The provisions in section 3 do NOT protect creators from Wizards of the Coast plagiarizing their work. In fact, it limits their ability to seek damages and corrective action.
Section 3a allows continued plagiarism with minimal recourse.
Injunctive relief is NECESSARY in order to protect creators from ongoing harm. Actions such as cease and desist, crediting the aggrieved, or implementing ongoing royalties or ownership of copied content would be appropriate response would be eliminated. This enables WOTC to pay off the creator, but still plagiarize their content without permission and without recourse for ongoing harm to the creator.
Section 3b is unacceptable under US copyright law.
Substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. Source - the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit.
“By establishing reasonable access and substantial similarity, a copyright plaintiff creates a presumption of copying. The burden shifts to the defendant to rebut that presumption through proof of independent creation”
*Unknowingly and unintentionally* harming someone DOES NOT UNDO THE HARM. Not knowing you broke a law, doesn't mean you didn't break it. Furthermore, this is nigh impossible to prove, which is why access and substantial similarity are necessary to defend content creators from plagiarism. This is an "Oops! Sorry! We didn't know!" clause that absolves them of any culpability.
It isn’t predatory and if isn’t “unacceptable under US copyright law”. Parties are free to contract to what they want, including setting different standards for review and defining what constitutes a breach. This language is common in licensing - you don’t want someone to say “ah, but your thing is similar to my thing that I made under an agreement with you, therefore you might have had knowledge of it!” Yes, that might be a bad argument - but bad arguments can still get to court, still be expensive, and can cause all kinds of problems.
Just read the quote and follow the link. Access and substantial similarity are the most significant factors in determining copyright infringement. This clause makes creators waive the rights to pursue appropriate and precedented legal action, and creates massive barriers to protecting their creations.
Just read the quote and follow the link. Access and substantial similarity are the most significant factors in determining copyright infringement. This clause makes creators waive the rights to pursue appropriate and precedented legal action, and creates massive barriers to protecting their creations.
I am very, very well aware of what constitutes copyright infringement. However, as I already said in my prior post, parties are free to contract to something else. In any legally binding agreement, there is a requirement to provide "consideration"--you have to give up something that the other party wants. In this case, Wizards' consideration is "you can use our legal property for your content, even though we could otherwise sue you for certain protected items within this content." In exchange, the consideration they are receiving is "since you are giving up your right to sue us for using your intellectual property, we are giving up certain rights in the case that we want to sue you."
That's exactly how the system is designed to work with licensing or other contracts. You are taking the situation out of the default rules and agreeing to different terms that will control instead.
Section 3b is unacceptable under US copyright law.
The Open Game License is a custom agreement between Wizards and the creator where both parties waiver certain rights. It is perfectly normal and legal to have terms that ignore precedent (which is what the article you linked is talking about) in favor of some more reasonable and logical standards. You have the option of not signing the contract and waivering any rights. You might not be able to make third-party content if you did that, but it is still a valid option that is available to everyone who wants to take it.
Also, the part of the linked source you quote is a quote one random judge said in one case way back in 1976. The way you used that quote was incredibly misleading, since you attributed it to the courts website rather than something they quoter
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
My biggest defense of this stance is that I dont trust WoTC. Where are the "different license terms" (refrenced in OGL1.2 "many ways to create" bullet 5) for D&DBeyond and DMsGuild? How do I know that they are not going to put incredibly predatory language in those licenses but wait until after OGL1.2 comes out? If they want to make a 6th eddition and create OGL1.2 for 6th eddition I am all for it, but OGL1.0a was designed to be permanent and the language used conveys that point as well as the original authors stating as much. I play mainly 3.5, if WoTC creates predatory licenses that hurt any new 3rd party content for 3.5 then it hurts my play experience. If all else fails I know where the door is and am well aware of how to use it. It will be very easy for me to fully delete my account and never touch any new WoTC stuff again. I already stopped buying any new MTG and deleted my arena account. Im a big fan of voting with my feet. That said if others like the direction WoTC is going with this and stay while enjoying the game I am fine with that and hope they have fun playing. D&D is a great game.
Just read the quote and follow the link. Access and substantial similarity are the most significant factors in determining copyright infringement. This clause makes creators waive the rights to pursue appropriate and precedented legal action, and creates massive barriers to protecting their creations.
