in terms of angry shouting and red faces (at least I hope not).  But discussion is argument, hopefully civilized.  Differing points of view and all.  I didn't mean to imply that you were being dismissive or jerky or anything like that.  In fact, in retrospect, my posts I think skirt closer to that line than any of yours, so if I offend I apologize.

It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests.  It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly.  And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules.  The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&D RPG.

Like it or not, D&D belongs lock, stock, and barrel to WotC.  It is their decision on how to approach fans turned competitors on products that use WotC's IP.  WotC managment has changed views on how open to be, as their is significant difference between the OGL and the GSL, but they remain the most open major RPG company to date.  The very fact that I can publish my own book, for profit, about the dragonborn race is pretty freakin generous.

WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP.  Ema did this, he got shut down.  Others have not done this, and they have been left alone.

WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't.  Ema just went a little too far.

To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

xechnao said:


> The public wants a lot of things changed regarding what there is now in the world. It is struggling with the current system. It is not something automatic, easy and that simple that we can solve in a forum -even for the specific case here which is rather deeper I think regarding what a forum discussion can do.





Maybe so. But nothing in life happens until you take action. Even if the action is just making your voice heard. No matter what the medium.

Only by exciting open discussion can things in the end, truely be resolved or changed.

Will it change anything? Who knows.

But I do know I am a 29 year player of D&D, I will always be a fan of D&D.
I have grown quite fond of where the game community has gone in those years. Technology and table top gaming have completely merged. 

I would like to have options of what software I use for my gaming. I surley don't want to have to settle for just one. Nor should anyone else. But if you play 4E D&D and want to use software at the table, that might just be your fate. 

Remind you I say MIGHT. I don't have a crystal ball. But that is the way I see things looking on the horizon. I hope I am wrong.

I'd hate to have to eat Mc Donalds every day.


----------



## xechnao

Dire Bare said:


> WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP.  Ema did this, he got shut down.  Others have not done this, and they have been left alone.
> 
> WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't.  Ema just went a little too far.
> 
> To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.




Wotc has not decided this. It is the law. Wotc cannot exclude compatibility with 4e. What they can exclude is your access to certain ways of using their IP and it is what they are doing.
And IMO Wotc is in a certain sense limiting competition by its huge capital and thus marketing advantage in a market very prone to marketing (culture & entertainment). But those who make the laws perhaps want it this way.


----------



## xechnao

dinelendarkstar said:


> Maybe so. But nothing in life happens until you take action. Even if the action is just making your voice heard. No matter what the medium.
> 
> Only by exciting open discussion can things in the end, truely be resolved or changed.
> 
> Will it change anything? Who knows.
> 
> But I do know I am a 29 year player of D&D, I will always be a fan of D&D.
> I have grown quite fond of where the game community has gone in those years. Technology and table top gaming have completely merged.
> 
> I would like to have options of what software I use for my gaming. I surley don't want to have to settle for just one. Nor should anyone else. But if you play 4E D&D and want to use software at the table, that might just be your fate.
> 
> Remind you I say MIGHT. I don't have a crystal ball. But that is the way I see things looking on the horizon. I hope I am wrong.
> 
> I'd hate to have to eat Mc Donalds every day.




It works this way. You make the application or software for games. Companies that make games may choose to license it from you or not for their games. You cant offer though something that draws from their games' IP without license from them.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

Dire Bare said:


> It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests. It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly. And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules. The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&D RPG.
> 
> ...
> 
> To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.




No apology needed but thanks none the less.

I agree with you here completly. It is not their job at all. I am just saying that looking at it in a strictly business point of view. I think that WotC could look at this in a different light but aren't. They could be like other companies and license the use of the IP for the purpose of Alternate tools or charcter generators. But they are looking at it as people should only use theirs or nothing. The difference is those companies that do license don't have a gen of their own they are trying to market.

Which brings me back to my point from before. D&DI isn't made of just the Character Builder and is still worth it's weight for all it's other tools. I seriously don't think a few other companies doing alt tools of any kind are going to hurt that bottom line. I just can't see that as a reality. But I do see the opportunity for WotC to profit from those alt tools also, if they so choose. Win Win for them. And still a win for the 3PP.

No loss to bottom line + increase in bottom line = happy shareholders.

make a lot of your customers mad and they go somewhere else to play = loss to bottom line = Not happy shareholders.


----------



## xechnao

dinelendarkstar said:


> Which brings me back to my point from before. D&DI isn't made of just the Character Builder and is still worth it's weight for all it's other tools. I seriously don't think a few other companies doing alt tools of any kind are going to hurt that bottom line. I just can't see that as a reality. But I do see the opportunity for WotC to profit from those alt tools also, if they so choose. Win Win for them. And still a win for the 3PP.




This is your POV. I think Wotc disagrees. If they do this for the Character Builder they could also do it for every other tool of DDI and eventually even with their IP as they had done so with OGL. And software competition is worse than game content competition because one chooses the version that he likes best and does not bother with others at all.


----------



## alleynbard

Echohawk said:


> My MMII has the OGL on page 222.




I misspoke.  I believe they miscredited the Creature Collection.   They stated it was developed by Necromancer Games when, in fact, it was produced by Sword and Sorcery.  Though, Necromancer was publishing under the S&S banner at the time.  I can't remember, but I thought the info was listed incorrectly in the OGL portion of that book. It might only be incorrectly listed in the sidebar text. I don't have the book near me at the moment.

Honestly, my point was to say the issue wasn't really a situation where Wizards took IP without permission.  And that point still stands.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

xechnao said:


> This is your POV. I think Wotc disagrees. If they do this for the Character Builder they could also do it for every other tool of DDI and eventually even with their IP as they had done so with OGL. And software competition is worse than game content competition because one chooses the version that he likes best and does not bother with others at all.




Well if they were getting a licensing fee from the companies they allowed to use the IP, then they are still getting something from it. If someone doesn't like D&DI and doesn't choose to use it they loss a peice of that customers money. But if that customer buys a licensed product and uses it, they still get a peice. So a peice of x number pies is still better than 0.

Yes this is my point of view and nothing more. But in this economic time, I would think that more businesses would welcome ways to profit. But that is the dog eat dog world we call business. Like it or not.

I can just hope for the best and that it was all worth it in the end.


----------



## xechnao

dinelendarkstar said:


> Well if they were getting a licensing fee from the companies they allowed to use the IP, then they are still getting something from it. If someone doesn't like D&DI and doesn't choose to use it they loss a peice of that customers money. But if that customer buys a licensed product and uses it, they still get a peice. So a peice of x number pies is still better than 0.
> 
> Yes this is my point of view and nothing more. But in this economic time, I would think that more businesses would welcome ways to profit. But that is the dog eat dog world we call business. Like it or not.
> 
> I can just hope for the best and that it was all worth it in the end.




It seems there are various companies that have made products compatible with 4e playing with the known and established rules (GSL license or fair use). I guess if you want to offer something compatible with 4e this seems the most reasonable way to go. And the business alternatives you have is to also look for other crunchy products that could make good use of software and see if and how you can support them.


----------



## arscott

dinelendarkstar said:


> Let's just say that the current Character Builder form WotC, at the time of GenCon this past year, didn't have certain features in it. As of now they do. Features that are not present in ANY of the other 3.5 or 4E character gens out right now.
> 
> Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our upcoming app. These features had nothing to do with WotC IP but in all cases is our IP when it comes to the UI design of our app.
> 
> Now here comes the big question?
> So should we be looking to C&D WotC for their use of our IP and design elements in a product that they make money on? I would love to hear some thought on that.



Do you have a patent for these features?  In general, software features aren't covered by copyright law.  WotC is allowed to use your ideas without compensating you, just as you are allowed to use the idea of a character defined by his STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA scores without compensating them.

If your ideas are innovative enough to be patentable, then you could spend a lot of money to patent them, but it almost certainly wouldn't be worth it.


xechnao said:


> No, he aint silly. It has been said here that one has to defend his copyright or may risk disputes about his rights if he knowingly allow use of his copyright to thirds. Why this isn't the case here? Arguments can come from both sides in a drama. Unless you admit even passionate loving fans can be a bit silly too



There are three kinds of IP in the US:  Patents (protection of inventions), Trademarks (protection of brand names and logos), and Copyright (protection of artistic and textual expressons)

Patents don't really come up much--you have to pay quite a bit of money for them, and they're so narrow in their application that the gaming world doesn't really bother with them.  (Though apparently WotC was granted a patant on the 'tapping' mechanic from MtG.  This doesn't seem to have had much effect).

Copyrights and Trademarks come up quite a bit more often.  Ema's website violated both.  But there's still a number of distinctions.  Copyright is automatic (you don't have to apply for it or pay a fee, though you can choose to do so anyway in order to make it easier for you to legally defend your copyrighted material).  Trademark is not automatic.  You have to pay a fee to register the trademark, and renew it every so often.  You also have to defend it--If people use your trademark in ways not permitted by law and you let it slide, you make eventually lose your right to use the name exclusively (for example, Yo-Yo used to be a trademarked brand name, but any toymaker can now use the name).

ENWorld's Avatars probably violate WotC's copyright.  But WotC doesn't have to defend copyright.  If ENWorld used WotC's logos, or used their brand names in ways that caused confusion between WotC's products and ENWorld's, then that would be a Trademark violation and WotC would be legally required to step in.

