Classic Bootlegger vs Baptist logic. WotC refers to hateful and discriminatory content and says "don't you want us to control all of that?" And well meaning virtue hawks say "yes, yes please save us!"
To my knowledge hateful and discriminatory content in TTRPGs has a near zero market share for obvious reasons. And no, we don't need WotC to police it. Stop the scare tactics, and get back to selling games.
People printing NFTs to properties, IP, or other assets they have no legal claim to is something that happens all the time. Every creative industry is being hit with it. Many bands have had to sue people for creating NFTs to their songs without license or dispensation, and in a notable number of cases the band loses. I repeat: this happens all the time. And as Caerwyn said in another thread, judges generally don't understand NFTs in the slightest and often get things wrong when people try and take back their assets from NFT grifters who've made promises they have no legal basis to be making.
Semi-related side note: NFT grifters are scum-sucking cave slugs who're worse than Hasbrozards in every conceivable way and they can sod off forever.
Anyways. Curbing NFT's isn't nearly as much of a nothingburger as you think it is. As for the third point? That's the part Wizards backed off on. They're leaving OGL 1.0 content alone and no longer pushing royalties into the agreement, which means companies like Kobold Press, Green Ronin, Darrington Press, and all the rest will still be able to operate without issue and we'll still be able to get three million dollar Kickstarters for cool third-party books like Grim Hollow.
Until we see the new document, nobody can say if they backed off enough. But we also can't say if they didn't back off enough. Don't re-up your sub yet, but also stop acting like the company is the root of all evil when they're in the process of backstepping and taking their medicine.
What was that about "NFT grifters are worse than Hasbro"? How about when they ARE Hasbro?
"Person using their own property to make an NFT" is dumb. "Person who uses someone else's property to make an NFT because not only are they engaged in the NFT nonsense, they are too lazy to even think up their own idea" is so obviously worse that I am surprised you managed to type this as if it were an intelligent argument on so many threads.
Which, to be clear, NFTs are dumb and an environmental catastrophe. But being dumb and contributing to an environmental catastrophe is still better than being dumb, contributing to an environmental catastrophe, AND trying to leech off someone else's intellectual property to do so.
WOTC, a division OF Hasbro, cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, pretend to be against NFTs, stolen or otherwise, on some sort of moral principal... while their parent corporation is minting them. Then again: blatant hypocrisy hasn't stopped them before, why should it now.
WOTC is taking NO stand here: this, like the "tolerance" point, is being used as an emotional lever. They are pushing your buttons to try to make you stop thinking critically about the rest of their statements.
Citation needed. Where did WotC state they were against NFTs, morally or otherwise? AFAIK, they have only stated they against other people making unauthorized NFTs of WotC IPs. But if you have a site to cite, by all means, please share it.
Regarding the Ernie Gygax/New TSR situation, the thing they're actually in court with WotC about (if I understand the situation correctly) is regarding trademark and IP over the "Star Frontiers" branding and creative content. WotC claims that even if they aren't control of the TSR name and trademark anymore, they do still own the Star Frontiers IP that they obtained during their acquisition of TSR. Obviously the fact that New TSR's product is reprehensible factors into the lawsuit (because it tarnishes a brand/IP that WotC owns), but my point is the whole thing doesn't have much to do with the OGL.
Under the current OGL 1.0a rules, a publisher can't use the D&D brand or trademarks for their OGL-using products anyway. I haven't heard of a situation similar to the Gygax one just revolving around OGL content. Most people don't want to buy (or be complicit in selling) vile racist things, and that should filter out bad actors well enough.
Such bad actors don't have my sympathy. But considering the amount of innocuous things deemed "problematic" these days, I'm definitely in the "I don't want a major corporation to have carte-blanche authority to pull my product without recourse if they deem it hateful" camp.
Commercial speech does not have as much rights as personal or individual free speech. Valentine v Chrestensen (1942) is where commercial speech was heavily debated. All in all, a corporation does not hold the same rights as an individual when it comes to free speech. Hope that helps, as your entire straw man of the "free speech" advocate community is inherently flawed.
Also, you are conflating Free Speech with IP Copyright. Free Speech says they can complain about it publicly. IP Copyright is more-so what you are referencing, and the US Supreme Court has stated that Game Mechanics are not copyrightable.
Copyright does not protect the idea for game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
Does Hasbro have exclusive rights to determine what is considered hateful content here? I mean if another company starting making a lot of high quality, profitable material but it included orcs as being innately evil, could WoTC use that depiction of orcs as an excuse to drop the corporate hammer?
