So it's pretty obvious Hasbro (and, by extension, WotC) loves NFTs. They're a corporation: their leadership openly derives glee from having all the money, scamming their customers, and hurting the environment. Everybody knows this, and these are not points that are up for debate.
The wording in the OGL letter to the community says "we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs..." What I'm gathering from this is that Hasbro/WotC doesn't want other people making NFTs based on D&D, but they have every plan to go ahead with their own line of D&D NFTs. I mean, they did it with Power Rangers, and that's an IP that's objectively aimed at children (even if it's "for adult collectors"). If they're willing to try and rope kids into the NFT scam, what's to stop them from trying it with D&D?
Remember: Don't trust corporate lies. This is about NFTs being yet another step in the widely-harmful crypto/NFT scam. It's about Hasbro/WotC lying and using corporate double-speak to confuse the issue. They want all of your money, and they don't care how they have to lie and cheat to trick you into giving it to them.
Is your point “Hasbro and Wizards want to have flexibility to use their own intellectual property in whatever way they choose, but they don’t want others to take Hasnbro/Wizards’ intellectual property and use it in a manner that Hasbro/Wizards does not want?”
It is so plainly obvious what they mean and so plainly distinguishable why a content creator using their own content is distinguishable than someone else using their content, that this would seem like a rant in need of a cause.
And that is even before we get to the fact that the entire post is a slippery slope ignoring: (a) The Power Rangers thing was an experiment tried back in 2021 at the height of NFT mania, without any subsequent forward momentum since, and (b) Hasbro specifically tied executive compensation to the executive’s division’s carbon footprint, so it would personally hurt an executive’s bonuses if they got heavily into the environmentally catastrophic blockchain industry.
I'm not sure Hasbro said that NFTs were evil (you and others may think so, I've yet to even understand the point of them, but we're talking about Hasbro), they just said they wanted to adjust the licence stop other people using them on Hasbro's IP. Just like Hasbro doesn't want other people printing and selling Dragons of Stormwreck Isle - it's not that anyone thinks it's inherently immoral, Hasbro just doesn't want other people sneaking into that market and so are trying to muscle them out with this licence.
I'm certainly no Has'zard shill, but none of that is immoral or hypocritical, assuming you accept the idea of intellectual property as moral.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm not sure Hasbro said that NFTs were evil (you and others may think so, I've yet to even understand the point of them, but we're talking about Hasbro), they just said they wanted to adjust the licence stop other people using them on Hasbro's IP. Just like Hasbro doesn't want other people printing and selling Dragons of Stormwreck Isle - it's not that anyone thinks it's inherently immoral, Hasbro just doesn't want other people sneaking into that market and so are trying to muscle them out with this licence.
I'm certainly no Has'zard shill, but none of that is immoral or hypocritical, assuming you accept the idea of intellectual property as moral.
Why would they need to update the OGL to do that? They merely need to apply copyright and trademark protection, just like any other owner of an IP. How many unlicensed NFTs are there from, say Marvel or Disney? None, because they have the same IP protection that WotC does.
They do not need to update the OGL because of NFTs. That is a smokescreen meant to tap into the current anti-NFT sentiment and distract you from what they are really doing.
I'm not sure Hasbro said that NFTs were evil (you and others may think so, I've yet to even understand the point of them, but we're talking about Hasbro), they just said they wanted to adjust the licence stop other people using them on Hasbro's IP. Just like Hasbro doesn't want other people printing and selling Dragons of Stormwreck Isle - it's not that anyone thinks it's inherently immoral, Hasbro just doesn't want other people sneaking into that market and so are trying to muscle them out with this licence.
I'm certainly no Has'zard shill, but none of that is immoral or hypocritical, assuming you accept the idea of intellectual property as moral.
Why would they need to update the OGL to do that? They merely need to apply copyright and trademark protection, just like any other owner of an IP. How many unlicensed NFTs are there from, say Marvel or Disney? None, because they have the same IP protection that WotC does.