I am very, very well aware of what constitutes copyright infringement. However, as I already said in my prior post, parties are free to contract to something else. In any legally binding agreement, there is a requirement to provide "consideration"--you have to give up something that the other party wants. In this case, Wizards' consideration is "you can use our legal property for your content, even though we could otherwise sue you for certain protected items within this content." In exchange, the consideration they are receiving is "since you are giving up your right to sue us for using your intellectual property, we are giving up certain rights in the case that we want to sue you."
That's exactly how the system is designed to work with licensing or other contracts. You are taking the situation out of the default rules and agreeing to different terms that will control instead.
What makes this predatory is the massive power imbalance. It's a billion dollar company with the power to tie up litigation for years. Section 3a gives the plaintiff no recourse or protection while waiting for a judgement.
And what concession are they making and agreeing not to sue for? Giving away game mechanics, which federal law already determined can't be copyrighted. But section 3b means creators using this OPEN SOURCE material have a massive uphill battle to protect themselves if their work is plagiarized by WOTC.
OGL 1.0 was specifically intended to protect creators from actions like this.
Just read the quote and follow the link. Access and substantial similarity are the most significant factors in determining copyright infringement. This clause makes creators waive the rights to pursue appropriate and precedented legal action, and creates massive barriers to protecting their creations.
I am very, very well aware of what constitutes copyright infringement. However, as I already said in my prior post, parties are free to contract to something else. In any legally binding agreement, there is a requirement to provide "consideration"--you have to give up something that the other party wants. In this case, Wizards' consideration is "you can use our legal property for your content, even though we could otherwise sue you for certain protected items within this content." In exchange, the consideration they are receiving is "since you are giving up your right to sue us for using your intellectual property, we are giving up certain rights in the case that we want to sue you."
That's exactly how the system is designed to work with licensing or other contracts. You are taking the situation out of the default rules and agreeing to different terms that will control instead.
What makes this predatory is the massive power imbalance. It's a billion dollar company with the power to tie up litigation for years. Section 3a gives the plaintiff no recourse or protection while waiting for a judgement.
And what concession are they making and agreeing not to sue for? Giving away game mechanics, which federal law already determined can't be copyrighted. But section 3b means creators using this OPEN SOURCE material have a massive uphill battle to protect themselves if their work is plagiarized by WOTC.
OGL 1.0 was specifically intended to protect creators from actions like this.
The OGC covers a lot more than just the game contents - it covers things like the flavour text, spell names, and, perhaps most importantly, this version covers a specific trademark you can use to say “my product is compatible with the overwhelmingly most popular game on the market.”
There’s a huge amount of value in all of that - people don’t want to roll 8d6 for Fire Explosive Strike - they want a Fireball, and the OGL ensures content creators can deliver exactly what is expected.
As for the power imbalance, one exists in the document: The creators who get the right to use the single most popular IP by orders of magnitude disproportionately benefit by their ability to capitalise on WotC’s property.
For starters the legality of deauthoring is in limbo. There has never been a deauthored perpectual license before. They are meant to go to the grave of the owner. Is it usual, or customary? No. Is it reasonable? I think it steals from everyone without remorse and leads the only recourse to be a law suit. I think Hasbro is insane to do this, in my opinion. No one should honor this new OGL.
Wizards is trying incredibly hard to prevent 3rd party material to continue under 1.0. They do not want another Pathfinder/4e situation. Wizards is also wanting to restrict creative freedom. In the end they can and will probably will do what they want and even get their way. What is sad is that they will absolutely go after anyone that they can find any reason to go after once the new OGL is implemented. They may own D&D but they sure as hell did nothing to make it what it is today. This is something they seem to not understand.
Why? Defend your point of view. It isn't revoked for anything currently published, so there is no impact to existing 3PP content.
It does affect future content and projects which are already in the pipelines with investment and crowdfunding already having taken place.
It also prevents people should there be issues like with 4E and 3.5 from continuing to use previous additions and old licenses for new products. They're deauthorising the previous license, so future 5E publications aren't authorised or protected, forcing the community onto a new unfavourable license and onto One D&D.
Long time player and subscriber, not a lawyer. At this point I feel that Wizards has capitulated on this. So, I applaud the community for defending 3PP, you clearly had impact and fought the "evil corporation"! I have quotes there as I think there is an unhealthy tendency to paint any corporate entity as evil over their desire to make money and protect their IP. I'll not argue that many are, but let's not paint all with the same brush.