That said, your certainly right about ENWorld's avatars.  Morrus, if you're reading this, please consider removing all copyrighted art from your generic avatar banks.  If I had to spend entire _minutes_ in MS Paint making my avatar, then other ENWorlders should too.


----------



## xechnao

So since it was asked for the entire site to go down and not just the trademarks this seems to be mostly a matter of actual competition rather than a worry about trademarks. Hmm, in this case it seems that even if Ema did not charge for anything, the site most probably would have been sought to go down the same.
I though that doing so it could be a PR and marketing problem for Wotc but it seems it is not. Hopefully more so if their product has considerably more quality value than what they have closed down.


----------



## mxyzplk

So what is ENWorld's exposure in this?

Without a decent fan site policy and revised GSL, it's a bit tenuous.

- ENWorld posts character sheets and power cards, including some power cards with FR IP (see downloads section under that hot little succubus).
- ENWorld charges for community supporter accounts.
- Where do blogs/wikis/etc stop and "software" begin?  Do you think that's obvious to a 65-year-old judge in Texas somewhere?
- the avatar icons are really the least of it.

And, of course, in any kind of community site with blogs, forums, wikis - it's very hard to control what people post.  

The problem with the corp-friendly IP laws we live under is that *legally*, they could shut ENWorld down tomorrow.  It's just a fact of life.  There's enough "IP infringement" here that at a bare minimum it would go into litigation long enough to completely bankrupt the site.

So until and unless WotC publishes a real policy - which really isn't in their best interests to do as it constrains them - you should just get comfortable with "any site that even mentions 'Dungeons & Dragons' is existing at Hasbro's whim."  Yes you, random blogger who just published a 4e version of Santa Claus for Christmas.  

But don't worry - we're at the very bottom of their priority list.


----------



## tomBitonti

xechnao said:


> It works this way. You make the application or software for games. Companies that make games may choose to license it from you or not for their games. You cant offer though something that draws from their games' IP without license from them.




I imagine is that they are licensing trademarks and logos and such, and possibly the right to reproduce certain text.

(IMO, see my prior posts), you don't need a license to make a character generator, or to make a reference listing of powers.  My understanding is that you could create a power card printer, as long as you did not reproduce the (copyrighted) text of the powers.


----------



## tomBitonti

alleynbard said:


> Finally, the last thing you cite has to do with the game table and not the visualizer.  *Images that were meant to stay in-house* were released to the public. They contained images of dice from Fantasy Grounds.  The company sent WotC a C&D.  Wizards apologized and the offending material was removed and replaced with the proper images.




I added the *bold*.

Whether the images were meant to stay in-house doesn't matter.  (And, IMO, a claim in this regard would actually be taken unfavorably.  If _I_ were a judge such a statement would draw my ire.)  This was a blatant use, something that developers are coached strongly to not do, and the sort of use that create liabilities and gets people fired.

In WotC's defense, I cannot imagine that they do not have a proactive program to educate their employees, and I cannot imagine that they do not react swiftly to any such problems to remedy them.  Can you imaging the harm if they had to pull one of the 4E books because they used someone's art without permission?


----------



## Jack99

Uncalled for, Jack.  You're out of this thread.


----------



## catsclaw227

mxyzplk said:


> So until and unless WotC publishes a real policy - which really isn't in their best interests to do as it constrains them - you should just get comfortable with "any site that even mentions 'Dungeons & Dragons' is existing at Hasbro's whim."  Yes you, random blogger who just published a 4e version of Santa Claus for Christmas.



I think this is taking it a bit far.   I read your recent blog entry and it appears quite one-sided and without all the facts or any of the specifics that have been mentioned in this thread and the one on WOTC forums.  

I also noticed you had a blog post called _D&D 4e’s Out… And It’s Awful. Here’s Why_.  It helped explain the bias in your post on _Will WotC Close You Down Next?_.


----------



## CharlesRyan

You know, any speculation about mxyzplk's agenda aside, he's basically correct. A fan site built around a company's (or individual's) IP _absolutely_ exists at the IP owner's pleasure, unless it is very, very careful about its content.

Does that mean WotC is going to shut down ENWorld? Why would it? ENWorld's relationship to the D&D brand is positive and both sides benefit. So long as that remains the case, why would WotC take draconian steps?

It seems (and I have no direct experience) that Ema overstepped the appropriate bounds of his relationship with D&D. WotC acted in a manner that seems (again, no direct experience) pretty appropriate. Nothing that has happened indicates any sort of sea change in WotC policy.

Yes, WotC could almost certainly shut down ENWorld if it suddenly got the urge. If you don't like that, there's a simple way to avoid it happening: Continue to support ENWorld as the cordial, welcoming, non-IP-abusing site it's always been. I don't think WotC's ever going to come after ENWorld unless given a very, very compelling reason.


----------



## billd91

arscott said:


> Do you have a patent for these features?  In general, software features aren't covered by copyright law.  WotC is allowed to use your ideas without compensating you, just as you are allowed to use the idea of a character defined by his STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA scores without compensating them.




I believe it is a lot more complicated than that. I am not a lawyer, but I do work in the software industry and occasionally have to visit customers who have some software in place from our competitors as well. We have to be quite careful about how ideas, that may be present and even unpatentable in competing software, appear in our software and so have to be careful about how any exposure of our employees to competitor software is handled. Lawsuits *do* fly over such issues and can be quite costly just to defend against even if you win in the end.
Of course, they're also expensive to pursue in the first place and so, even if HeroForge or any other fan-based or hobbyist thought they had a good case, a major corporation like Hasbro/WotC is extremely hard to achieve satisfaction against.


----------



## alleynbard

tomBitonti said:


> I added the *bold*.
> 
> Whether the images were meant to stay in-house doesn't matter.  (And, IMO, a claim in this regard would actually be taken unfavorably.  If _I_ were a judge such a statement would draw my ire.)  This was a blatant use, something that developers are coached strongly to not do, and the sort of use that create liabilities and gets people fired.
> 
> In WotC's defense, I cannot imagine that they do not have a proactive program to educate their employees, and I cannot imagine that they do not react swiftly to any such problems to remedy them.  Can you imaging the harm if they had to pull one of the 4E books because they used someone's art without permission?




I agree.  I work as a graphic designer and I really think using those images was certainly unwise.  It wouldn't have been hard to develop placeholder images.  

I imagine the designer utilized the images and didn't tell anyone they were from Fantasy Grounds, in the hopes he/she would replace them before any images went public.  Or, the designer simply forgot where they got the image and let the thing get out.  Either way, Fantasy Grounds was well within their rights to send a C&D and the designer was wrong for not simply designing his own image to begin with.  

But I don't think there was any intentional IP violations on Wizards' part. That would boggle the mind and it was the point I was making.  Admittedly, I was a bit vague about that.


----------



## mxyzplk

CharlesRyan said:


> You know, any speculation about mxyzplk's agenda aside, he's basically correct. A fan site built around a company's (or individual's) IP _absolutely_ exists at the IP owner's pleasure, unless it is very, very careful about its content.
> 
> Does that mean WotC is going to shut down ENWorld? Why would it? ENWorld's relationship to the D&D brand is positive and both sides benefit. So long as that remains the case, why would WotC take draconian steps?
> 
> It seems (and I have no direct experience) that Ema overstepped the appropriate bounds of his relationship with D&D. WotC acted in a manner that seems (again, no direct experience) pretty appropriate. Nothing that has happened indicates any sort of sea change in WotC policy.
> 
> Yes, WotC could almost certainly shut down ENWorld if it suddenly got the urge. If you don't like that, there's a simple way to avoid it happening: Continue to support ENWorld as the cordial, welcoming, non-IP-abusing site it's always been. I don't think WotC's ever going to come after ENWorld unless given a very, very compelling reason.




I definitely have an "agenda" in that I dislike 4e and think that Wizards' retreat from the OGL and openness in general is a threat to D&D, the gaming industry, and gamers like ourselves.  So I own up there.

But is the solution really "be a site that Wizards likes?"  Sure, ENWorld may pull that off, but is that the answer to the thousand other fansites?  "You can exist as long as they like you?"

That's like saying "I don't see anything wrong with slavery, I'm the favored house slave!  No beatings for me!"  It only lasts as long as you're in good with the master, and sure doesn't help the other individuals.


----------



## crazy_cat

mxyzplk said:


> That's like saying "I don't see anything wrong with slavery, I'm the favored house slave!  No beatings for me!"  It only lasts as long as you're in good with the master, and sure doesn't help the other individuals.



Thats one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard.

My moneys on the thread being Godwin'd and/or closed within ten posts maximum.


----------



## catsclaw227

mxyzplk said:


> I definitely have an "agenda" in that I dislike 4e and think that Wizards' retreat from the OGL and openness in general is a threat to D&D, the gaming industry, and gamers like ourselves.  So I own up there.



OK, this is fair and you are entitled to feel this way.  I completely disagree that a retreat from the OGL is a threat to D&D, though this isn't the topic of this thread.



mxyzplk said:


> But is the solution really "be a site that Wizards likes?"  Sure, ENWorld may pull that off, but is that the answer to the thousand other fansites?  "You can exist as long as they like you?"
> 
> That's like saying "I don't see anything wrong with slavery, I'm the favored house slave!  No beatings for me!"  It only lasts as long as you're in good with the master, and sure doesn't help the other individuals.