They do not need to update the OGL because of NFTs. That is a smokescreen meant to tap into the current anti-NFT sentiment and distract you from what they are really doing.
OGL 1.0 is really badly written - it is a legal document that is barely two pages of legalese, and is not really clear about what types of media it does and does not cover. Someone could, hypothetically, make an NFT from a screen shot of rules text from the OGL, or make a collage, or make any number of other things using the OGL content, and then try to use the OGL’s ambiguity as a shield against Wizards telling them to knock it off.
And there is no way of knowing what would happen if Wizards did try to enforce their rights against someone using the OGL as justification for their NFTs. Not only is OGL 1.0 poorly written, judges are really, really bad at understanding blockchain. You could provide them many pleadings, long testimony, and plenty of argument trying to explain something about the blockchain and their eyes will still glaze over and they’ll get the ruling wrong.
A new document that specifically prohibits third parties from making NFTs with D&D’s IP helps that. Then you don’t have to go before a (likely older and technologically suspect) judge and say “let’s explain what an NFT is”—you go before them and say “I know you don’t understand NFTs, but you understand ‘don’t do this’ means ‘don’t do this’ and the other side did that.”
And that is even before we get to the fact that the entire post is a slippery slope ignoring: (a) The Power Rangers thing was an experiment tried back in 2021 at the height of NFT mania, without any subsequent forward momentum since, and (b) Hasbro specifically tied executive compensation to the executive’s division’s carbon footprint, so it would personally hurt an executive’s bonuses if they got heavily into the environmentally catastrophic blockchain industry.
These are NBA action figures currently sold by Hasbro (Pulse) with accompanying NFT trading cards. It looks like they dropped late in 2022, so their NFT experiment is apparently alive and on-going. Also, I don't know how the carbon footprint of NFTs are calculated for Hasbro but I'd reckon a guess that the executives' bonuses are in good hands if they are still using them.
Hasbro also teamed up with the World of Women org for a Monopoly game featuring NFTs last year.
And that is even before we get to the fact that the entire post is a slippery slope ignoring: (a) The Power Rangers thing was an experiment tried back in 2021 at the height of NFT mania, without any subsequent forward momentum since, and (b) Hasbro specifically tied executive compensation to the executive’s division’s carbon footprint, so it would personally hurt an executive’s bonuses if they got heavily into the environmentally catastrophic blockchain industry.
These are NBA action figures currently sold by Hasbro (Pulse) with accompanying NFT trading cards. It looks like they dropped late in 2022, so their NFT experiment is apparently alive and on-going. Also, I don't know how the carbon footprint of NFTs are calculated for Hasbro but I'd reckon a guess that the executives' bonuses are in good hands if they are still using them.
Hasbro also teamed up with the World of Women org for a Monopoly game featuring NFTs last year.
I’ll stand corrected on the Hasbro NFT points, having missed them with a quick google search. That said, it should be noted those are all directly Hasbro properties, rather than a subsidiary - which has some degree of autonomy - so I’ll stand by calling the argument, in addition to being fundamentally flawed, a bit of a slippery slope.
I'm no fan of NFTs either, but equating a company using their own IP to make them to anyone using that company's IP to make them is just a failure of logic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://corporate.hasbro.com/en-us/articles/hasbro_makes_nft_debut_with_power_rangers_collection_on_wax
So it's pretty obvious Hasbro (and, by extension, WotC) loves NFTs. They're a corporation: their leadership openly derives glee from having all the money, scamming their customers, and hurting the environment. Everybody knows this, and these are not points that are up for debate.
The wording in the OGL letter to the community says "we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs..." What I'm gathering from this is that Hasbro/WotC doesn't want other people making NFTs based on D&D, but they have every plan to go ahead with their own line of D&D NFTs. I mean, they did it with Power Rangers, and that's an IP that's objectively aimed at children (even if it's "for adult collectors"). If they're willing to try and rope kids into the NFT scam, what's to stop them from trying it with D&D?
Remember: Don't trust corporate lies. This is about NFTs being yet another step in the widely-harmful crypto/NFT scam. It's about Hasbro/WotC lying and using corporate double-speak to confuse the issue. They want all of your money, and they don't care how they have to lie and cheat to trick you into giving it to them.
Is your point “Hasbro and Wizards want to have flexibility to use their own intellectual property in whatever way they choose, but they don’t want others to take Hasnbro/Wizards’ intellectual property and use it in a manner that Hasbro/Wizards does not want?”
It is so plainly obvious what they mean and so plainly distinguishable why a content creator using their own content is distinguishable than someone else using their content, that this would seem like a rant in need of a cause.
And that is even before we get to the fact that the entire post is a slippery slope ignoring: (a) The Power Rangers thing was an experiment tried back in 2021 at the height of NFT mania, without any subsequent forward momentum since, and (b) Hasbro specifically tied executive compensation to the executive’s division’s carbon footprint, so it would personally hurt an executive’s bonuses if they got heavily into the environmentally catastrophic blockchain industry.
I'm not sure Hasbro said that NFTs were evil (you and others may think so, I've yet to even understand the point of them, but we're talking about Hasbro), they just said they wanted to adjust the licence stop other people using them on Hasbro's IP. Just like Hasbro doesn't want other people printing and selling Dragons of Stormwreck Isle - it's not that anyone thinks it's inherently immoral, Hasbro just doesn't want other people sneaking into that market and so are trying to muscle them out with this licence.
I'm certainly no Has'zard shill, but none of that is immoral or hypocritical, assuming you accept the idea of intellectual property as moral.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why would they need to update the OGL to do that?
They merely need to apply copyright and trademark protection, just like any other owner of an IP. How many unlicensed NFTs are there from, say Marvel or Disney?
None, because they have the same IP protection that WotC does.
They do not need to update the OGL because of NFTs. That is a smokescreen meant to tap into the current anti-NFT sentiment and distract you from what they are really doing.
OGL 1.0 is really badly written - it is a legal document that is barely two pages of legalese, and is not really clear about what types of media it does and does not cover. Someone could, hypothetically, make an NFT from a screen shot of rules text from the OGL, or make a collage, or make any number of other things using the OGL content, and then try to use the OGL’s ambiguity as a shield against Wizards telling them to knock it off.
And there is no way of knowing what would happen if Wizards did try to enforce their rights against someone using the OGL as justification for their NFTs. Not only is OGL 1.0 poorly written, judges are really, really bad at understanding blockchain. You could provide them many pleadings, long testimony, and plenty of argument trying to explain something about the blockchain and their eyes will still glaze over and they’ll get the ruling wrong.
A new document that specifically prohibits third parties from making NFTs with D&D’s IP helps that. Then you don’t have to go before a (likely older and technologically suspect) judge and say “let’s explain what an NFT is”—you go before them and say “I know you don’t understand NFTs, but you understand ‘don’t do this’ means ‘don’t do this’ and the other side did that.”
https://hasbropulse.com/collections/starting-lineup
These are NBA action figures currently sold by Hasbro (Pulse) with accompanying NFT trading cards. It looks like they dropped late in 2022, so their NFT experiment is apparently alive and on-going. Also, I don't know how the carbon footprint of NFTs are calculated for Hasbro but I'd reckon a guess that the executives' bonuses are in good hands if they are still using them.
Hasbro also teamed up with the World of Women org for a Monopoly game featuring NFTs last year.
I’ll stand corrected on the Hasbro NFT points, having missed them with a quick google search. That said, it should be noted those are all directly Hasbro properties, rather than a subsidiary - which has some degree of autonomy - so I’ll stand by calling the argument, in addition to being fundamentally flawed, a bit of a slippery slope.
I'm no fan of NFTs either, but equating a company using their own IP to make them to anyone using that company's IP to make them is just a failure of logic.