All forms of censorship are evil. Including the kind that happens on this forum.
That is blatantly not true. There is a reason most every country in the world has laws against libel & slander. And in this case, it isn't even censorship. WotC has at no time, AFAIK, stated that they can or will try to stop anyone from publishing anything, as long as you don't try to associate them with whatever you're printing. Don't reference WotC, don't invoke the OGL, etc, and then as far as WotC is concerned, post all the orc-are-innately-evil content you like. Other there, in JasonMountain-land, not in WotC-land.
Such bad actors don't have my sympathy. But considering the amount of innocuous things deemed "problematic" these days, I'm definitely in the "I don't want a major corporation to have carte-blanche authority to pull my product without recourse if they deem it hateful" camp.
This, this, a thousand times this!
I will never in a million years comprehend anyone who wants to give over the discretion for what they can create or purchase to a corporate entity... much less a fortune 500 multi-national mega-conglomerate.
...
Re: Jaeken - I'll fully admit that is my interpretation of what WOTC said, based entirely upon the fact that it's uttered alongside the "we're just trying to save you from hateful content!" statement and presumably penned by the same person/persons... and read just as cynically. But hey: WOTC themselves said that they wanted to remove "assumption of good faith" from conversations; so I'm treating them the way they'd treat us.
Don't re-up your sub yet, but also stop acting like the company is the root of all evil when they're in the process of backstepping and taking their medicine.
LOL. That's not how angry mobs work. They don't calmly disperse once the one building has been burned down
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Commercial speech does not have as much rights as personal or individual free speech. Valentine v Chrestensen (1942) is where commercial speech was heavily debated. All in all, a corporation does not hold the same rights as an individual when it comes to free speech. Hope that helps, as your entire straw man of the "free speech" advocate community is inherently flawed.
While I find your armchair lawyering very cute, it is also applying the complete wrong legal standard to this question--those cases involve government regulation of speech and when they can impose certain obligations and the fact there are some lower thresholds in some regards for commercial speech than when it comes to personal speech.
This is inapplicable to the present situation for three reasons: (a) This is not a dispute between the government and an entity; (b) this is not commercial speech--commercial speech is not "any speech by a corporation" but "speech specifically related to commerce"--this is just good old fashioned regular speech, and a number of recent Supreme Court cases have been very clear that corporate entities can, in fact, are entitled to regular speech rights; and (c) the simple fact remains that this is an issue about who has more rights to the usage of their creation when such creation is licensed out, which is going to be the person granting a license who has the foundational interest in determining how their speech and content is represented.
Regarding the Ernie Gygax/New TSR situation, the thing they're actually in court with WotC about (if I understand the situation correctly) is regarding trademark and IP over the "Star Frontiers" branding and creative content. WotC claims that even if they aren't control of the TSR name and trademark anymore, they do still own the Star Frontiers IP that they obtained during their acquisition of TSR. Obviously the fact that New TSR's product is reprehensible factors into the lawsuit (because it tarnishes a brand/IP that WotC owns), but my point is the whole thing doesn't have much to do with the OGL.
While generally correct, your ultimate conclusion is not exactly accurate. Where you look at this situation and see "well, but OGL did not apply, so why is this relevant," a lawyer looks at this situation and say "thank goodness OGL did not apply here--if Ernest tried to release something under OGL, which he 100% could have tried doing instead, we would be in a lot more difficult of a situation. We should probably fix that because we dodged a bullet this time, but might not next time."
Such bad actors don't have my sympathy. But considering the amount of innocuous things deemed "problematic" these days, I'm definitely in the "I don't want a major corporation to have carte-blanche authority to pull my product without recourse if they deem it hateful" camp.
This, this, a thousand times this!
I will never in a million years comprehend anyone who wants to give over the discretion for what they can create or purchase to a corporate entity... much less a fortune 500 multi-national mega-conglomerate.
...
Re: Jaeken - I'll fully admit that is my interpretation of what WOTC said, based entirely upon the fact that it's uttered alongside the "we're just trying to save you from hateful content!" statement and presumably penned by the same person/persons... and read just as cynically. But hey: WOTC themselves said that they wanted to remove "assumption of good faith" from conversations; so I'm treating them the way they'd treat us.
Fair enough, and I'm certainly very cynical about WotC in this whole thing as well. I'd just prefer to hang them for the things they actually said or did, of which there are many hangable offenses this season, rather than make unsupported claims, and then people go "Jaeken made that thing up, clearly he can't be trusted!" just like people are rightly saying about WotC in this thread. And being more honest than Hasbro is a pretty low bar, so I'm optimistic that all the actual people on here can clear it.
Or, maybe I missed when they did say that all NFTs are bad, and I would have learned something new today. It's a win for me either way.
I work in the video game industry and have dealt with this shit for a living, having to make sure we never break any IP copyrights. But whatever man. you do you.
Keep making excuses for a company that hate you and sees you as an obstacle between them and their money.
Has this been a problem from publishers? What products and what impact?
The only case I can recall of this happening was by WotC with the Hadozee in Spelljammer only four months ago.
Bit rich to claim to be the stewards of the game when the most high profile case of racist content is from the "stewards".
Yes. The irony of WoTC being the worst offender of offensive material and now, and only now, playing like they are morally motivated to stamp this scourge out (!), whatever, is charming. But for **** sake, it should just be standard, not a big deal. ******** eh?
Commercial speech does not have as much rights as personal or individual free speech. Valentine v Chrestensen (1942) is where commercial speech was heavily debated. All in all, a corporation does not hold the same rights as an individual when it comes to free speech. Hope that helps, as your entire straw man of the "free speech" advocate community is inherently flawed.
While I find your armchair lawyering very cute, it is also applying the complete wrong legal standard to this question--those cases involve government regulation of speech and when they can impose certain obligations and the fact there are some lower thresholds in some regards for commercial speech than when it comes to personal speech.
This is inapplicable to the present situation for three reasons: (a) This is not a dispute between the government and an entity; (b) this is not commercial speech--commercial speech is not "any speech by a corporation" but "speech specifically related to commerce"--this is just good old fashioned regular speech, and a number of recent Supreme Court cases have been very clear that corporate entities can, in fact, are entitled to regular speech rights; and (c) the simple fact remains that this is an issue about who has more rights to the usage of their creation when such creation is licensed out, which is going to be the person granting a license who has the foundational interest in determining how their speech and content is represented.
Nice try though!
Caerwyn, I have no comments on the validity of the content of the above post as I am trying to stay out of online arguments, but it really irks me when people act super patronizing. Sure, most "armchair lawyers" get a bunch of stuff wrong, but perhaps you could be a bit kinder. Animosity does not help resolve arguments, but it makes people quite mad. And we already have enough of a firestorm. Hopefully this is not patronizing, but I am doing my best to be respectful here. No ill will to anyone, but if we were a bit more respectful maybe these endless arguments could get a bit less miserable. Thats all.
Maybe this is considered non constructive posting by the mods (in which case I apologize), but I just get super frustrated when people are cruel to each other online, unintentionally or otherwise.
Glad I live in America. Not the rest of the world. Freedom. Love it.
Hate to be the one telling you this, but umm... America is definitely one of those countries with laws against libel & slander. Your freedom of expression doesn't include lying that damages another person. Sorry?
Commercial speech does not have as much rights as personal or individual free speech. Valentine v Chrestensen (1942) is where commercial speech was heavily debated. All in all, a corporation does not hold the same rights as an individual when it comes to free speech. Hope that helps, as your entire straw man of the "free speech" advocate community is inherently flawed.
While I find your armchair lawyering very cute, it is also applying the complete wrong legal standard to this question--those cases involve government regulation of speech and when they can impose certain obligations and the fact there are some lower thresholds in some regards for commercial speech than when it comes to personal speech.
This is inapplicable to the present situation for three reasons: (a) This is not a dispute between the government and an entity; (b) this is not commercial speech--commercial speech is not "any speech by a corporation" but "speech specifically related to commerce"--this is just good old fashioned regular speech, and a number of recent Supreme Court cases have been very clear that corporate entities can, in fact, are entitled to regular speech rights; and (c) the simple fact remains that this is an issue about who has more rights to the usage of their creation when such creation is licensed out, which is going to be the person granting a license who has the foundational interest in determining how their speech and content is represented.
Nice try though!
Caerwyn, I have no comments on the validity of the content of the above post as I am trying to stay out of online arguments, but it really irks me when people act super patronizing. Sure, most "armchair lawyers" get a bunch of stuff wrong, but perhaps you could be a bit kinder. Animosity does not help resolve arguments, but it makes people quite mad. And we already have enough of a firestorm. Hopefully this is not patronizing, but I am doing my best to be respectful here. No ill will to anyone, but if we were a bit more respectful maybe these endless arguments could get a bit less miserable. Thats all.
Maybe this is considered non constructive posting by the mods (in which case I apologize), but I just get super frustrated when people are cruel to each other online, unintentionally or otherwise.
C_G has been trying to stem the flood of bad legal takes on these forums all week, and for all I know on other forums or sites too
If their patience has worn thin, you can hardly blame them
But then, that's pretty much how these things go. One side floods the zone with toxicity, and if anyone on the other side dares respond in kind in any way, they're now the problem
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I work in the video game industry and have dealt with this shit for a living, having to make sure we never break any IP copyrights. But whatever man. you do you.
Keep making excuses for a company that hate you and sees you as an obstacle between them and their money.
Their literally a lawyer though that works in this sort of field
Such bad actors don't have my sympathy. But considering the amount of innocuous things deemed "problematic" these days, I'm definitely in the "I don't want a major corporation to have carte-blanche authority to pull my product without recourse if they deem it hateful" camp.
This, this, a thousand times this!
I will never in a million years comprehend anyone who wants to give over the discretion for what they can create or purchase to a corporate entity... much less a fortune 500 multi-national mega-conglomerate.
Amazing how the definition of "innocuous" is up to the individual speaking, with absolutely no input from the people who are being targeted by discrimination and hateful speech. That's always an awesome take.
As for the "without recourse" thing, Caerwyn can hopefully chime in on this with more authority than I can, but generally a company is not actually allowed to put terms in their contracts saying "you can't sue us for any reason if you sign on the dotted line." Or rather they can, but whether those terms end up having any legal weight is not always set in stone. The courts do actually examine the particulars of a given case and terms saying "you can't sue us so nyah!" do not always hold up as valid. I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me, but as a general rule a corporation cannot actually compel you to surrender your legal rights.
None of which is important just yet because we have no clue what the new terms are. We know they won't include royalty components, we know they're not going to include license-back provisos, we know existing products created using OGL 1.0 won't be retroactively forced to comply with the new terms (which was always legally dodgy anyways) and that's about it on the particulars. If Wizards includes a statement to the effect of "we reserve the right to terminate a contract formed under this License if the Creator creates and sells content that is discriminatory or hateful", then Wizards doesn't get to terminate contracts just-for-becuz and decide what "Discriminatory or Hateful" means themselves. They have to prove to a judge, to that judge's satisfaction, that the content actually violated the terms of the OGL when they're inevitably taken to court on it and if they fail, then the judge will order sanctions and very likely compel Wizards to reinstate the product or otherwise compensate the creator for lost revenue.
Either way, the doomsaying is getting old. As is the constant undermining of Wizards' attempts to clean up their game a bit and make it just a little more inviting for people who've been traditionally disinvited from the table.
Except wotc always had the ability to revoke anyones license if they misused the license.
No, they actually did not. Or rather, "misuse" of the license was limited to breaking Wotsee's copyrights. I am not kiddingwhen I say that under OGL 1.0 rules it's an open question as to whether Wizards would be able to do anything about somebody writing, publishing, and selling The Bigot's Guide to Genocide: an Ethnic Cleansing Supplement for the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game. Frankly, as best I understand it from my admittedly imperfect and untrained legal grounding, provided whoever decided to write said awful book complied with all the terms of the OGL and respected Wizards' copyright, the company would have very little recourse for disputing the book and would have to allow the author to publicly smear their IP with his armpit stain of a publication. They would certainly try, and they MIGHT be able to dispute the book on the same grounds they're using against Ernie G - namely, that the publication is causing true and irreparable harm to their brand through association with deplorable content. Whether that would work? Hopefully we'll never know - but to the best of my understanding it'd be an uphill battle for Wizards.
And I dunno 'bout you lot, but I don't particularly feel like playing a D&D where The Bigot's Guide to Genocide becomes a popular and high-selling third-party supplement. Do you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Classic Bootlegger vs Baptist logic. WotC refers to hateful and discriminatory content and says "don't you want us to control all of that?" And well meaning virtue hawks say "yes, yes please save us!"
To my knowledge hateful and discriminatory content in TTRPGs has a near zero market share for obvious reasons. And no, we don't need WotC to police it. Stop the scare tactics, and get back to selling games.
referring to the title.. this is just common sense.. no issue with it being in the new OGL.
Citation needed. Where did WotC state they were against NFTs, morally or otherwise? AFAIK, they have only stated they against other people making unauthorized NFTs of WotC IPs. But if you have a site to cite, by all means, please share it.
Regarding the Ernie Gygax/New TSR situation, the thing they're actually in court with WotC about (if I understand the situation correctly) is regarding trademark and IP over the "Star Frontiers" branding and creative content. WotC claims that even if they aren't control of the TSR name and trademark anymore, they do still own the Star Frontiers IP that they obtained during their acquisition of TSR. Obviously the fact that New TSR's product is reprehensible factors into the lawsuit (because it tarnishes a brand/IP that WotC owns), but my point is the whole thing doesn't have much to do with the OGL.
Under the current OGL 1.0a rules, a publisher can't use the D&D brand or trademarks for their OGL-using products anyway. I haven't heard of a situation similar to the Gygax one just revolving around OGL content. Most people don't want to buy (or be complicit in selling) vile racist things, and that should filter out bad actors well enough.
Such bad actors don't have my sympathy. But considering the amount of innocuous things deemed "problematic" these days, I'm definitely in the "I don't want a major corporation to have carte-blanche authority to pull my product without recourse if they deem it hateful" camp.
@ Caerwyn_Glyndwr
Commercial speech does not have as much rights as personal or individual free speech. Valentine v Chrestensen (1942) is where commercial speech was heavily debated. All in all, a corporation does not hold the same rights as an individual when it comes to free speech. Hope that helps, as your entire straw man of the "free speech" advocate community is inherently flawed.
Also, you are conflating Free Speech with IP Copyright. Free Speech says they can complain about it publicly. IP Copyright is more-so what you are referencing, and the US Supreme Court has stated that Game Mechanics are not copyrightable.
That is blatantly not true. There is a reason most every country in the world has laws against libel & slander. And in this case, it isn't even censorship. WotC has at no time, AFAIK, stated that they can or will try to stop anyone from publishing anything, as long as you don't try to associate them with whatever you're printing. Don't reference WotC, don't invoke the OGL, etc, and then as far as WotC is concerned, post all the orc-are-innately-evil content you like. Other there, in JasonMountain-land, not in WotC-land.
This, this, a thousand times this!
I will never in a million years comprehend anyone who wants to give over the discretion for what they can create or purchase to a corporate entity... much less a fortune 500 multi-national mega-conglomerate.
...
Re: Jaeken - I'll fully admit that is my interpretation of what WOTC said, based entirely upon the fact that it's uttered alongside the "we're just trying to save you from hateful content!" statement and presumably penned by the same person/persons... and read just as cynically. But hey: WOTC themselves said that they wanted to remove "assumption of good faith" from conversations; so I'm treating them the way they'd treat us.
LOL. That's not how angry mobs work. They don't calmly disperse once the one building has been burned down
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While I find your armchair lawyering very cute, it is also applying the complete wrong legal standard to this question--those cases involve government regulation of speech and when they can impose certain obligations and the fact there are some lower thresholds in some regards for commercial speech than when it comes to personal speech.
This is inapplicable to the present situation for three reasons: (a) This is not a dispute between the government and an entity; (b) this is not commercial speech--commercial speech is not "any speech by a corporation" but "speech specifically related to commerce"--this is just good old fashioned regular speech, and a number of recent Supreme Court cases have been very clear that corporate entities can, in fact, are entitled to regular speech rights; and (c) the simple fact remains that this is an issue about who has more rights to the usage of their creation when such creation is licensed out, which is going to be the person granting a license who has the foundational interest in determining how their speech and content is represented.
Nice try though!
While generally correct, your ultimate conclusion is not exactly accurate. Where you look at this situation and see "well, but OGL did not apply, so why is this relevant," a lawyer looks at this situation and say "thank goodness OGL did not apply here--if Ernest tried to release something under OGL, which he 100% could have tried doing instead, we would be in a lot more difficult of a situation. We should probably fix that because we dodged a bullet this time, but might not next time."
Fair enough, and I'm certainly very cynical about WotC in this whole thing as well. I'd just prefer to hang them for the things they actually said or did, of which there are many hangable offenses this season, rather than make unsupported claims, and then people go "Jaeken made that thing up, clearly he can't be trusted!" just like people are rightly saying about WotC in this thread. And being more honest than Hasbro is a pretty low bar, so I'm optimistic that all the actual people on here can clear it.
Or, maybe I missed when they did say that all NFTs are bad, and I would have learned something new today. It's a win for me either way.
I work in the video game industry and have dealt with this shit for a living, having to make sure we never break any IP copyrights. But whatever man. you do you.
Keep making excuses for a company that hate you and sees you as an obstacle between them and their money.
Yes. The irony of WoTC being the worst offender of offensive material and now, and only now, playing like they are morally motivated to stamp this scourge out (!), whatever, is charming. But for **** sake, it should just be standard, not a big deal. ******** eh?
Caerwyn, I have no comments on the validity of the content of the above post as I am trying to stay out of online arguments, but it really irks me when people act super patronizing. Sure, most "armchair lawyers" get a bunch of stuff wrong, but perhaps you could be a bit kinder. Animosity does not help resolve arguments, but it makes people quite mad. And we already have enough of a firestorm. Hopefully this is not patronizing, but I am doing my best to be respectful here. No ill will to anyone, but if we were a bit more respectful maybe these endless arguments could get a bit less miserable. Thats all.
Maybe this is considered non constructive posting by the mods (in which case I apologize), but I just get super frustrated when people are cruel to each other online, unintentionally or otherwise.
N/A
Hate to be the one telling you this, but umm... America is definitely one of those countries with laws against libel & slander. Your freedom of expression doesn't include lying that damages another person. Sorry?
C_G has been trying to stem the flood of bad legal takes on these forums all week, and for all I know on other forums or sites too
If their patience has worn thin, you can hardly blame them
But then, that's pretty much how these things go. One side floods the zone with toxicity, and if anyone on the other side dares respond in kind in any way, they're now the problem
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Their literally a lawyer though that works in this sort of field
Think their a bit more informed
Amazing how the definition of "innocuous" is up to the individual speaking, with absolutely no input from the people who are being targeted by discrimination and hateful speech. That's always an awesome take.
As for the "without recourse" thing, Caerwyn can hopefully chime in on this with more authority than I can, but generally a company is not actually allowed to put terms in their contracts saying "you can't sue us for any reason if you sign on the dotted line." Or rather they can, but whether those terms end up having any legal weight is not always set in stone. The courts do actually examine the particulars of a given case and terms saying "you can't sue us so nyah!" do not always hold up as valid. I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me, but as a general rule a corporation cannot actually compel you to surrender your legal rights.
None of which is important just yet because we have no clue what the new terms are. We know they won't include royalty components, we know they're not going to include license-back provisos, we know existing products created using OGL 1.0 won't be retroactively forced to comply with the new terms (which was always legally dodgy anyways) and that's about it on the particulars. If Wizards includes a statement to the effect of "we reserve the right to terminate a contract formed under this License if the Creator creates and sells content that is discriminatory or hateful", then Wizards doesn't get to terminate contracts just-for-becuz and decide what "Discriminatory or Hateful" means themselves. They have to prove to a judge, to that judge's satisfaction, that the content actually violated the terms of the OGL when they're inevitably taken to court on it and if they fail, then the judge will order sanctions and very likely compel Wizards to reinstate the product or otherwise compensate the creator for lost revenue.
Either way, the doomsaying is getting old. As is the constant undermining of Wizards' attempts to clean up their game a bit and make it just a little more inviting for people who've been traditionally disinvited from the table.
Please do not contact or message me.
Except wotc always had the ability to revoke anyones license if they misused the license.
No, they actually did not. Or rather, "misuse" of the license was limited to breaking Wotsee's copyrights. I am not kidding when I say that under OGL 1.0 rules it's an open question as to whether Wizards would be able to do anything about somebody writing, publishing, and selling The Bigot's Guide to Genocide: an Ethnic Cleansing Supplement for the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game. Frankly, as best I understand it from my admittedly imperfect and untrained legal grounding, provided whoever decided to write said awful book complied with all the terms of the OGL and respected Wizards' copyright, the company would have very little recourse for disputing the book and would have to allow the author to publicly smear their IP with his armpit stain of a publication. They would certainly try, and they MIGHT be able to dispute the book on the same grounds they're using against Ernie G - namely, that the publication is causing true and irreparable harm to their brand through association with deplorable content. Whether that would work? Hopefully we'll never know - but to the best of my understanding it'd be an uphill battle for Wizards.
And I dunno 'bout you lot, but I don't particularly feel like playing a D&D where The Bigot's Guide to Genocide becomes a popular and high-selling third-party supplement. Do you?
Please do not contact or message me.