While I get the righteous anger at the way Wizards fumbled its attempt to protect itself from valid risks, what a lot of posters fail to do is offer an alternative which is a win/win for everyone. And just saying OGL 2.0 will only apply to 6E is fraught with loopholes, especially given the new edition's expression of the IP is not substantially different from the previous edition because people want backwards compatibility. Your favorite hate group publishes an adventure for D&D and it goes viral? They can just say they were following 1.0a and ignore 2.0 all together. Sure, Wizards might still be able to sue under 1.0a but having stuff like that explicitly stated in the license can only strengthen their case and odds of winning. Can you imagine said hate group arguing there was no language in 1.0a that prohibits how their IP is to be used. I sure can.
So, what is Wizards to do here? Especially as this same community rightly howls for blood when someone taints our hobby with anti-inclusionary or hate speech? Do we expect Wizards to just shrug and say "Oh well, can't revoke or change 1.0a, nothing we can do"? Or better yet, sue the offender on shaky legal grounds due to 1.0a on Wizards dime? If they don't do anything the community will complain that Wizards is tacitly agreeing with the offending material by doing nothing. What Corp would sign up for that? Better to just forget D&D where your hands are tied and move on. Well unless you can give yourself better legal standing, which is their stated goal with OGL 1.2
Bottom line and TL/DR - Rather than just saying 1.0a or bust, how about being a good partner and offering alternate solutions that would work for all parties. Or I dunno, fill out feedback.
P.S. Oh, and as a side note I fully believe Wizards should have a right to dictate what is hate speech and inclusive for their IP. Want to publish "Orc deviants gone wild" adventure? Use your own IP. Wizards isn't preventing free speech.
The problem is that WoTC can decide that something is hate speech for the sole purpose of revoking one person's rights. Meaning that even though they don't think something is hate speech they still label it as such to achieve the desired outcome (loophole). Also while hate speech is bad and I am not condoning it, this is a country with freedom of speech, meaning you are allowed to say your hate speech all day. It is not WoTC's job to undermine that freedom, hence the reason that my money and I will go elsewhere if they succesfully revoke 1.0a. I don't like the point that we are at with all of this OGL bs and im sure wizards doesn't either. My advice is this, if they want to keep their customer base intact they should probably retract all of this and enjoy the billion dollars of revenue.
Long time player and subscriber, not a lawyer. At this point I feel that Wizards has capitulated on this. So, I applaud the community for defending 3PP, you clearly had impact and fought the "evil corporation"! I have quotes there as I think there is an unhealthy tendency to paint any corporate entity as evil over their desire to make money and protect their IP. I'll not argue that many are, but let's not paint all with the same brush.
While I get the righteous anger at the way Wizards fumbled its attempt to protect itself from valid risks, what a lot of posters fail to do is offer an alternative which is a win/win for everyone. And just saying OGL 2.0 will only apply to 6E is fraught with loopholes, especially given the new edition's expression of the IP is not substantially different from the previous edition because people want backwards compatibility. Your favorite hate group publishes an adventure for D&D and it goes viral? They can just say they were following 1.0a and ignore 2.0 all together. Sure, Wizards might still be able to sue under 1.0a but having stuff like that explicitly stated in the license can only strengthen their case and odds of winning. Can you imagine said hate group arguing there was no language in 1.0a that prohibits how their IP is to be used. I sure can.
So, what is Wizards to do here? Especially as this same community rightly howls for blood when someone taints our hobby with anti-inclusionary or hate speech? Do we expect Wizards to just shrug and say "Oh well, can't revoke or change 1.0a, nothing we can do"? Or better yet, sue the offender on shaky legal grounds due to 1.0a on Wizards dime? If they don't do anything the community will complain that Wizards is tacitly agreeing with the offending material by doing nothing. What Corp would sign up for that? Better to just forget D&D where your hands are tied and move on. Well unless you can give yourself better legal standing, which is their stated goal with OGL 1.2
Bottom line and TL/DR - Rather than just saying 1.0a or bust, how about being a good partner and offering alternate solutions that would work for all parties. Or I dunno, fill out feedback.
P.S. Oh, and as a side note I fully believe Wizards should have a right to dictate what is hate speech and inclusive for their IP. Want to publish "Orc deviants gone wild" adventure? Use your own IP. Wizards isn't preventing free speech.
1.0a or bust, because it already has the provisions necessary and this is a non issue, because the market will not make them successful to begin wtih.
