Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
They have changed the OGL language quite a bit but I would hardly call it a compromise as it accomplishes most of the original's task by simply rewording it to look less obvious.
Take for example that signing on to this new draft means you essentially relinquish most of your legal abilities to fight an unjust action by Wizards. Sure, they no longer say they can take your IP and reuse it to make money for them but they've also made you accept that you can't actually sue them for relief, take the case before a jury, and set a higher bar to even being able to prove that case. In other words, they can still take your stuff and you have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to do anything about it.
The royalties may truly be gone but that's not going to affect them anyway as the entire point was to drive the competition out of business. If they aren't making money, they can't pay royalties. That was an easy give for WotC.
I would like to see a compromise (or I'd have quit posting and walked away until Wizards tanked again). All I've seen thus far has been smoke and mirrors salted with some phych major manipulation. I still hope... but I'm losing faith that they can be reasonable without a major financial loss.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
"freedom of expression" vs. "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher"
Oddly, I'd never heard of the latter before this thread (can't imagine why), but let's pretend it's a thing. I'm still pretty certain in the contest of which is more important to publishers in general, the former beats the latter, hands down.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
What are you on about? If that 3PP isn't using WotC's license, WotC can't do a damn thing to or with them. That is freedom of association.
Take for example that signing on to this new draft means you essentially relinquish most of your legal abilities to fight an unjust action by Wizards. Sure, they no longer say they can take your IP and reuse it to make money for them but they've also made you accept that you can't actually sue them for relief, take the case before a jury, and set a higher bar to even being able to prove that case. In other words, they can still take your stuff and you have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to do anything about it.
The royalties may truly be gone but that's not going to affect them anyway as the entire point was to drive the competition out of business. If they aren't making money, they can't pay royalties. That was an easy give for WotC.
Above is why it's (say it with me) a negotiation. Meaning, we can probably get the legal action waiver eroded or outright removed, provided we give up on the silly insistence that 1.0a remain intact.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
What are you on about? If that 3PP isn't using WotC's license, WotC can't do a damn thing to or with them. That is freedom of association.
Take for example that signing on to this new draft means you essentially relinquish most of your legal abilities to fight an unjust action by Wizards. Sure, they no longer say they can take your IP and reuse it to make money for them but they've also made you accept that you can't actually sue them for relief, take the case before a jury, and set a higher bar to even being able to prove that case. In other words, they can still take your stuff and you have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to do anything about it.
The royalties may truly be gone but that's not going to affect them anyway as the entire point was to drive the competition out of business. If they aren't making money, they can't pay royalties. That was an easy give for WotC.
Above is why it's (say it with me) a negotiation. Meaning, we can probably get the legal action waiver eroded or outright removed, provided we give up on the silly insistence that 1.0a remain intact.
I don't think I would hire you to represent me in negotiations.
Wow. This rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and deeper. Go figure....
Rabbit hole? That's one way of putting it. I have a different word to describe the situation, although admittedly it does also end in "hole."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What are you on about? If that 3PP isn't using WotC's license, WotC can't do a damn thing to or with them. That is freedom of association.
You realize a third party that publishes under 1.0a has fewer rights to associate themselves with DnD than one who publishes unlicensed, right? That's literally a part of 1.0a - that they can't associate themselves with DnD in ways that they could outside of it?
Meaning that publishing a license like 1.2 that encourages people to not use it will result in greater vulnerability for WotC to have people make 'bad content' and then associate it with DnD - because they will not even try to use the license, and instead publish using 'rules can't be copyrighted' as their shield?
1.2 is worse at the very thing they claim they want to avoid, because no license at all is more appealing it is.
Remember, 1.0a isn't just competing with its successors - its competing with no license at all. Which is why it has to be so free, and appealing, to get people to choose to use it.
We're not in the TSR days. There are parties out there who may choose to stand up to WotC in court, and not all of them will be benevolent or good - see also the new TSR.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
"freedom of expression" vs. "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher"
Oddly, I'd never heard of the latter before this thread (can't imagine why), but let's pretend it's a thing. I'm still pretty certain in the contest of which is more important to publishers in general, the former beats the latter, hands down.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
The latter is part of freedom of association. One has the right to associate with whom they please, but not to force others to associate with them. This is why trespassing, anti-stalking and anti-harassment are constitutional.
The purpose of " freedom *of* association" is to protect individuals both from enforced isolation and from collecttive punishment resulting from association. In our current context, it is the very assertion that Wizards of the Coast or 3rd party publishers are not responsible for the expression and actions of others that may be associated with them (by using same OGL to publish "hate", for example).