And here I think, again, you are stretching it quite a bit.  None of this has happened, and fanning the flames with fear tactics doesn't help.

I read your most recent comment on your blog, and you make some good points, especially about a clear-cut fan site policy.  

But you can't use quotes around the word "charging" in context to what Ema was doing.  That is swaying the argument in a clearly biased direction and not looking objectively at the situation. 

(But.... admittedly, it IS a blog site, and objectivity is not the keystone that holds these sites up.   )

Ema was charging, not "charging" for services.  He was asking for pay to keep power cards and sheets online with closed content, allowing for visibility to protected full text descriptions of 4e content.

If I recall, he was running ads (at least he was when I last visited) and had even had a Paypal donation option at one time to cover hosting costs.

I am pretty sure that WOTC would NOT have shut him down for that.  He decided to make a business out of protected content.  This is not cool in the eyes of WOTC, nor would it be for most any other RPG Publisher out there.

How would Paizo handle it if I was selling content that utilized protected content about Golarian without their permission?  They just might send me a C&D as well.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I certainly wouldn't begrudge them if they did.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

arscott said:


> Do you have a patent for these features? In general, software features aren't covered by copyright law. WotC is allowed to use your ideas without compensating you, just as you are allowed to use the idea of a character defined by his STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA scores without compensating them.




From Copyright Basics on the US gov site for Copyright:

Copyrightable works include the following categories:
1 literary works
2 musical works, including any accompanying words
3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4 pantomimes and choreographic works
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7 sound recordings
8 architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”​ 
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

So yes software is covered and is considerd a literary work no different then a book.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

arscott said:


> ... just as you are allowed to use the idea of a character defined by his STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA scores without compensating them.




This is because game mechanics CAN NOT be protected by copyright. Pateneted maybe, but copyright no.


----------



## mxyzplk

catsclaw227 said:


> Ema was charging, not "charging" for services.  He was asking for pay to keep power cards and sheets online with closed content, allowing for visibility to protected full text descriptions of 4e content.
> 
> If I recall, he was running ads (at least he was when I last visited) and had even had a Paypal donation option at one time to cover hosting costs.
> 
> I am pretty sure that WOTC would NOT have shut him down for that.  He decided to make a business out of protected content.  This is not cool in the...




Sure, and fair enough.  But we're all having to guess and be "pretty sure" about what WotC would shut someone down for.  I'll remind us all that Rouse's last post said "pretty much we only care about full scale torrent pirates."  However you view Ema's site, it wasn't that.  So they are clearly expanding their scope of inspection.

White Wolf put out a quite restrictive fan site policy that said you can't even have ads on a WW fan site.  Well, does WotC care about that too?  Because then a bunch more sites would come under the potential gun.  This isn't some strange hypothetical, one of the other largest RPG companies took this stance.

What's OK and what's wrong?  Charging for use?  Paypal donations for hosting?  Ads?  Ads done by your host because you're using a free site?  Optional charging for a "better" account?  Selling your own products on the site?  Selling other products through the site?  There are other companies that have said they have a beef with all of these.  I think we all here would be "shocked" if WotC went to close down everyone with ads on their site, but they're certainly entitled to and other RPG companies have.  So how do we know what's OK in this case?  The real answer is by WotC actually publishing fansite rules instead of the current vagueness of "well, as long as we like you, you're OK."  But they say it's a low priority for them.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

If you want to stay safe, don´t reproduce Wotc IP on your site. Its that simple. Once you do it, you´ve reached "could move against you, maybe, maybe not" territory. Once you charge anything for anything, you´ve went still farther into that direction. Thats how it is. 
I´m pretty sure even with a fansite policy, much will still come down to goodwill and "wish us luck." Personally, i know several sites that are surfing very close to the reef already, so to speak. And yes, for sites like that its pretty much "any day now, something will happen."


----------



## tomBitonti

I have to ask: Do we know _specifically_ what WotC found infringing?

Also: Do we know if the site had:

1) Use of trademarks?
2) Use of other graphical items?
3) More than minimal use of text from WotC?
4) Use of feat and/or power names?
5) Use of game mechanic terms?
6) A set of character sheets?
7) A power card printer?

My understanding (and really, _my_ understanding) is that 1-3 are infringing while 4-7 are not (with the separation of 1-3 as distinct items).

The discussion has been interesting, but I'm reaching the limit of what I can draw out from a discussion about Ema's website (as opposed to a general copyright/fair/use discussion).

This would seem to be a good case for WotC to explain what went wrong, and generally what the fan site policy is.  Since I haven't heard this policy, I don't think one will be forthcoming, other than "you can do what is fair to do", that is, that the policy is to follow Copyright and Trademark law.  Also, taken in that light, a statement from WotC would be _their interpretation_ of what is fair, and I don't see them giving up that information.  (I imagine they _want_ there to be a fuzzy line, even though that chills fan content.)

Someone mentioned in a prior post that there is a "usual" process for infringement cases, and the sending of Cease and Desist letters.  What is that actual process?  Is a remedy which is to remove just infringing material generally sufficient?  Is it usual for a threat of a lawsuit to be made to cause the infringer to remove _all_ material?  (As in, "Look, you infringed us.  We could sue you, but we won't, if you not only take down the infringing items, but also take down these additional items...")


----------



## Xath

mxyzplk said:


> That's like saying "I don't see anything wrong with slavery, I'm the favored house slave!  No beatings for me!"  It only lasts as long as you're in good with the master, and sure doesn't help the other individuals.




This comparisson is completely inappropriate.  I encourage you to reread the rules with the time you gain from no longer posting in this thread.


----------



## JohnRTroy

mxyzplk said:


> But is the solution really "be a site that Wizards likes?"  Sure, ENWorld may pull that off, but is that the answer to the thousand other fansites?  "You can exist as long as they like you?"
> 
> That's like saying "I don't see anything wrong with slavery, I'm the favored house slave!  No beatings for me!"  It only lasts as long as you're in good with the master, and sure doesn't help the other individuals.




A fan site still exists at the pleasure of the parent company.

Mxyzplk, based on your blog, you tend to see the world in a very black and white simplistic view of large company and/or defending IP as "evil", and little guys, open source, OGL, freedom to do anything with the property as "good".  I read what you said about the White Wolf fan policy--clearly anything other than a very laizee-faire, OGL or creative commons standard will displease you.  You rally against censorship, but when you use other's creations you need to have a modicum of respect.  I really think you need to stop using too much hyperbole, especially the slavery comparison.

I think WoTC can and should do it on a case by case basis.  I do think an official fan site policy would be nice and should be released by WoTC, but I also think only the most egregious violations will ever be undertaken.  I doubt ENWorld would be seen as a threat--you're taking everything to the extreme.


----------



## xechnao

catsclaw227 said:


> OK, this is fair and you are entitled to feel this way.  I completely disagree that a retreat from the OGL is a threat to D&D, though this isn't the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> And here I think, again, you are stretching it quite a bit.  None of this has happened, and fanning the flames with fear tactics doesn't help.
> 
> I read your most recent comment on your blog, and you make some good points, especially about a clear-cut fan site policy.
> 
> But you can't use quotes around the word "charging" in context to what Ema was doing.  That is swaying the argument in a clearly biased direction and not looking objectively at the situation.
> 
> (But.... admittedly, it IS a blog site, and objectivity is not the keystone that holds these sites up.   )
> 
> Ema was charging, not "charging" for services.  He was asking for pay to keep power cards and sheets online with closed content, allowing for visibility to protected full text descriptions of 4e content.
> 
> If I recall, he was running ads (at least he was when I last visited) and had even had a Paypal donation option at one time to cover hosting costs.
> 
> I am pretty sure that WOTC would NOT have shut him down for that.  He decided to make a business out of protected content.  This is not cool in the eyes of WOTC, nor would it be for most any other RPG Publisher out there.
> 
> How would Paizo handle it if I was selling content that utilized protected content about Golarian without their permission?  They just might send me a C&D as well.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I certainly wouldn't begrudge them if they did.




I posted this also above. I am not sure it was about charging (commercial values competition within a market) but actual competition which is competition with the whole market itself. A site like d20srd.org is free and it seems Wotc sees such venture as undesired actual competition. If one produces a free character builder that competes with their commercial character builder and Wotc can shut the free one down it seems it will do so. This is the policy game for businesses and deals with many factors of the market and it seems now that Wotc is on the aggressive. It makes sense though: initially expand the market with OGL and then try to take as much as you can. 
What I see negatively is not Wotc current policy but what it has done with the OGL. Hopefully right now Wotc can limit itself to do only its own business and not mess up with the market like it did 8 years ago. But of course this is my opinion, one I have expressed more times and I know that there are other people over here that disagree with it.


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> A site like d20srd.org is free and it seems Wotc sees such venture as undesired actual competition.




What makes you say that?


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> What makes you say that?




What they did with Ema's site?


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> What they did with Ema's site?




How does ema's site have anything to do with d20srd.org? (and whether or not WoTC has any issue with d20srd.org)


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> How does ema's site have anything to do with d20srd.org? (and whether or not WoTC has any issue with d20srd.org)



A poster denoted that Wotc does not have to defend its IP rights regarding copyright in commercial ventures -only trademarks. Yet the whole of Ema's site went down so it is not that charging and trademark violation was their problem.
  Wotc has not any issue with d20srd.org now but it seems it would have with a similar database like d20srd.org regarding 4e. How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)? I feel right now they would not see it in a happy eye, especially if it was highly functional.
But I find this normal. Do you think it is not?