For the hate speech provision, here's a couple of options:
1) They could use a "general public" language standard like Paizo uses in its Pathfinder Compatibility License, which states: "You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." This would give them the ability to keep up with changing times/culture but apply a stricter standard to anyone/anything they want to declare to be in violation.
2) They could remove the "you can't sue us" provision from 6f (the "no jury trial"/arbitration clause in 9g is enough of a finger on the scale to give them reasonable assurance of winning a morality challenge.)
3) They could do both General Public and allow suits (settled in arbitration.).
The problem is that WoTC can decide that something is hate speech for the sole purpose of revoking one person's rights. Meaning that even though they don't think something is hate speech they still label it as such to achieve the desired outcome (loophole). Also while hate speech is bad and I am not condoning it, this is a country with freedom of speech, meaning you are allowed to say your hate speech all day. It is not WoTC's job to undermine that freedom, hence the reason that my money and I will go elsewhere if they succesfully revoke 1.0a. I don't like the point that we are at with all of this OGL bs and im sure wizards doesn't either. My advice is this, if they want to keep their customer base intact they should probably retract all of this and enjoy the billion dollars of revenue.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially the loophole part, but I think WotC absolutely has a right to ignore your freedom of speech rights if they felt so inclined (it's bad PR tho).
Freedom of speech is a "you and the government" thing, not a "you and other random people". The things it's illegal to discriminate on (in the US) are the "protected classes" such as age, gender, ancestry, religion etc.
The problem is that WoTC can decide that something is hate speech for the sole purpose of revoking one person's rights. Meaning that even though they don't think something is hate speech they still label it as such to achieve the desired outcome (loophole). Also while hate speech is bad and I am not condoning it, this is a country with freedom of speech, meaning you are allowed to say your hate speech all day. It is not WoTC's job to undermine that freedom, hence the reason that my money and I will go elsewhere if they succesfully revoke 1.0a. I don't like the point that we are at with all of this OGL bs and im sure wizards doesn't either. My advice is this, if they want to keep their customer base intact they should probably retract all of this and enjoy the billion dollars of revenue.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially the loophole part, but I think WotC absolutely has a right to ignore your freedom of speech rights if they felt so inclined (it's bad PR tho).
Freedom of speech is a "you and the government" thing, not a "you and other random people". The things it's illegal to discriminate on (in the US) are the "protected classes" such as age, gender, ancestry, religion etc.
This. People need to learn what freedom of speech actually is. And that America isn't the only country in the world.
The problem is that WoTC can decide that something is hate speech for the sole purpose of revoking one person's rights. Meaning that even though they don't think something is hate speech they still label it as such to achieve the desired outcome (loophole). Also while hate speech is bad and I am not condoning it, this is a country with freedom of speech, meaning you are allowed to say your hate speech all day. It is not WoTC's job to undermine that freedom, hence the reason that my money and I will go elsewhere if they succesfully revoke 1.0a. I don't like the point that we are at with all of this OGL bs and im sure wizards doesn't either. My advice is this, if they want to keep their customer base intact they should probably retract all of this and enjoy the billion dollars of revenue.
You're right they absolutely could use the loophole for shutting down a 3PP they don't like. Said 3PP can also absolutely take their case to the court of public opinion. And if this whole kerfuffle has shown anything, it's that Wizards understands trust and reputation are priceless and they will bend to reasonable public outcry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The provisions in section 3 do NOT protect creators from Wizards of the Coast plagiarizing their work. In fact, it limits their ability to seek damages and corrective action.
Section 3a allows continued plagiarism with minimal recourse.
Injunctive relief is NECESSARY in order to protect creators from ongoing harm. Actions such as cease and desist, crediting the aggrieved, or implementing ongoing royalties or ownership of copied content would be appropriate response would be eliminated. This enables WOTC to pay off the creator, but still plagiarize their content without permission and without recourse for ongoing harm to the creator.
Section 3b is unacceptable under US copyright law.
Substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. Source - the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit.
“By establishing reasonable access and substantial similarity, a copyright plaintiff creates a presumption of copying. The burden shifts to the defendant to rebut that presumption through proof of independent creation”
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/274
*Unknowingly and unintentionally* harming someone DOES NOT UNDO THE HARM. Not knowing you broke a law, doesn't mean you didn't break it. Furthermore, this is nigh impossible to prove, which is why access and substantial similarity are necessary to defend content creators from plagiarism. This is an "Oops! Sorry! We didn't know!" clause that absolves them of any culpability.