The so-called "later part" you've invented here turns this freedom (the "earlier part"?) completely on it's head. It is in fact a total denial of everyone's freedom from collective punishment, and enforces an isolation of everyone involved. Thus there is no "freedom *from* association" as you claim, as it would necessarily negate actual "freedom of association" (and, it's worth noting, their freedom of speech as well).
Trespassing stems from property rights. Harassment is more complex, but certainly is not derived from this new "freedom" of yours.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You realize a third party that publishes under 1.0a has fewer rights to associate themselves with DnD than one who publishes unlicensed, right? That's literally a part of 1.0a - that they can't associate themselves with DnD in ways that they could outside of it?
Meaning that publishing a license like 1.2 that encourages people to not use it will result in greater vulnerability for WotC to have people make 'bad content' and then associate it with DnD - because they will not even try to use the license, and instead publish using 'rules can't be copyrighted' as their shield?
1.2 is worse at the very thing they claim they want to avoid, because no license at all is more appealing it is.
They are free to roll the dice on publishing SRD or closed content without any OGL in place, sure. That is their decision.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
"freedom of expression" vs. "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher"
Oddly, I'd never heard of the latter before this thread (can't imagine why), but let's pretend it's a thing. I'm still pretty certain in the contest of which is more important to publishers in general, the former beats the latter, hands down.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
The latter is part of freedom of association. One has the right to associate with whom they please, but not to force others to associate with them. This is why trespassing, anti-stalking and anti-harassment are constitutional.
The purpose of " freedom *of* association" is to protect individuals both from enforced isolation and from collecttive punishment resulting from association. In our current context, it is the very assertion that Wizards of the Coast or 3rd party publishers are not responsible for the expression and actions of others that may be associated with them (by using same OGL to publish "hate", for example).
The so-called "later part" you've invented here turns this freedom (the "earlier part"?) completely on it's head. It is in fact a total denial of everyone's freedom from collective punishment, and enforces an isolation of everyone involved. Thus there is no "freedom *from* association" as you claim, as it would necessarily negate actual "freedom of association" (and, it's worth noting, their freedom of speech as well).
Trespassing stems from property rights. Harassment is more complex, but certainly is not derived from this new "freedom" of yours.
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with anyone you like without 3rd party interference: The person or entity you are trying to associate is not obligated to accept association with you, though, simply because you wish it.
And you are conveniently dismissing the concept that there are property rights over IP's. Which 'lawyers' have you been listening to, exactly?
I don't think you really understand what the present OGL does and how the license works or you wouldn't be saying some of the things you say.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
"freedom of expression" vs. "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher"
Oddly, I'd never heard of the latter before this thread (can't imagine why), but let's pretend it's a thing. I'm still pretty certain in the contest of which is more important to publishers in general, the former beats the latter, hands down.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
The latter is part of freedom of association. One has the right to associate with whom they please, but not to force others to associate with them. This is why trespassing, anti-stalking and anti-harassment are constitutional.
The purpose of " freedom *of* association" is to protect individuals both from enforced isolation and from collecttive punishment resulting from association. In our current context, it is the very assertion that Wizards of the Coast or 3rd party publishers are not responsible for the expression and actions of others that may be associated with them (by using same OGL to publish "hate", for example).
The so-called "later part" you've invented here turns this freedom (the "earlier part"?) completely on it's head. It is in fact a total denial of everyone's freedom from collective punishment, and enforces an isolation of everyone involved. Thus there is no "freedom *from* association" as you claim, as it would necessarily negate actual "freedom of association" (and, it's worth noting, their freedom of speech as well).
Trespassing stems from property rights. Harassment is more complex, but certainly is not derived from this new "freedom" of yours.
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with anyone you like without 3rd party interference: The person or entity you are trying to associate is not obligated to accept association with you, though, simply because you wish it.
And you are conveniently dismissing the concept that there are property rights over IP's. Which 'lawyers' have you been listening to, exactly?
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
What are you on about? If that 3PP isn't using WotC's license, WotC can't do a damn thing to or with them. That is freedom of association.
Certainly, people are not obligated to associate with anyone. However, that's not what freedom of association means or refers to at all, nor does it refer to the use of a license as you both appear to claim. I believe what you both are asserting here is something else entirely. It's called the right to exclusion, and it is indeed part of property law.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow. This rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and deeper. Go figure....