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> A poster denoted that Wotc does not have to defend its IP rights regarding copyright in commercial ventures -only trademarks. Yet the whole of Ema's site went down so it is not that charging and trademark violation was their problem.
> Wotc has not any issue with d20srd.org now but it seems it would have with a similar database like d20srd.org regarding 4e. How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)? I feel right now they would not see it in a happy eye, especially if it was highly functional.
> But I find this normal. Do you think it is not?




I feel you are jumping to conclusions based on lack of any information.


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> I feel you are jumping to conclusions based on lack of any information.




Maybe so but you did not answer the question.  Let me repeat it: How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)?


----------



## Xyxox

xechnao said:


> A poster denoted that Wotc does not have to defend its IP rights regarding copyright in commercial ventures -only trademarks. Yet the whole of Ema's site went down so it is not that charging and trademark violation was their problem.
> Wotc has not any issue with d20srd.org now but it seems it would have with a similar database like d20srd.org regarding 4e. How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)? I feel right now they would not see it in a happy eye, especially if it was highly functional.
> But I find this normal. Do you think it is not?




BIG difference between d20srd.org and Ema's site.

d20srd.org is 100% legal. Ema's wasn't.


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> Maybe so but you did not answer the question.  Let me repeat it: How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)?




I have no idea one way or the other. Nothing about this situation (ema's site) gives me any kind of information about that question.


----------



## xechnao

Xyxox said:


> BIG difference between d20srd.org and Ema's site.
> 
> d20srd.org is 100% legal. Ema's wasn't.




This was not the point. It is legal for the previous version -and Wotc can do nothing about it because of the OGL. What about something similar about the current version, where Wotc would have a say if it stays or if it goes.


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> I have no idea one way or the other. Nothing about this situation (ema's site) gives me any kind of information about that question.




It depends how you value information. I think it was clear that I was talking about feelings and judgment. There are absolute proofs-facts and then there are indications that make people believe or judge something to be more probable than something else. So one may weight things one way or the other. And some times he may choose not to because of biases. I accept this but I do not agree in this case. We are not legal court, we are gossiping in a forum.


----------



## Dire Bare

xechnao said:


> A poster denoted that Wotc does not have to defend its IP rights regarding copyright in commercial ventures -only trademarks. Yet the whole of Ema's site went down so it is not that charging and trademark violation was their problem.
> Wotc has not any issue with d20srd.org now but it seems it would have with a similar database like d20srd.org regarding 4e. How do you believe they would act if a rules database was circling around (one like what they offer in DDI)? I feel right now they would not see it in a happy eye, especially if it was highly functional.
> But I find this normal. Do you think it is not?




I see your point.  If a fansite or business site (free or for charge) put up a database of WotC 4e rules, including full text much like the D&D Compendium . . . hell yes, WotC would have a problem with that.  A C&D would fly quickly and righteosly.

It's one of the reasons why the 4e GSL is so different than the 3e OGL.  d20SRD.org is 100% okay legally, but a 4e version would not fly.  Which is cool by me, I've always found websites and products like d20SRD.org as leeching and cheesy.  The 3e OGL was designed to allow other RPG companies to design compatible products with D&D, not to have the rules posted for free online!  But the way it was worded allowed it!


----------



## fanboy2000

mxyzplk said:


> What's OK and what's wrong? Charging for use? Paypal donations for hosting? Ads? Ads done by your host because you're using a free site? Optional charging for a "better" account? Selling your own products on the site? Selling other products through the site? There are other companies that have said they have a beef with all of these. I think we all here would be "shocked" if WotC went to close down everyone with ads on their site, but they're certainly entitled to and other RPG companies have. So how do we know what's OK in this case? The real answer is by WotC actually publishing fansite rules instead of the current vagueness of "well, as long as we like you, you're OK." But they say it's a low priority for them.



It seems wrong to respond to you when you can't respond back, but I feel the need to give you my honest opinion.

I agree with the basic premise that it is better for a game, any game, to have people discuss the game on the internet. More specifically, I agree with you that it is better for D&D for people to discuss it on the internet.

That said, it doesn't bother me that Wizards can send a cease and desist letter to every fan site on the internet. Lets say Wizards asks ENWorld to close-up shop. I can still play my game. My game isn't predicated on having ENWorld's existence. Indeed, I think that if WotC was successful in that, usenet would suddenly become a viable place to talk about rpgs again. But I digress....

It is unfair that someone can have a fan website for years and then arbitrarily get a C&D from WotC out of the blue. Of course, life is fundamentally unfair. It is a risk people take when using property that doesn't belong to them. When a person or a company (IP protection isn't limited to companies) owns something one the rights (though this isn't an absolute right) is the right to exclude people from using that property. Even though companies may use that right in ways I disagree with, I believe that right is important.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

xechnao said:


> This was not the point. It is legal for the previous version -and Wotc can do nothing about it because of the OGL. What about something similar about the current version, where Wotc would have a say if it stays or if it goes.




What do you mean with something similar? D20.org put all that stuff online about which Wotc said in the OGL "use it." If a similar site does the same with stuff people are explicitly allowed to use in any way they please for 4e, nothing can and will happen.


----------



## CharlesRyan

mxyzplk said:


> But is the solution really "be a site that Wizards likes?"  Sure, ENWorld may pull that off, but is that the answer to the thousand other fansites?  "You can exist as long as they like you?"




In a word, yes.*

D&D is WotC's sandbox. If you want to build sandcastles in it, you gotta be their friend and play by their rules.

Don't like that? No problem. Play D&D in the privacy of your own home, or at cons or your local shop or whatever, just like millions of other people. Just don't make a D&D web site.

I can sense your concern: Who wants to build a labour of love that someone else can destroy at a whim? Unfortunately, that's the playing field for fan sites. But don't lose too much sleep over it: Just because WotC is a business doesn't make it evil or capricious. WotC cares about D&D, which means it cares about the D&D community, which means it cares about the possibility of offending tens of thousands of hardcore fans. WotC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to get people to like D&D. They aren't about to reverse all of that on a whim.



* (Or more technically, no. You can run a site that _doesn't_ play by their rules, but you'd better be _darn_ sure you don't cross any infringement lines. Which probably rules out a lot of what you'd want to do with a fan site anyway.)


----------



## xechnao

Keefe the Thief said:


> What do you mean with something similar? D20.org put all that stuff online about which Wotc said in the OGL "use it." If a similar site does the same with stuff people are explicitly allowed to use in any way they please for 4e, nothing can and will happen.




Answering your argument: What we know is that Wotc made the OGL. If we presume that it did so because it wanted to promote what OGL allowed we can say that Wotc's will was to allow what was compiled in the OGL, independently to the existence of the OGL which is only the medium. So even if OGL did not exist and somebody made D20.org back then Wotc would not seek to take action. Would it be the same now? 

So how would you describe D20.org? A free functional database for the fans that makes certain practical matters of their game easier to handle (spot rules reference). Something similar to this. So lets say a reference service with a determined functionality.


----------



## xechnao

CharlesRyan said:


> WotC cares about D&D, which means it cares about the D&D community, which means it cares about the possibility of offending tens of thousands of hardcore fans. WotC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to get people to like D&D. They aren't about to reverse all of that on a whim.




Yes. And it seems that closing down sites like Ema's does not have the negative PR and marketing effects to make them feel sorry about doing so. This is even more like it if they offer a better service than Ema did. This is what I was trying to talk about above.
So the whole deal is to try and offer what they cannot offer.


----------



## resistor

dinelendarkstar said:


> So yes software is covered and is considerd a literary work no different then a book.




While factual, this is not correct in the sense that you meant it.  Software is largely unique in that it can be covered both by patents and by copyright.  As a software engineer and someone who has dealt with software licensing issues on several occasions, the distinction generally is:

Patents cover inventions and processes.  You can patent an algorithm, an abstract recipe for how to execute some specific task on a computer.  For instance, Adobe holds gazillions of patents on efficient ways to compute such-and-such graphical effect. Microsoft holds lots for way to do various operating systems things.

Copyright covers a particular expression of a creative work.  The legal justification for this as regards to software is that the code for a program can be viewed as a creative work by the programmer, and thus subject to copyright just like a book is.  However, just as two authors can write books about young boys who discover they are wizards and go off to a magical school in a castle, so can two programmers write programs that compute the same graphical effect without infringing each other's copyright, so long as no actual copying was involved.

Again, generally speaking, a patent is broader, in that it protects an idea independent of any one particular expression of it.  Copyright protects only one expression (muddled by derivative works).  On the flipside, copyright is automatic and free, where as patents cost money, require registration, and require evidence that the patented idea is, in fact, original.

------------

Of course, nothing is ever cut and dry in law.  I'm not extremely familiar with the details of this instance, but it undoubtedly lies in-between.  My analysis:

It seems very unlikely to me that WotC holds relevant patents, so I'll dismiss that possibility.

Copyright infringement, in this case, does not seem cut and dry.  If there was a significant amount of verbatim copying of text (not just math), then infringement would be pretty clear.  However, with only similar text or just mathematical content, the picture gets much less clear.  Mathematical content is generally harder to claim copyright on, since its expression is generally not considered creative, though one could argue that the choice of what formulas to use is.  Plus , of course, the fact that mechanics are not copyrightable.  Either way, that one wouldn't be clear cut.

Were it to actually come to a court case in such a situation, WotC would have to argue that, even in the absence direct copying, the sheet still comprised a derivative work.  This gets muddy really fast, especially when you run into counter-arguments because for something essentially of a mathematical nature, there may not BE enough room for creative expression  for a suitably dis-similar expression to exist.  (i.e. how many different ways are there to write the recipe for a PB&J?)


----------



## Anon Adderlan

arscott said:


> But instead, Ema chose to use WotC trademarked logos and trade dress when designing his character sheets, rather than creating his own artwork. He copied spell summaries directly from the books when he could have easily created his own.




If this was the case, then WotC was well within their rights to do what they did. Sadly, the situation appears to have already reached settlement, and an NDA blankets the landscape, so any chance of getting anything beyond rumors at this point is highly unlikely. I suspect that Ema is rather limited in what he can confirm or deny at this point.

That said, and since I already wrote most of this before I was aware of certain details, here's a quick legal lesson...
If WotC had acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of fair use (which is looking less and less likely), Ema could have sued for _damages_ under the DMCA. And while Ema had stated previously that the site was deleted by the ISP at the request of WotC, it's possible that the settlement agreement limits Ema to saying that WotC _requested_ him to delete all the data, even if it was already gone by then.

A character sheet is a _form_, and "Blank forms and similar works designed to record rather than to convey information cannot be protected by copyright". Sure, you can't use the logos, and some designs may be considered product identity, but it's really not difficult to layout a character sheet and avoid all that.

While the source to a program can be protected by copyright, the task a program performs can only be protected by patents. I highly doubt Ema was unlawfully using WotC's source code, and even if 4e is protected by patents (is it?), the same would not necessarily be the case for a character generator.

You cannot use trademarks to protect the terms used to _describe_ a process or game. I'm really not sure what WotC claims as product identity in 4e, and it's in their best interests to be as unclear about this as possible. However, if they claimed something like 'Armor Class', its use would not be protected by either trademark or copyright law.

There is nothing illegal about charging money for storage. If I rent an apartment, I can keep my character sheets there. What makes the internet any different? I myself keep many character sheets on Google Docs. Is Google infringing WotC's copyrights, trademarks, or patents?

You do not need a specific license from WotC, such as the GSL, to engage in any of the above activities regarding 4e. Normal IP law works just fine. Personally, I'm rather sick of all the EULAs and crap that try to redefine IP law in the public eye.​


chriton227 said:


> Actually, I contacted Ema to ask about getting at least the raw data from my characters (name, descriptions, etc.) and was informed that as part of the agreement with WotC, all of the data (including my data) had been deleted.  So apparently WotC had no problems dictating the destruction of my intellectual property while they were defending their own.   I don't see how WotC could have any legal standing to request the destruction of data that was in no way their intellectual property (unless they copyrighted the names Cormax, Darya, Marcus, Daja, and others).




If you really feel like pursuing it, you _might_ have a valid case against WotC, but how much is it really worth it to you? And just as a form cannot be protected by copyright, it's possible the same may apply to a _filled out_ form. Not sure at this point.

One thing I find fascinating is that RPGs are the ONLY copyright protected work that explicitly requires you to create derivative works to use in the first place. That's interesting untested legal territory right there.



Xath said:


> It's a shame that the entire site had to be taken down. I still really like Ema's 3.5 character and spell sheets.




WotC want's to move everyone away from 3.5, so if they obliterated the site due to 4e issues, they might as well get Ema to agree to ditch the 3.5 stuff too.



arscott said:


> Trademark is not automatic. You have to pay a fee to register the trademark, and renew it every so often.




Not true.

_The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required._​


mxyzplk said:


> The problem with the corp-friendly IP laws we live under is that *legally*, they could shut ENWorld down tomorrow. It's just a fact of life. There's enough "IP infringement" here that at a bare minimum it would go into litigation long enough to completely bankrupt the site.




You should see the artist commissions at comic book conventions.

Hell, I saw two different illustrations based on the same Wolverine promotional photo at NYCC, and that's not even an original drawing of the character in question. Then again, it _was_ a promo image.


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> It depends how you value information. I think it was clear that I was talking about feelings and judgment. There are absolute proofs-facts and then there are indications that make people believe or judge something to be more probable than something else. So one may weight things one way or the other. And some times he may choose not to because of biases. I accept this but I do not agree in this case. We are not legal court, we are gossiping in a forum.




I'm still saying you're jumping to conclusions based on lack of info.

We know a cease and Desist letter was sent.

We know the site was taken down in response.

We have no idea what was in the letter, or what actions promted the letter. 

If d20srd.org had started posting parts of the books that weren't considered OGL (like say certain spell names, or the beholder or mindflayer stats) and was sent a C&D letter would you draw the same conclusion?  That WoTC was now on the warpath against online rules sites?

Nothing in this situation supports what you're saying unless you make the leap. You could just as easily say Ema's was actually hosting pirated pdfs available for download to certain members that knew about it, and have the same amount of evidence to back it up.

The whole thing could be as simple as WoTC sent the letter and told them what was offending, but fixing it was more trouble them ema considered worth it.

Just seems to me that making claims like that serve no purpose other then spreading rumors and fear. Which ultimately hurts the game community.


----------



## resistor

Scribble said:


> The whole thing could be as simple as WoTC sent the letter and told them what was offending, but fixing it was more trouble them ema considered worth it.




While I have no knowledge of the details, I think this attitude is VERY dangerous.

In the software world, it is quite common for copyright holders (both of software and of data) to make absolutely outrageous claims.  Hell, TSR had a history of trying to use copyright to quash discussion sites about their material, which are a pretty clear case of the review-and-critique fair use doctrine.  The RIAA and MPAA send C&D letters to dead people and people who don't own computers.

(Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right.  They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees.  And, when you're talking about Massive Corp, Inc. vs Joe Shmoe, they can _always_ win on the second one.

I've seen people and even small companies roll over to outlandish claims, just because they didn't understand what was legal, or because they couldn't afford to fight it.

So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate.  It may have been, or it may not have been.  Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.


----------



## Scribble

resistor said:


> So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate.  It may have been, or it may not have been.  Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.




I never said you should. I pretty much said exactly what you said in the last line. We have no facts or knowledge other then bare minimum. Anything other then that is jumping to conclusions, and pointless.


----------



## jaerdaph




----------



## catsclaw227

Scribble said:


> The whole thing could be as simple as WoTC sent the letter and told them what was offending, but fixing it was more trouble them ema considered worth it.



This is what I am thinking too.  Occam's Razor and all...


----------



## catsclaw227

resistor said:


> (Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right.  They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees.



This is untrue.  While I was working for them, a former employer had to send C&D letters, and it was to a larger company with deeper pockets.

Companies do send C&D letters when they know they are right, and some do it as a scare tactic. But let's not lump everyone into a Evil Megacorp vs. Innocent Little Guy generalization.


----------



## crazy_cat

catsclaw227 said:


> But let's not lump everyone into a Evil Megacorp vs. Innocent Little Guy generalization.



Why not? This is a discussion taking place on the internet.


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> If d20srd.org had started posting parts of the books that weren't considered OGL (like say certain spell names, or the beholder or mindflayer stats) and was sent a C&D letter would you draw the same conclusion?  That WoTC was now on the warpath against online rules sites?




Yes. I would draw the conclusion that Wotc is on the warpath against online rules sites that offer certain rules which means that Wotc sees this as undesirable competition. And as I said I find this normal. I have nothing against this at this point. But it seems you say we should not draw any conclusion? I fail to see the point of your argument. And what you are saying about technical complications it seems a bit improbable if what was the offender were artistic trademarks and logos the whole site needed to technically go down. Could be but I do not know any software working this way.


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> Yes. I would draw the conclusion that Wotc is on the warpath against online rules sites that offer certain rules which means that Wotc sees this as competition. And as I said I find this normal. I have nothing against this. But it seems you say we should not draw any conclusion? I fail to see your point of this argument.




My point again, is that you're making a leap. You're attributing motives to an action based on guesswork. 

What leads you to the conclusion that they consider it competition?

What if they just considered what was being done on the site theft?

If I started photocopying my rule books and selling those photocopies, and WoTC sent me a cease and desist letter, you would consider that stiffling competition?



> And what you are saying about technical complications it seems a bit improbable if what was the offender were artistic trademarks and logos the whole site needed to technically go down. Could be but I do not know any software working this way.




I'm not sure what you're asking in this part? I wasn't saying that was the reason, I was simply pointing out that one guess is as good as another.


----------



## dinelendarkstar

chaosvoyager said:


> A character sheet is a _form_, and "Blank forms and similar works designed to record rather than to convey information cannot be protected by copyright". Sure, you can't use the logos, and some designs may be considered product identity, but it's really not difficult to layout a character sheet and avoid all that.
> 
> While the source to a program can be protected by copyright, the task a program performs can only be protected by patents. I highly doubt Ema was unlawfully using WotC's source code, and even if 4e is protected by patents (is it?), the same would not necessarily be the case for a character generator.
> 
> You cannot use trademarks to protect the terms used to _describe_ a process or game. I'm really not sure what WotC claims as product identity in 4e, and it's in their best interests to be as unclear about this as possible. However, if they claimed something like 'Armor Class', its use would not be protected by either trademark or copyright law.
> 
> ...
> 
> You do not need a specific license from WotC, such as the GSL, to engage in any of the above activities regarding 4e. Normal IP law works just fine. Personally, I'm rather sick of all the EULAs and crap that try to redefine IP law in the public eye.​



So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?

Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do? 

And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> My point again, is that you're making a leap. You're attributing motives to an action based on guesswork.
> 
> What leads you to the conclusion that they consider it competition?
> 
> What if they just considered what was being done on the site theft?
> 
> If I started photocopying my rule books and selling those photocopies, and WoTC sent me a cease and desist letter, you would consider that stiffling competition?




 I would consider it legal competition. Legal competition is one thing, policy is another. One influences the other in most cases but they are not the same. So the leaps you are talking about. But policy is not something as a written laws -one approaches to understand policy by weighting-judging things as they happen in practice. You are talking about leaps and jumps and whatever. So you are practically saying we should not make conclusions about one's policy. Well I disagree.


----------



## Scribble

xechnao said:


> I would consider it legal competition. Legal competition is one thing, policy is another. One influences the other in most cases but they are not the same. So the leaps you are talking about. But policy is not something as a written laws -one approaches to understand policy by weighting-judging things as they happen in practice. You are talking about leaps and jumps and whatever. So you are practically saying we should not make conclusions about one's policy. Well I disagree.




I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here but- I'm not saying you can't make conclusions. I'm simply saying I don't see how any conclusion other then "a site was taken down with the stated reason being because it's owner received a C&D letter for some unknown reason."

Any other conclusions you draw on top of that "Because wizards doesn't want online competition," "because the site had pirated material," "because space aliens fighting a war with fuzzy bunny slippers could use the site for ill will against our feet" is all guess work, with one guess being as good as another.

Except the fuzzy bunny slipper one. That's obviously true.


----------



## mudbunny

Scribble said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here but- I'm not saying you can't make conclusions. I'm simply saying I don't see how any conclusion other then "a site was taken down with the stated reason being because it's owner received a C&D letter for some unknown reason."




Exactly. WotC (heck, pretty much *every* major corporation, will not talk about legal matters, either before, during or after. It is a matter of policy in most cases. And I find it unlikely that Ema will say anything beyond what is on his website (or the remnants of) and the conflicting emails that have surfaced in this thread, possibly due to not wanting to get involved and stir things up more, but more likely due to an agreement between Ema and WotC.

Anything beyond the statement "the site was taken down after the owner received a C&D order" is speculation, at best.

That being said, this *is* the internet, and WotC being the large company, they are automatically placed into the role as "Bad Guy" who is trying to shut down the little guy.

I guess this is just me tilting at windmills.


----------



## xechnao

Scribble said:


> with one guess being as good as another.




Perhaps for you. I understand this may depend on bias too. People generally weight things, judge things by their experience and are able to say their opinion if so they want-hopefully their honest opinion. This is a way of people reacting. Depending on the level of reaction things may change one way or the other. It is a balance game.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> Anything beyond the statement "the site was taken down after the owner received a C&D order" is speculation, at best.




Generally speculation is more important than laws even in real life because in real life the laws are made by speculation. They do not descent from god or something. We change laws change all the time. Besides the media is semi-officially considered the fourth power. Propaganda or criticism is something that exists. It is normal. But what baffles me is that you are trying to defend Wotc by decrying the value of criticism. If that be the case you should not be defending Wotc first place. You are speculating against speculation.


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> Generally speculation is more important than laws even in real life because in real life the laws are made by speculation.




No. Laws are not made through speculation. Laws are generally made through two routes. The first is jurisprudence and case law. The second is laws as passed by governing bodies. Speculation rarely enters into it. (Well, speculating whether politicians have a clue or not, maybe )



> They do not descent from god or something. We change laws change all the time. Besides the media is semi-officially considered the fourth power. Propaganda or criticism is something that exists. It is normal. But what baffles me is that you are trying to defend Wotc by decrying the value of criticism. If that be the case you should not be defending Wotc first place. You are speculating against speculation.




I have *never* said to not criticize WotC or that the criticism is worthless. What I would like to see is people criticizing WotC for stuff that they *actually did*, not stuff that people *think* that they did. I am also not sure what I am "speculating" about...

All we know is that WotC sent a C&D. That's it. 

We don't know why. We don't know what WotC required Ema to do. We don't know what they asked (if anything) of the ISP. We don't know if there were attempts prior to the C&D to get Ema to stop doing whatever it was that resulted in the C&D. We don't know if there were attempts by Ema to contact WotC before this happened.

We. Don't. Know.

Yet there are numerous people in this thread (as well as on the WotC forums) who are slamming WotC (and Ema, to a much lesser extent) for stuff that we don't know actually happened.


----------



## catsclaw227

dinelendarkstar said:


> So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?
> 
> Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?
> 
> And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?



It sounds like this to me too.  I am also very curious about it, because I have been plugging away on a combat manager that should be kosher with the GSL, but I wasn't sure about the Math part.  If I only use names of powers, all math is done hidden in code so the user doesn't "see" the formulas or calculations and it only simply processes steps, like initiative, to hit, dice rolling, etc., then it should be OK.

Heck, I am also noodling a CharBuilder import. And my Encounter builder is simply a monster list that notes where they are in intiative and ticks off HP and maybe set conditions, but only for tracking, not for math (not yet at least).

BTW -- what is Heroforge written in?  I am going for WPF and .NET using webservices (even for local access - it makes the app portable incase I go web-based on Silverlight).


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> No. Laws are not made through speculation. Laws are generally made through two routes. The first is jurisprudence and case law. The second is laws as passed by governing bodies. Speculation rarely enters into it. (Well, speculating whether politicians have a clue or not, maybe )
> 
> 
> 
> I have *never* said to not criticize WotC or that the criticism is worthless. What I would like to see is people criticizing WotC for stuff that they *actually did*, not stuff that people *think* that they did. I am also not sure what I am "speculating" about...
> 
> All we know is that WotC sent a C&D. That's it.
> 
> We don't know why. We don't know what WotC required Ema to do. We don't know what they asked (if anything) of the ISP. We don't know if there were attempts prior to the C&D to get Ema to stop doing whatever it was that resulted in the C&D. We don't know if there were attempts by Ema to contact WotC before this happened.
> 
> We. Don't. Know.
> 
> Yet there are numerous people in this thread (as well as on the WotC forums) who are slamming WotC (and Ema, to a much lesser extent) for stuff that we don't know actually happened.




Every defined process on human behavior (such as jurisprudence) originates from human speculation. Definitions are a matter of speculation in sense of their value among human beings as shared processes. And knowledge? It is a matter of measure of certainty or better let me say trust. In the case you are not sure if the proclaimed level of trust expressed is honest you call it faith or belief. But your claimed measure on trust or belief here is too discrete, too rigid. More rigid than what human communication can achieve and thus it seems you want to limit its scope. Besides, how do you value what is actually done or not done? By the way we act or react. And thinking makes part of this process. You can not say: do not think about it. In other words how are we supposed to tell the difference among what one does and what we think that he does without resorting to the ultimate preposition: thinking about it. 

And I would not say that a phrase such as "all we know is that Wotc send a C&D" represents the general consensus here. There are many factors such as details on the historic of who was the one that received the C&D letter and who is Wotc.  

I understand that you too have thought to claim such rigid measures of thinking. Am I supposed to think your words here are being honest with you? I was trying to present Wotc's behavior by my POV yet your point is that I cant because I do not really know, it is only what I am thinking about it. It is true I am no authority and this allows me to be more open about my feelings on how I trust things are or even let me say about my beliefs if you so wish. But you can't call me on doing that. You may say that you do not agree with how I trust things are because of how the case been talked about here seems to be different to you than it seems to me. Even say that what I am saying seems more or less improbable to you. This I would accept. But you do not even have said such a thing. You have been calling me on stating my opinion.


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> And I would not say that a phrase such as "all we know is that Wotc send a C&D" represents the general consensus here. There are many factors such as details on the historic of who was the one that received the C&D letter and who is Wotc.




Huh?? We know that WotC sent a C&D to Ema, because Ema's website says so. Unless...WotC is Wizards of the Coast.



> You have been calling me on stating my opinion.




Again, I am not saying that anyone is lying or anything like that. I would just prefer that people comment on the facts of what we know, and right now, we know very few facts.

1 - WotC sent a C&D letter to Ema.
2 - The ISP took down Ema's website because of a C&D letter.

As far as I know, those are the facts that we know for 100% certainty. Pretty much everything else, be it why the ISP took it down, or why Ema was sent a C&D, to whether or not there were other options less harsh that WotC could have taken, they are all random guesses pulled out of thin air.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> Huh?? We know that WotC sent a C&D to Ema, because Ema's website says so. Unless...WotC is Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am not saying that anyone is lying or anything like that. I would just prefer that people comment on the facts of what we know, and right now, we know very few facts.
> 
> 1 - WotC sent a C&D letter to Ema.
> 2 - The ISP took down Ema's website because of a C&D letter.
> 
> As far as I know, those are the facts that we know for 100% certainty. Pretty much everything else, be it why the ISP took it down, or why Ema was sent a C&D, to whether or not there were other options less harsh that WotC could have taken, they are all random guesses pulled out of thin air.




Not of the same randomness though at least to some people. This is what we are talking about. For you perhaps everything is equally probable. For some people it may be not.
And my point about what we know about the case or not is that it is not limited to the letter in question. Even if we found this letter and thus knew what was exactly in that letter, but without knowing anything else we would really have much less clues about what it would be about. It is rather a more complex, a more complicated scene, something like a puzzle. It is good if you have all the pieces, but even if you do not it does not mean that you cant see anything. It also happens that you see something and then upon finding some pieces you may be surprised. Haven't you ever seen an investigation thriller in tv? We fans are investigator wannabes when there is a scene of interest -because this is what fans are about. But this is normal. What is not normal is calling on fans about doing what they are supposed to do as fans.


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> Not of the same randomness though at least to some people. This is what we are talking about. For you perhaps everything is equally probable. For some people it may be not.
> And my point about what we know about the case or not is that it is not limited to the letter in question. Even if we found this letter and thus knew what was exactly in that letter, but without knowing anything else we would really have much less clues about what it would be about. It is rather a more complex, a more complicated scene, something like a puzzle. It is good if you have all the pieces, but even if you do not it does not mean that you cant see anything. It also happens that you see something and then upon finding some pieces you may be surprised. Haven't you ever seen an investigation thriller in tv? We fans are investigator wannabes when there is a scene of interest -because this is what fans are about. But this is normal. What is not normal is calling on fans about doing what they are supposed to do as fans.




I'm sorry. I don't know if it is because I am really tired, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## Mistwell

mudbunny said:


> I'm sorry. I don't know if it is because I am really tired, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.




It's not just you.  He went a bit stream of consciousness in that huge paragraph full of disparate run-on sentences.


----------



## xechnao

Mistwell said:


> It's not just you. He went a bit stream of consciousness in that huge paragraph full of disparate run-on sentences.







xechnao said:


> And my point about what we know about the case or not is that it is not limited to the letter in question. Even if we found this letter and thus knew what was exactly in that letter, but without knowing anything else we would really have much less clues about what it would be about. It is rather a more complex, a more complicated scene, something like a puzzle. It is good if you have all the pieces, but even if you do not it does not mean that you cant see anything. It also happens that you see something and then upon finding some pieces you may be surprised.




To see as much as possible of the bigger picture of something one clue( for example what it was in the letter exactly) is not enough. You need as more clues as possible. Similarly even if you lack some clues (for example what it was in the letter exactly) you may be able to see something. Of course it may happen so that with finding more clues you might get surprised (change your opinion). 

Is it better know?


----------



## tomBitonti

dinelendarkstar said:


> So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?
> 
> Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?
> 
> And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?




My understanding (but hey, I'm not a lawyer) is that that would be perfectly OK, so long as you did not "fill in" the form with text (such as spell descriptions or power descriptions) verbatim (or even paraphrased -- I think you'd have to take the "by-the-rules" description of the spell or power and describe it yourself.  And, you could charge for it, I don't think that makes a difference.

That all changes if you accept the terms of the license agreement (either one), in which case you agree _not_ to do certain things, some of which I understand are very likely allowed by Copyright and Fair Use.

For example, I'm remembering that one of the clauses of the GSL forbids certain types of software products.


----------



## tomBitonti

Scribble said:


> If d20srd.org had started posting parts of the books that weren't considered OGL (like say certain spell names, or the beholder or mindflayer stats) and was sent a C&D letter would you draw the same conclusion?  That WoTC was now on the warpath against online rules sites?




Can someone clarify _why_ you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names?  Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?

I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.

Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?


----------



## arscott

resistor said:


> While I have no knowledge of the details, I think this attitude is VERY dangerous.
> 
> In the software world, it is quite common for copyright holders (both of software and of data) to make absolutely outrageous claims.  Hell, TSR had a history of trying to use copyright to quash discussion sites about their material, which are a pretty clear case of the review-and-critique fair use doctrine.  The RIAA and MPAA send C&D letters to dead people and people who don't own computers.
> 
> (Big) companies don't send C&D's when they know they're right.  They send them when they think they can win, either through air-of-authority or because they can spend more on legal fees.  And, when you're talking about Massive Corp, Inc. vs Joe Shmoe, they can _always_ win on the second one.
> 
> I've seen people and even small companies roll over to outlandish claims, just because they didn't understand what was legal, or because they couldn't afford to fight it.
> 
> So, no, I'm not willing to accept on faith that the claim was legitimate.  It may have been, or it may not have been.  Unless and until someone discloses the details, we simply do not know.



That's kinda beside the point, though.  Sure, WotC could be sending C&D letters when they have no legal standing, but that's clearly not the case in this instance.  The details we _do_ know are that Ema committed a number of copyright and trademark violations in ways not protected by fair use--primarily using WotC Logos and Artwork, and using great quantities of verbatim text from WotC materials when he could have written his own summaries and descriptions.



tomBitonti said:


> Can someone clarify _why_ you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names?  Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?
> 
> I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.
> 
> Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?



To the best of my knowledge, none of those names are a registered trademark.  Not that important, though, because you can use trademarked names (but not logos) as long as you do so in ways that don't potentially confuse customers into thinking that you own the trademark or are affiliated with the trademark holder.

Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.



dinelendarkstar said:


> So I am a little unclear here. Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license? What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?
> 
> Or are you saying this is NOT OK to do?
> 
> And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?



If you _have not_ entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal.  Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program.  Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright.  GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products.  If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum


----------



## mudbunny

On the WotC boards, in a parallel discussion, this little tidbit of info that was obtained was tossed out.

Edit to add - It was Pen and Paper Games that asked the question of Ema and posted the information on their forums, which someone reposted on the WotC forums.



> I recently wrote to the founder of emass-web.com to find out any further information he could share about the taking down of his site. Emass-web.com, which provided a popular and robust database for character creation, was recently taken down after Ema. the founder of the site, received a Cease & Desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. For legal reasons, he could not comment on the specifics, but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned. Below is the reply I received.
> "Actually, there's not much to say... I received a Cease & Desist letter from WotC legal branch.
> I did what they asked, and decided to remove the site.
> Am I disappointed? Well, what I'm really sorry about is that I'm not allowed to carry on what was a work of love and a source of joy in bringing something useful to the community.
> Am I venomous towards WotC? Not really. They're doing their job. I respect their intellectual property, over which I never meant any harm, and I understand they try to fiercely defend it against any real or perceived threat.
> Will I stop buying their products? Not at all. I love the game, it has been my favorite hobby for the last 20 years or so. I will keep on playing and DM'ing D&D just as before.
> Will I develop any other RPG-related Web content? I don't know, really. In case I do, I will be extra careful to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
> So that's it.
> I saw a lot of venom towards WotC flying around... as I said, they're only doing their job. While I understand you're disappointed, don't let what happened ruin your enthusiasm for the game.
> I've also seen exceptionally wild speculations, from the idea that WotC could have hired me (nope, but if they ask me, I will gladly do some freelance work for them) to the incredibly-far fetched one that Scott Rouse secretly came to Italy to discuss the matter with me (not at all, but if Scott ever wants to come by I'll offer him a good margarita).
> No global conspiracies, no secret deals, nothing out of the ordinary, believe me.
> It's been a great time, and the messages of solidarity and appreciation I keep receiving and/or seeing on various forums fill me with pride and honor.
> But - unfortunately - it had to go. As they say, "all good things must come to an end"...
> Thanks,
> Ema."


----------



## Xyxox

tomBitonti said:


> Can someone clarify _why_ you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names?  Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?
> 
> I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.
> 
> Or, is the problem that you can't because of the license agreement (which forbids you to use them)?




You can only use the OGC under the OGL. Any other use of it constitutes a violation of copyright. The OGL specifically prohibits use of certain first person, creature, and place names.

Thus, if you do not adhere to the OGL and abide by all parts of it, you are not licensed to use any of the OGC and are in violation of the copyright on the material.

Just because it's open does not mean it isn't copyrighted.


----------



## Morrus

> but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned.




Well that certainly confirms what many here suspected.


----------



## CharlesRyan

ema via mudbunny said:


> "Actually, there's not much to say..." [the rest snipped for brevity]




That's a classy statement. Hat's off to Ema.


----------



## catsclaw227

That was a nice statement by Ema.  I liked his site, but agree that it was wrong to keep it up in it's last incarnation.  It looks like Ema decided that it was easier to just take it all down than to go through the mega hassle of removing the offending content.


----------



## xechnao

catsclaw227 said:


> the offending content.



How would they have defined it in the letter? 
Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?


----------



## catsclaw227

xechnao said:


> How would they have defined it in the letter?
> Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
> Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?



I suppose only Ema and WOTC know this.


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> How would they have defined it in the letter?
> Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
> Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?




A C&D letter being a legal document, they need to make it pretty clear that they (WotC) were clear to the recipient what was being asked of them. Thus, WotC would have given examples.

Not being a lawyer, or ever having seen a C&D letter, I imagine the wording would include language similar to:

Your site uses the following trademarked images without permission from WotC, who is the lawful holder of said trademarks. Please remove them from your website.

Image 1
Image 2
image 3
Image 4​
The C&D probably also included screenshots of pages with the offending images indicated.

If he used terms that were not permitted, then there would have been examples of those as well.

WotC would have had to write it in such a way that it is extremely clear to the person receiving it just what is the infringing content.

I imagine that they would also have had to indicate what the minimum Ema would have had to do in order to render the site non-infringing.


----------



## xechnao

catsclaw227 said:


> I suppose only Ema and WOTC know this.




Yes but what do you think? There must exist some practical ground how it may have worked out that we can figure it out more or less -even if it did not happen this way in reality. If not -we cant figure out any possible kind of way- things could be different and what we are hearing from one or the other have less validity or credibility. 
Also, beyond this specific case I am curious more generally how Wotc or anybody else that could have been in their place could have coped with such a matter with a legal letter.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> If he used terms that were not permitted, then there would have been examples of those as well.
> 
> WotC would have had to write it in such a way that it is extremely clear to the person receiving it just what is the infringing content.
> 
> I imagine that they would also have had to indicate what the minimum Ema would have had to do in order to render the site non-infringing.




Yes but your explanations here are too vague. I cant see how it could have been achieved this in practice. Can you give an example that according to you it could have been possibly and rightfully in the letter?

The part about the pictures regarding the logos and images you said is something I understand and find it plausible too. But what about the other things?


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> Yes but your explanations here are too vague. I cant see how it could have been achieved this in practice. Can you give an example that according to you it could have been possibly and rightfully in the letter?
> 
> The part about the pictures regarding the logos and images you said is something I understand and find it plausible too. But what about the other things?




If there was more than just images, that is to say, that Ema used text to which WotC holds the copyright (for example, fluff descriptions of powers, feats, etc), then they would have given him enough examples of things from his website that are infringing.

I am not sure how much clearer I can be. WotC would have given Ema examples from Ema's website, of the things that were infringing, be they images or text.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> If there was more than just images, that is to say, that Ema used text to which WotC holds the copyright (for example, fluff descriptions of powers, feats, etc), then they would have given him enough examples of things from his website that are infringing.
> 
> I am not sure how much clearer I can be. WotC would have given Ema examples from Ema's website, of the things that were infringing, be they images or text.




So you mean reference some verbatim from the site and indicate that such verbatim offends their copyright property of the book that such verbatim is found. So from what we have known so far about Ema's site this should be about named power's descriptions. 

Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?


----------



## mudbunny

xechnao said:


> Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?




That gets into the finer details of copyright law that I don't know and won't even hazard a guess at.


----------



## xechnao

mudbunny said:


> That gets into the finer details of copyright law that I don't know and won't even hazard a guess at.




Perhaps the power's name given to its technical rule is something Wotc can claim copyright to? 

But someone said in the thread before that Wotc can not claim copyright on terms such as Armor Class which seems to be in contrast with what I am saying above here.


----------



## Mavrickk

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Well, actually:
> 
> 
> According to the site operator, WotC made him take down his fansite. I think it's safe to assume they threatened legal action in the event of non-compliance. That means that they literally did "take down a fansite."
> 
> edit: *Fortunately, his character sheets are still available elsewhere on the internet,* and will continue to be available until people lose interest in them.





Can you point me to where they can be found, have been searching with no luck
thx


----------



## dinelendarkstar

arscott said:


> That's kinda beside the point, though. Sure, WotC could be sending C&D letters when they have no legal standing, but that's clearly not the case in this instance. The details we _do_ know are that Ema committed a number of copyright and trademark violations in ways not protected by fair use--primarily using WotC Logos and Artwork, and using great quantities of verbatim text from WotC materials when he could have written his own summaries and descriptions.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, none of those names are a registered trademark. Not that important, though, because you can use trademarked names (but not logos) as long as you do so in ways that don't potentially confuse customers into thinking that you own the trademark or are affiliated with the trademark holder.
> 
> Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.
> 
> If you _have not_ entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal. Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program. Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright. GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products. If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum





I would love to invite you (and anyone else that wishes) to join the discussion on this at the HeroForge Forums as well.

HeroForge Software - GSL and HeroForge?


----------



## arscott

Xyxox said:


> You can only use the OGC under the OGL. Any other use of it constitutes a violation of copyright. The OGL specifically prohibits use of certain first person, creature, and place names.
> 
> Thus, if you do not adhere to the OGL and abide by all parts of it, you are not licensed to use any of the OGC and are in violation of the copyright on the material.
> 
> Just because it's open does not mean it isn't copyrighted.



Well, no.  You can only use OGC under the OGL _or_ use it in ways consistent with copyright and trademark law.  Copyright doesn't protect names or terminology, so if all that an author wanted to do was use the term "Beholder" in his work, he'd be okay.  If he wanted to reprint the Beholder entry from the MM, though, that would be a violation of WotC's copyright.  For most stuff in between those extremes, consult an IP lawyer for advice.



xechnao said:


> So you mean reference some verbatim from the site and indicate that such verbatim offends their copyright property of the book that such verbatim is found. So from what we have known so far about Ema's site this should be about named power's descriptions.
> 
> Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?



WotC could make the claim, but Ema would have a defense--Rules aren't copyrightable.  If Ema could convince the court that it wasn't possible to replicate the rules contained in WotC powers without copying from WotC books verbatim, then he'd be off the hook.  He'd have a pretty hard time proving it, though.  His use of WotC artwork and trade dress in his character sheets is pretty clear indication that he's taken no effort to copy only the bare minimum.


----------



## Anon Adderlan

dinelendarkstar said:


> Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license?




Yes.

The only catch is that certain terms used to identify fictional elements (such as Illithid and Tenser's Floating Disk) could be treated as trademarks.



dinelendarkstar said:


> What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?




It doesn't matter as long as you don't use any SRD material _verbatim_. The SRD (or rather OGL) is a copyright license, NOT a trademark license. It allows you to copy its text directly and add it to your own work. The license wouldn't even apply if you completely rewrote the SRD, and that rewrite wouldn't be considered a derivative work either, because its a description of rules.



dinelendarkstar said:


> And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?




Nothing, no, no, and no.

Copyright = right to copy. Even with an unregistered copyright, you can still prevent someone from making copies, even if you're usually unable to request financial damages.



catsclaw227 said:


> I am also very curious about it, because I have been plugging away on a combat manager that should be kosher with the GSL, but I wasn't sure about the Math part. If I only use names of powers, all math is done hidden in code so the user doesn't "see" the formulas or calculations and it only simply processes steps, like initiative, to hit, dice rolling, etc., then it should be OK.




If I am certain of anything legally, it's that you cannot protect math using copyright or trademark law. The only problem is that certain IP rights given by the GSL may depend on other conditions being met, which may include not automating the rules in a program or distributing a character generator.

However, you don't NEED to follow the GSL to do those things, nor to claim your product is for use with 4e. You DO need to follow it if you wish to use the D&D logos.



tomBitonti said:


> My understanding (but hey, I'm not a lawyer) is that that would be perfectly OK, so long as you did not "fill in" the form with text (such as spell descriptions or power descriptions) verbatim (or even paraphrased -- I think you'd have to take the "by-the-rules" description of the spell or power and describe it yourself. And, you could charge for it, I don't think that makes a difference.
> 
> That all changes if you accept the terms of the license agreement (either one), in which case you agree _not_ to do certain things, some of which I understand are very likely allowed by Copyright and Fair Use.
> 
> For example, I'm remembering that one of the clauses of the GSL forbids certain types of software products.




Yes. Well said.



tomBitonti said:


> Can someone clarify _why_ you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names?  Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?
> 
> I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.




Trademark issue.

Terms used to refer to unique fictional entities are pretty easy to protect. I'd avoid them whenever possible.



arscott said:


> Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.
> 
> If you _have not_ entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal. Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program. Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright. GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products. *If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum.*




Also well said, especially the last bit.

What forums and the like provide is a good base of information on which to ask a lawyer further questions about. So it's rather more useful than going in with a blank slate and asking 'what do I need to know?'.

If you are concerned about possible lawsuits, then the first thing you should do is form a corporation to own the assets. That way, if legal action is brought against possible IP violations, they can't go after your PERSONAL assets. This is exactly what WotC did with M:tG back when they were being sued by Palladium, so if they lost, the M:tG assets would not be lost with it.



xechnao said:


> Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement?




Yes, but such claims being ruled as valid are an entirely different story. Sadly, specific mechanical descriptions are similar enough to software source code (which is protected by copyright to some degree) to cause difficulty. However, if a description is effectively the most concise mechanical one possible, it is highly likely a judge will rule that it is not protected by copyright.



arscott said:


> Copyright doesn't protect names or terminology, so if all that an author wanted to do was use the term "Beholder" in his work, he'd be okay.




Wellll.....

Though it's safer than a proper name referring to a fictional entity, using Beholder to refer to a floating eyeball with ten smaller eyes on its head is going to put you in an uncomfortable Jacuzzi®. It's the same as if you used the term Spiderman to refer to a man in a skintight red and blue suit who sticks to walls and shoots webs.



arscott said:


> If Ema could convince the court that it wasn't possible to replicate the rules contained in WotC powers without copying from WotC books verbatim, then he'd be off the hook.




Yes.



arscott said:


> His use of WotC artwork and trade dress in his character sheets is pretty clear indication that he's taken no effort to copy only the bare minimum.




I suspect the case against Ema was primarily about these kinds of issues.


----------