It isn’t predatory and if isn’t “unacceptable under US copyright law”. Parties are free to contract to what they want, including setting different standards for review and defining what constitutes a breach. This language is common in licensing - you don’t want someone to say “ah, but your thing is similar to my thing that I made under an agreement with you, therefore you might have had knowledge of it!” Yes, that might be a bad argument - but bad arguments can still get to court, still be expensive, and can cause all kinds of problems.
Just read the quote and follow the link. Access and substantial similarity are the most significant factors in determining copyright infringement. This clause makes creators waive the rights to pursue appropriate and precedented legal action, and creates massive barriers to protecting their creations.
I am very, very well aware of what constitutes copyright infringement. However, as I already said in my prior post, parties are free to contract to something else. In any legally binding agreement, there is a requirement to provide "consideration"--you have to give up something that the other party wants. In this case, Wizards' consideration is "you can use our legal property for your content, even though we could otherwise sue you for certain protected items within this content." In exchange, the consideration they are receiving is "since you are giving up your right to sue us for using your intellectual property, we are giving up certain rights in the case that we want to sue you."
That's exactly how the system is designed to work with licensing or other contracts. You are taking the situation out of the default rules and agreeing to different terms that will control instead.
The Open Game License is a custom agreement between Wizards and the creator where both parties waiver certain rights. It is perfectly normal and legal to have terms that ignore precedent (which is what the article you linked is talking about) in favor of some more reasonable and logical standards. You have the option of not signing the contract and waivering any rights. You might not be able to make third-party content if you did that, but it is still a valid option that is available to everyone who wants to take it.
Also, the part of the linked source you quote is a quote one random judge said in one case way back in 1976. The way you used that quote was incredibly misleading, since you attributed it to the courts website rather than something they quoter
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Revoking 1.0a is a hard no.
Why? Defend your point of view. It isn't revoked for anything currently published, so there is no impact to existing 3PP content.
My biggest defense of this stance is that I dont trust WoTC. Where are the "different license terms" (refrenced in OGL1.2 "many ways to create" bullet 5) for D&DBeyond and DMsGuild? How do I know that they are not going to put incredibly predatory language in those licenses but wait until after OGL1.2 comes out? If they want to make a 6th eddition and create OGL1.2 for 6th eddition I am all for it, but OGL1.0a was designed to be permanent and the language used conveys that point as well as the original authors stating as much. I play mainly 3.5, if WoTC creates predatory licenses that hurt any new 3rd party content for 3.5 then it hurts my play experience. If all else fails I know where the door is and am well aware of how to use it. It will be very easy for me to fully delete my account and never touch any new WoTC stuff again. I already stopped buying any new MTG and deleted my arena account. Im a big fan of voting with my feet. That said if others like the direction WoTC is going with this and stay while enjoying the game I am fine with that and hope they have fun playing. D&D is a great game.
What makes this predatory is the massive power imbalance. It's a billion dollar company with the power to tie up litigation for years. Section 3a gives the plaintiff no recourse or protection while waiting for a judgement.
And what concession are they making and agreeing not to sue for? Giving away game mechanics, which federal law already determined can't be copyrighted. But section 3b means creators using this OPEN SOURCE material have a massive uphill battle to protect themselves if their work is plagiarized by WOTC.
OGL 1.0 was specifically intended to protect creators from actions like this.
The OGC covers a lot more than just the game contents - it covers things like the flavour text, spell names, and, perhaps most importantly, this version covers a specific trademark you can use to say “my product is compatible with the overwhelmingly most popular game on the market.”
There’s a huge amount of value in all of that - people don’t want to roll 8d6 for Fire Explosive Strike - they want a Fireball, and the OGL ensures content creators can deliver exactly what is expected.
As for the power imbalance, one exists in the document: The creators who get the right to use the single most popular IP by orders of magnitude disproportionately benefit by their ability to capitalise on WotC’s property.
For starters the legality of deauthoring is in limbo. There has never been a deauthored perpectual license before. They are meant to go to the grave of the owner. Is it usual, or customary? No. Is it reasonable? I think it steals from everyone without remorse and leads the only recourse to be a law suit. I think Hasbro is insane to do this, in my opinion. No one should honor this new OGL.
I'm not a lawyer
Wizards is trying incredibly hard to prevent 3rd party material to continue under 1.0. They do not want another Pathfinder/4e situation. Wizards is also wanting to restrict creative freedom. In the end they can and will probably will do what they want and even get their way. What is sad is that they will absolutely go after anyone that they can find any reason to go after once the new OGL is implemented. They may own D&D but they sure as hell did nothing to make it what it is today. This is something they seem to not understand.
It does affect future content and projects which are already in the pipelines with investment and crowdfunding already having taken place.
It also prevents people should there be issues like with 4E and 3.5 from continuing to use previous additions and old licenses for new products. They're deauthorising the previous license, so future 5E publications aren't authorised or protected, forcing the community onto a new unfavourable license and onto One D&D.
Long time player and subscriber, not a lawyer. At this point I feel that Wizards has capitulated on this. So, I applaud the community for defending 3PP, you clearly had impact and fought the "evil corporation"! I have quotes there as I think there is an unhealthy tendency to paint any corporate entity as evil over their desire to make money and protect their IP. I'll not argue that many are, but let's not paint all with the same brush.
While I get the righteous anger at the way Wizards fumbled its attempt to protect itself from valid risks, what a lot of posters fail to do is offer an alternative which is a win/win for everyone. And just saying OGL 2.0 will only apply to 6E is fraught with loopholes, especially given the new edition's expression of the IP is not substantially different from the previous edition because people want backwards compatibility. Your favorite hate group publishes an adventure for D&D and it goes viral? They can just say they were following 1.0a and ignore 2.0 all together. Sure, Wizards might still be able to sue under 1.0a but having stuff like that explicitly stated in the license can only strengthen their case and odds of winning. Can you imagine said hate group arguing there was no language in 1.0a that prohibits how their IP is to be used. I sure can.
So, what is Wizards to do here? Especially as this same community rightly howls for blood when someone taints our hobby with anti-inclusionary or hate speech? Do we expect Wizards to just shrug and say "Oh well, can't revoke or change 1.0a, nothing we can do"? Or better yet, sue the offender on shaky legal grounds due to 1.0a on Wizards dime? If they don't do anything the community will complain that Wizards is tacitly agreeing with the offending material by doing nothing. What Corp would sign up for that? Better to just forget D&D where your hands are tied and move on. Well unless you can give yourself better legal standing, which is their stated goal with OGL 1.2
Bottom line and TL/DR - Rather than just saying 1.0a or bust, how about being a good partner and offering alternate solutions that would work for all parties. Or I dunno, fill out feedback.
P.S. Oh, and as a side note I fully believe Wizards should have a right to dictate what is hate speech and inclusive for their IP. Want to publish "Orc deviants gone wild" adventure? Use your own IP. Wizards isn't preventing free speech.
The problem is that WoTC can decide that something is hate speech for the sole purpose of revoking one person's rights. Meaning that even though they don't think something is hate speech they still label it as such to achieve the desired outcome (loophole). Also while hate speech is bad and I am not condoning it, this is a country with freedom of speech, meaning you are allowed to say your hate speech all day. It is not WoTC's job to undermine that freedom, hence the reason that my money and I will go elsewhere if they succesfully revoke 1.0a. I don't like the point that we are at with all of this OGL bs and im sure wizards doesn't either. My advice is this, if they want to keep their customer base intact they should probably retract all of this and enjoy the billion dollars of revenue.
1.0a or bust, because it already has the provisions necessary and this is a non issue, because the market will not make them successful to begin wtih.
For the hate speech provision, here's a couple of options:
1) They could use a "general public" language standard like Paizo uses in its Pathfinder Compatibility License, which states: "You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." This would give them the ability to keep up with changing times/culture but apply a stricter standard to anyone/anything they want to declare to be in violation.
2) They could remove the "you can't sue us" provision from 6f (the "no jury trial"/arbitration clause in 9g is enough of a finger on the scale to give them reasonable assurance of winning a morality challenge.)
3) They could do both General Public and allow suits (settled in arbitration.).
I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially the loophole part, but I think WotC absolutely has a right to ignore your freedom of speech rights if they felt so inclined (it's bad PR tho).
Freedom of speech is a "you and the government" thing, not a "you and other random people". The things it's illegal to discriminate on (in the US) are the "protected classes" such as age, gender, ancestry, religion etc.
This. People need to learn what freedom of speech actually is. And that America isn't the only country in the world.
[REDACTED]
You're right they absolutely could use the loophole for shutting down a 3PP they don't like. Said 3PP can also absolutely take their case to the court of public opinion. And if this whole kerfuffle has shown anything, it's that Wizards understands trust and reputation are priceless and they will bend to reasonable public outcry.