I am so confused
If anybody would like my GMing playlists
battles: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2mRp57MBAz9ZsVpw895IzZ?si=243bee43442a4703
exploration: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0qk0aKm5yI4K6VrlcaKrDj?si=81057bef509043f3
town/tavern: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/49JSv1kK0bUyQ9LVpKmZlr?si=a88b1dd9bab54111
character deaths: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6k7WhylJEjSqWC0pBuAtFD?si=3e897fa2a2dd469e
They have changed the OGL language quite a bit but I would hardly call it a compromise as it accomplishes most of the original's task by simply rewording it to look less obvious.
Take for example that signing on to this new draft means you essentially relinquish most of your legal abilities to fight an unjust action by Wizards. Sure, they no longer say they can take your IP and reuse it to make money for them but they've also made you accept that you can't actually sue them for relief, take the case before a jury, and set a higher bar to even being able to prove that case. In other words, they can still take your stuff and you have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to do anything about it.
The royalties may truly be gone but that's not going to affect them anyway as the entire point was to drive the competition out of business. If they aren't making money, they can't pay royalties. That was an easy give for WotC.
I would like to see a compromise (or I'd have quit posting and walked away until Wizards tanked again). All I've seen thus far has been smoke and mirrors salted with some phych major manipulation. I still hope... but I'm losing faith that they can be reasonable without a major financial loss.
"freedom of expression" vs. "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher"
Oddly, I'd never heard of the latter before this thread (can't imagine why), but let's pretend it's a thing. I'm still pretty certain in the contest of which is more important to publishers in general, the former beats the latter, hands down.
Please also note, WotC does not bind itself to its own clause (6F), meaning they can behave and/or print whatever material they wish with impunity, the 3rd party publishers' "freedom to not want to be associated with another publisher" be damned, never mind the reputations of players and the DnD community in general. Oh, the humanity.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieWell, Hasbro is supporting nfts already anyway, so that's not quite true is it
What are you on about? If that 3PP isn't using WotC's license, WotC can't do a damn thing to or with them. That is freedom of association.
Above is why it's (say it with me) a negotiation. Meaning, we can probably get the legal action waiver eroded or outright removed, provided we give up on the silly insistence that 1.0a remain intact.
I don't think I would hire you to represent me in negotiations.
Rabbit hole? That's one way of putting it. I have a different word to describe the situation, although admittedly it does also end in "hole."
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You realize a third party that publishes under 1.0a has fewer rights to associate themselves with DnD than one who publishes unlicensed, right? That's literally a part of 1.0a - that they can't associate themselves with DnD in ways that they could outside of it?
Meaning that publishing a license like 1.2 that encourages people to not use it will result in greater vulnerability for WotC to have people make 'bad content' and then associate it with DnD - because they will not even try to use the license, and instead publish using 'rules can't be copyrighted' as their shield?
1.2 is worse at the very thing they claim they want to avoid, because no license at all is more appealing it is.
Remember, 1.0a isn't just competing with its successors - its competing with no license at all. Which is why it has to be so free, and appealing, to get people to choose to use it.
We're not in the TSR days. There are parties out there who may choose to stand up to WotC in court, and not all of them will be benevolent or good - see also the new TSR.
The purpose of " freedom *of* association" is to protect individuals both from enforced isolation and from collecttive punishment resulting from association. In our current context, it is the very assertion that Wizards of the Coast or 3rd party publishers are not responsible for the expression and actions of others that may be associated with them (by using same OGL to publish "hate", for example).
The so-called "later part" you've invented here turns this freedom (the "earlier part"?) completely on it's head. It is in fact a total denial of everyone's freedom from collective punishment, and enforces an isolation of everyone involved. Thus there is no "freedom *from* association" as you claim, as it would necessarily negate actual "freedom of association" (and, it's worth noting, their freedom of speech as well).
Trespassing stems from property rights. Harassment is more complex, but certainly is not derived from this new "freedom" of yours.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieThey are free to roll the dice on publishing SRD or closed content without any OGL in place, sure. That is their decision.
I don't think you really understand what the present OGL does and how the license works or you wouldn't be saying some of the things you say.
Certainly, people are not obligated to associate with anyone. However, that's not what freedom of association means or refers to at all, nor does it refer to the use of a license as you both appear to claim. I believe what you both are asserting here is something else entirely. It's called the right to exclusion, and it is indeed part of property law.
The OGL is a license to use WotC's IP in exchange for consideration. This is called a contractual license, and as such the "assignability and revocability of contractual licenses normally depend on the terms of the contract". Of course WotC has every right to put 6F and whatever other clauses into the contract they wish. This still has nothing to do with freedom of association.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie