What's the story, here, Wizards? I thought character sheets were part of the OGL, or otherwise fair game?
I relied on his well-made character sheets for years, and would appreciate an explanation.
Ema put a great product out there.
please explain
I've been using her character sheets for YEARS.
I don't care if WotC is running a tandem program, things like competition are good, and this is all OGL stuff anyway.
WotC...for shame.
An official explanation would be welcomed here.
I am really disapointed with WoTC.
I think Ema's webpage would of stayed up had this pay option never of arisen but I guess It was the webpage creators decision to go down this cost path.
Its a shame really because I really did like that website, however Wizards are fully within their power to protect their IP.
Secondly, from what I've been able to piece together (reading 2-3 message boards, thanks to the lovely non-statements from both sides) is that Ema put-up a for-pay section of the website where people paid for server space and had their content hosted on the site.
This was in addition to a character generator/manager that apparently generated power cards with complete text.
So you have the reprinting of copyrighted material, alone grounds enough for a Cease & Desist, mixed with the hint of profit. And you have Ema competing with WotC's shiny new product (even though Ema had a character manager up and running first).
So while it's not a good sign for other character generators (ie HeroForge) or fan made power cards (not hard to find, just google "4e power cards"), as long as they stay non-profit they might be safe.
OR this might be part of a renewed effort to crack down on competitive or copyright infringing websites to encourage people to use the official generator.
http://www.emass-web.com/
What's the story, here, Wizards? I thought character sheets were part of the OGL, or otherwise fair game?
I relied on his well-made character sheets for years, and would appreciate an explanation.
You do know that OGL only covers 3.5 material right? It doesn't apply to 4e at all.
HOWEVER:
They still have not released the fansite policy for 4e. There are very, very few fansite for it. I posted about a month ago both here and on enworld so I could bookmark some, and there were like four...and those were not 4e specific in any way, they just had made the transition (like saying enworld is a 4e fansite).
This will only discourage future fansites until that fansite policy is released. What WotC has done with the lack of GSL and lack of fansite policy has been to eliminate a ton of additional support and retain huge control of their product.
I miss that support.
What I will say is that what happened with Ema's should not be interpreted as a war against fan sites. We value fan sites like ENWorld, RPGnet, Athas.org, Dragonlance Nexus, Candle Keep and the others that add to the D&D community while respecting our IP and business.
Also, we are still working on our fan site policy which will provide guidelines for the use of Wizards’ IPs moving forward.
Regards,
I think you stop being a 'fansite' once you start charging for the company's material.
As far as I know, Ema was not charging for any material, but for storage space. And megabytes do cost.
Or was he actually selling WotC material?
As far as I know, Ema was not charging for any material, but for storage space. And megabytes do cost.
Or was he actually selling WotC material?
Both...he had a program "pay for life" with the full write u of powers...it was highly illigal...
for anyone complaining..."What should WotC do when people do illigal things against them??"
Also, our fan site policy is still sitting on some schlub's desk and going nowhere, and I have more or less washed my hands of it, which will provide guidelines for the use of Wizards’ IPs moving forward.
Fixed that for you.
Reference:
It's been off my desk for a few months and now sits on the desk of someone in our web studio who will shepherd it through to completion...
but it's not his biggest priority, he's got other stuff he is working on and although this is important, it's not pressing...
not one website has been sued because of a lack of policy.
No, not sued. Not sued at all. Legal action? Well that's a different story.
No, not sued. Not sued at all. Legal action? Well that's a different story.
not a fan site...but a pay IP rip off...well thats a diffrent story...
why are people pretending this is about some guy with home made character sheets...it is about IP THEIFT...charging for WotC IP...
FULL POWER CARDS WITH WRItE UPS
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
not a fan site...but a pay IP rip off...well thats a diffrent story...
why are people pretending this is about some guy with home made character sheets...it is about IP THEIFT...charging for WotC IP...
FULL POWER CARDS WITH WRItE UPS
Now I'm confused. Ema was some guy with home made characters sheets. You said yourself he wasn't selling copies of WotC books.
And, by the way, there is no such thing as "IP THEIFT" [sic]. Whether using parts of the texts from PH was legal or not (under italian law) is hard to tell when I never saw how it was done.
So, fact remains, WotC has taken legal action against a fan site. A well-liked fan site. Some think that's cool, others no so much.
Now I'm confused. Ema was some guy with home made characters sheets. You said yourself he wasn't selling copies of WotC books.
And, by the way, there is no such thing as "IP THEIFT" [sic]. Whether using parts of the texts from PH was legal or not (under italian law) is hard to tell when I never saw how it was done.
So, fact remains, WotC has taken legal action against a fan site. A well-liked fan site. Some think that's cool, others no so much.
One point to clarify -- if he did offer the full text on power cards for all the powers in the PHB, then he's technically duplicating roughly one-third of the the text of the PHB - if he added rituals to that, you're talking more like one-HALF the PHB, both of which falls outside of "Fair Use," for more than just the United States.
If anything good will come out of incidents like these, it will be that it's getting people to discuss the laws of copyright and trademarking as it applies to role-playing games, and get us out of the complacency generated by "safe harbor" systems like the OGL. The OGL was and is an awesome idea, which generated a lot of great material that would never have seen light, but people really need to consider the effect of the actual copyright laws. As people like Kenzer and Goodman have shown us, even though there are some limitations, you can do a lot more than people assumed you could under good old-fashioned copyright and trademark law...
One point to clarify -- if he did offer the full text on power cards for all the powers in the PHB, then he's technically duplicating roughly one-third of the the text of the PHB - if he added rituals to that, you're talking more like one-HALF the PHB, both of which falls outside of "Fair Use," for more than just the United States.
I agree that there is a lot of "if" here. I don't know the details of what text was offered and I don't know the details of Fair Use in Italy. Flaming Ema for being some kind of highway robber seems inappropriate.
If anything good will come out of incidents like these, it will be that it's getting people to discuss the laws of copyright and trademarking as it applies to role-playing games, and get us out of the complacency generated by "safe harbor" systems like the OGL. The OGL was and is an awesome idea, which generated a lot of great material that would never have seen light, but people really need to consider the effect of the actual copyright laws. As people like Kenzer and Goodman have shown us, even though there are some limitations, you can do a lot more than people assumed you could under good old-fashioned copyright and trademark law...
Absolutely. People need to stop waiting for
Now I'm confused. Ema was some guy with home made characters sheets. You said yourself he wasn't selling copies of WotC books.
he was selling the information from the books with out selling the books
So, fact remains, WotC has taken legal action against a fan site. A well-liked fan site. Some think that's cool, others no so much.
a well liked fan site that crossed tthe line into being a for sale site selling wotc IP without wotc approval...
I used the sheets for 4E a while and it contained enough info for each power that in most cases you would no longer need the PHB, if you knew the other basics.
I really liked the sheets, but it was a bit much that was copied, sadly.
I think you stop being a 'fansite' once you start charging for the company's material.
so to all of you that are so upset...What should WotC do when people are making money off there IP with out there concent? That is not a fan site...Enworld is a fan site...
Ema's site used copyrighted WotC material that was not released under the OGL for both 3.5E and 4E, and charged money to use features of the site. I never used the 3.5E part of things, but I paid for and used the 4E section, which had full power descriptions from the PHB, Martial Power, and the Dragon magazines. At the time, I couldn't believe they hadn't already recieved a cease and desist. I'm surprised it took this long.
On top of that, if the site included trademarked material, WotC could lose all rights to those trademarks if it chose not to vigorously defend the IP.
As I'm not familiar with Ema's site, I cannot say whther or not trademarked content was there, but if it was then WotC had no choice but to shut Ema down completely.
For starters, you need to understand that basically every single thing on Ema's site was offending material in some way or another.
Even his basic 3e character sheets used Trademarked Logos and Trade dress in ways that violate both the OGL and the Law. The more deluxe versions included copyright summaries of spell lists (and contrary to what Sammael says, this isn't fair use).
Worse, his sheets for WotC's licensed d20 games (such as Star Wars and Call of Cthulhu) used third party trademarks in ways that may have left WotC on the hook to those other companies (or at least might put those licenses in jeopardy).
So removing all 'offending' material is basically removing everything. And while WotC is generally willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of these more minor violations, thats not really an option once the cease and desist letters start getting mailed.
Pathfinder gets away with it because it stays within the restrictions of the OGL, and only prints the spell summaries contained in the SRD. Ema's character sheets also draw from non ogl splatbooks (spell compendium, phb2, complete series, etc). Even if Ema only used those spells that Pathfinder did, though, it would still be illegal because he's not following the rules laid out in the OGL. The ability to reprint SRD content is a privilege reserved for those companies that play by the rules.
In any case, does anyone have an e-mail address for him so I can at least retrieve the characters I paid to have hosted there?
Edit: I got the e-mail address [email]emass_70 @t hotmail d.t com[/email] from the paypal information used a long time ago, but haven't had a response yet. Does anyone have a more current one? This was from quite a while ago.
I did subscribe to the site Ema had, because his character sheets have always been of the finest design. The sheets were intelligently laid out, simpler to use for more powerful characters than the stock WOTC sheets facilitated, and yes, gave more information. They however never substituted for having a set of the books (which they referenced even the page number of), nor for the benefits on the D&D Insider site. I also have a full subscription to the D&D Insider, because it has its own strengths in character generation and quick reference. From my experience, Ema's site served to compliment and help support the gaming hobby, and the products WOTC offers.
I would hope ideally that WOTC recognizes the contributions Ema had, and would even consider offering to let him be involved in creating wonderful licensed products WOTC could profit from. At the least, simply having him remove the profitable (what little profit he may have been making) portion and continue to have his site support the hobby, and help gamers have a good time, which as we all know helps sell books.
At the least, don't have Ema stop his site until the character builder tool is reliable.
I did subscribe to the site Ema had, because his character sheets have always been of the finest design. The sheets were intelligently laid out, simpler to use for more powerful characters than the stock WOTC sheets facilitated, and yes, gave more information. They however never substituted for having a set of the books (which they referenced even the page number of), nor for the benefits on the D&D Insider site. I also have a full subscription to the D&D Insider, because it has its own strengths in character generation and quick reference. From my experience, Ema's site served to compliment and help support the gaming hobby, and the products WOTC offers.
That was actually my friend's first reaction to the news. "Oh, they kicked emass' site down because he made better character sheets!"
That was actually my friend's first reaction to the news. "Oh, they kicked emass' site down because he made better character sheets!"
yes and if he just made kick butt character sheet and put it up on a web site with no power or rit info built in, and no payment needed...then it would be a fan site...if that happened I bet no c&d letter would be needed...
yes and if he just made kick butt character sheet and put it up on a web site with no power or rit info built in, and no payment needed...then it would be a fan site...if that happened I bet no c&d letter would be needed...
In any case, it looks like there's no hope for data retrieval. Here's the response I got.
From: Emanuele Sacchi [emass_70 @t hotmail d.t com]
Hi xxxxx,
Unfortunately the data has gone for good... as soon as they were notified of the C&D, my service provider techies erased (as requested by WotC) all my databases, besides physically removing the site from the servers.
To tell the truth, WotC letter didn't have margins for negotiation, so they did the right thing, even if giving me the time to retrieve at least some of the data would have been nice.
I'm really sorry, but I don't have any data - I lost myself all my PCs, my buddies' sheets and several NPCs I intended to use for our campaign
Ciao,
Ema.
Well bad thing it was immediately erased, no question, but again I must admit WotC is fully in their right to do what they did and I also support their choice (even if I do not support the immediate-erase-order).
They were well within their right to ask him and the provider to remove the questionable content (ie the power/ritual cards), but all the rest (character sheets, NPC, personal content)? No, that was well within the grounds of fair use. AND outright dickish.
The big issues seem to be the full text of the powers (gee, same thing on hero forge) and paying for storage (I wonder if they'll C&D box.net next). There's NO reason they couldn't have specified the offending material and not nuked a gaming web institution. There's NO reason we couldn't still have Ema's character sheets available sans cards.
Instead there's a giant gaping hole in the d20 web. WotC comes off like an evil corporation. Ema becomes a martyr. Dozens of stored characters have been lost. And hundreds of fans get outraged.
Yes, the ones with MB access might be a little more lenient. But not every player will search the boards (or only access the general forum and not meander into the GSL forum) and never know the truth. All they will know is Ema's vague statement that he was shut down.
Alot of fans are already disenfranchised by the sudden switch to 4e, the glacial slow D&DI releases and GSL & fan site policies, and general indifference WotC seems to be showing their fans (how many people hired to interact with the public have been laid off now?). They did not need any more negative publicity. They needed as much positive PR as they could get. This was the last thing they needed right now...
1) In 3E, the creators of PCGen got away with their creation specifically because they only included OGL compliant data for it. Other users shared content that was of a more questionable nature, but it wasn't stored on PCGen's site. From what I am hearing, this was not the case with Ema's site.
2) If you do have legally questionable content on your site, then it probably is not a good idea to charge people money.
3) For anyone that lost characters/campaign information that was stored on Ema's site, I'm sorry but it is really your fault, not Ema's and not WotC's. If you are savvy enough to make use of an internet database then you should know how to make a backup. Don't complain to others if you failed to do so.
Sucks that the whole site was plucked from the internet, but there is no reason to demonize WotC for it. It sounds like Ema painted a big target on his site when he started charging money.
he was selling the information from the books with out selling the books
a well liked fan site that crossed tthe line into being a for sale site selling wotc IP without wotc approval...
No, he was charging for storage space. Not selling WotC books. You seem intent upon twisting the truth here.
so to all of you that are so upset...What should WotC do when people are making money off there IP with out there concent? That is not a fan site...Enworld is a fan site...
Ema's site was a fan site. If Ema was making money, then he was making it from his own work. You can't say that he didn't put a lot of work and effort into those character sheets.
The 4e stuff, btw, was ready pretty much within a month of launch, something WotC utterly failed to do. It's pretty weird when one guy working in his spare time is more successful at delivering a product than a group of professionals.
And to be clear, he never charged to use his sheets or access the power sheets. He charged to store characters online so you could update them. And it was $10 for life.
No, he was charging for storage space. Not selling WotC books. You seem intent upon twisting the truth here.
Ema's site was a fan site. If Ema was making money, then he was making it from his own work. You can't say that he didn't put a lot of work and effort into those character sheets.
From what I am hearing, the site(specifically the character creation tool) contained copyrighted information. If that is true, then charging for storage is no better excuse than it is for people who sell illegal video game ROMs or scanned mangas and comic books.
Friends and I were using ema's site to make 3.5 sheets to just list the spells that we had books for. The ones that we had from Wizards, well, just sucked after all the splat books and were useless to us.
While I understand if WotC had legal rights to their stuff, seems kinda lame to blast the whole site down. If he was charging for folks to use things WotC had exclusivity too, fine do what has to be done.
Now, my personal feelings, yeah...
I think this just shows how they are knee jerking themselves that in the rush to run 3.5 under the bus and get 4.0 onto the scene they realized that they are seriously fraking up. Services they are charging for are not ready, STILL and the blush is off the bloom. So, they need to wipe the field of the few sparks of talent that are trying to help folks play their game system. Heck, they could have asked for kickbacks from Ema! He could have blown them a rasberry and moved on, but they could have attempted it.
I wonder who's gonna be next on the hit list now that they seem to be in a crunch and covering their backsides.
One more reason, I only come in here to skim over dead time before work. Never any good news for me and my Gaming Group.
Sorry, if this breaks any of your Play Happy Rules. I and my Group feel, once again, like WotC is more of a hinderance to our game than help.
Hate to say that to the company that probably saved the game years ago. Oh well, Time to move on...
~ Walsingham ~
From what I am hearing, the site(specifically the character creation tool) contained copyrighted information. If that is true, then charging for storage is no better excuse than it is for people who sell illegal video game ROMs or scanned mangas and comic books.
Well, if that is your opinion, so be it. I still say it's a vast difference between the two.
Remember that not all use of copyrighted information is illegal. Wholesale copying and selling normally is, but that is not what Ema was doing. If he needed a push over to the straight and narrow, they could have done that instead of closing him down like some coke dealer.
From what I am hearing, the site(specifically the character creation tool) contained copyrighted information. If that is true, then charging for storage is no better excuse than it is for people who sell illegal video game ROMs or scanned mangas and comic books.
Ok lets get this straight. The paid portion of the site was the character manager tool.
Anyone who went to the site could access the customized sheets with brief descriptions of all the powers sorted by class and level. None of it was copy/paste from the book, it was just a summary referencing the book's page number for full information.
If you paid, you could store your character online, selecting which specific powers to have on your sheet, rather than having a sheet with every (for example) wizard power up to level 3 and checking off which ones you have. You could also, in the paid section, access a fillable character sheet and then print that out. There was no 'character creation tool' and as far as I know, at no time did it take into account any rules. It was just a fillable sheet like dozens online, with a customizable power sheet where you could select which powers you had and see a brief summary description of the effect.
If you paid for the upgraded level, you could also store character notes and print out power cards. The power cards were the exact same information as on the sheet, with a small summary of the power.
This site has been running for many years without any action against it, and has enjoyed widespread use by the community for the convenience it offered. Now, when WOTC is putting out something similar (the character generator) it suddenly gets a C&D. They are well within their rights to demand that specific infringing content be removed, but a burn of all data and backups is well beyond the line of reasonable requests.
That's just dumb. Taking it off line because of a single C&D is jumping the gun, but destroying the possible 'evidence' may even be criminal. Not to mention that if the C&D was wrong they just punked someones data.
Dumb.
A C&D isn't an order by a judge.
I wonder who's gonna be next on the hit list now that they seem to be in a crunch and covering their backsides.
I agree with this, and find myself wondering if Fantasy Grounds is going to get the axe as soon as WOTC's gametable comes out.
It is in the same boat, operating for years without any action. It fills the same niche that the gametable will, and likely does some things better. Will it get the axe now that we're in the new 4e age and WOTC suddenly discovered the internet?
The ISP just 'DELETED' it. What the heck?
That's just dumb. Taking it off line because of a single C&D is jumping the gun, but destroying the possible 'evidence' may even be criminal. Not to mention that if the C&D was wrong they just punked someones data.
Dumb.
A C&D isn't an order by a judge.
Yeah agreed, it was a bit overzealous on their part.
The ISP just 'DELETED' it. What the heck?
That's just dumb. Taking it off line because of a single C&D is jumping the gun, but destroying the possible 'evidence' may even be criminal. Not to mention that if the C&D was wrong they just punked someones data.
Dumb.
A C&D isn't an order by a judge.
In Europe a C&D regarding copyright infringement is even better than an order by a judge. If you don't comply, you could find yourself raided by the police the next morning.
In Europe a C&D regarding copyright infringement is even better than an order by a judge. If you don't comply, you could find yourself raided by the police the next morning.
Hey Oldtimer,
Kind of odd, this cross site posting.
anyway, I've said I don't know what it's like, and if thats so thats just to bad, but I still hear lots about ISP's refusing to coperate in all kinds of circumstances, like the swede's who hid pirate bay, or the UK ISP's that refused to become copyright cops.
It's just to bad that Ema's ISP wasn't one of those.
Hey Oldtimer,
Kind of odd, this cross site posting.
Yeah, I didn't know you posted here as well.
anyway, I've said I don't know what it's like, and if thats so thats just to bad, but I still hear lots about ISP's refusing to coperate in all kinds of circumstances, like the swede's who hid pirate bay, or the UK ISP's that refused to become copyright cops.
It's just to bad that Ema's ISP wasn't one of those.
We still have some die-hard libertarians, but pressure is being put through the European Union to pass laws against them. I've heard that in Ireland people can be cut off from the Internet by their ISP from the mere accusation of copyright infringement. In Sweden the responsible minister ordered the police raid on the Pirate Bay 32 months ago (ministers in Sweden are forbidden by the constitution to give such orders). The french MEP Janelly Fourtou, married to the boss of Vivendi Universal, is making every effort to get the EU to pass harsher laws against people using the Internet. And don't get me started on Italy and prime minister Berlusconi...
Will it get the axe now that we're in the new 4e age and WOTC suddenly discovered the internet?
Simple question: Does it incorporate 4E material? Y/N? (as nobody but WotC can use 4E material in a software without risking copyright problems)
No, hence it will remain untouched.
Cheers, LT.
Wow seriously, this is ticking me off. What's next? Should WotC go about and let everybody just copy their books wholesale?
Just as your attitude is seriously ticking me off.
Maybe WotC should acknowledge the help they are getting from fans like Ema, and not go to war against them. It's not like Ema was killing puppies or selling children into slavery. Jeez...
If he hadn't have charged for the use of 4e material he would have been fine. But he did.
Still sad though. Still sad.
Just as your attitude is seriously ticking me off.
Maybe WotC should acknowledge the help they are getting from fans like Ema, and not go to war against them. It's not like Ema was killing puppies or selling children into slavery. Jeez...
No he wasn't, but still he violated the law. Ema was a great supported of D&D and 3.5+4e. He did a wonderful job, but he started to charge for material that was copyrighted. Ema himself said that WoTC was perfectly right in doing this.
I still feel bad though and I wish they could have reached a compromise, but perhaps Ema needed to be (as heartless as this sounds) made an example of.
Will Fantasy Grounds is going to get the axe as soon as WOTC's gametable comes out?
Not a chance. I think they're both well aware of each others actions since Fantasy Grounds had to send WoTC a C&D for a violation.
... but he started to charge for material that was copyrighted.
Ok, once again, no he didn't. That's the fact of the situation. He wasn't charging for any copyrighted material. It was free. The only thing he was charging for was the storage of a form-fillable sheet. You could go on his site and fill out the sheet and print it for free. If you didn't want to do that everytime you leveled up, you could throw him 10 bucks. That's all he was charging for. You still couldn't use that sheet without the PHB.
Whether that's legal or not, I don't know, but please stop saying he was charging for copyrighted material. Because he wasn't.
Was what happened to Ema overkill? No doubt. But like I said before, Ema admits that they were in the right to send a C&D.
Simple question: Does it incorporate 4E material? Y/N? (as nobody but WotC can use 4E material in a software without risking copyright problems)
No, hence it will remain untouched.
Cheers, LT.
Aye, but there is a fan-created ruleset which does incorporate the material. I'm no expert on copyright laws so I don't know if thats legal. You can basically replicate gametable without gametable.
If there is a fan-created ruleset and they aren't charging for the ruleset then I don't think theres a thing they can do.
There are a lot of ISP's who will kill/dump a hosted site the second they catch a whiff of a C&D. From everything I've heard this isn't a case of WotC sending out a C&D just to try and kill someone who came up with better sheets, but others have tried going that route over the years. I think that WotC made a more or less reasonable request and the ISP overreacted bigtime as I don't think WotC had requested everything be killed.
Maybe WotC should acknowledge the help they are getting from fans like Ema, and not go to war against them. It's not like Ema was killing puppies or selling children into slavery. Jeez...
If someone breaks into my house, does my dishes, feeds the cats, and leaves, he's still breaking the law. Even if I'm a big evil company.
There may be a net positive effect on sales when someone's IP gets bandied about on the web for free, but it's still illegal. The site certainly had material it shouldn't, free or not, put there by Ema or not. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon or a lawyer to know what can happen when you use someone else's IP, even if you and experts on message boards think it's a good thing.
is there anyone that belives he was not breaking the law???
I do. Knowingly or not he did.
Its kind of like getting pulled over for speeding in that tricky part of town but then getting cited for 5 other things that you thought were fine (hence the deletion of... everything).
But he was. His use of Labels is what got him in trouble, and although he might not have been selling any '4e ripoff' with that he was still breaching copyright.
Are you trolling? Did you respond to my post without reading it? I didn't say he wasn't breaching copyright. I said he wasn't charging for it. Which he was most certainly not. The copyrighted material was FREE. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.
Was what happened to Ema overkill? No doubt. But like I said before, Ema admits that they were in the right to send a C&D.
And wrong again. He wasn't referring to WotC. He was referring to the fact that his ISP did the right thing, because there wasn't room for negotiation in the C&D letter that was sent. Read his email again.
Also, we are still working on our fan site policy which will provide guidelines for the use of Wizards’ IPs moving forward.
Time to speed up that work, Scott...
If there is a fan-created ruleset and they aren't charging for the ruleset then I don't think theres a thing they can do.
Exactly. Well, strictly speaking, the fans *are* violating copyright, but as they charge no money, they are flying under the radar so far.
But the point is that Fantasy Ground itself doesn't use any copyrighted material, hence it's legal and in the clear.
Cheers, LT.
Though Emass-web was useless without the books. Now sure when the 4e power cards were added, it then started to infringe on material that had been copywrited. But seems to me that the 3.5+ sheets were still within fair use.
Now I have to agree that the zealous nature of the ISP has vilified WoTC and has martyred Emass-web. Now if Emass-web can get a clarification to keep hosting the 3.5+ character sheets, could we get a rehosting of those? Could the site operate with 3.5+ until a 4e fankit can be sanctioned?
Because I would be surprised if there was not an offsite store of the site.
First of all I am a huge fan of websites devoted to fan made material such as Emass. I feel that most companies would be very happy to see fans devoting so much time and effort to making these websites, after all imitation is one of the highest forms of flattery. And I do not feel Wizards is any different in that regard.
What I do know to be the issue with such things is when you take a copyrighted piece of work and begin either giving it away for free or making money off that product, both of which is illegal. I am sure many will disagree and say that giving something away for free can not possibly be illegal, however if it is not yours to give away then it would still be illegal.
Most companies produce a product in the hope of making a profit from the consumers that buy that product. When you make illegal copies of that product and sale it or give it away then obviously the company loses potential revenue. I am sure many people still can not see the harm to anyone if a big evil company loses a few dollars here and there. What's the big deal?
The big deal is: the company will need to either discontinue the product due to lack of profit, begin law suits against those breaking the law (which takes up precious time and money as well), or simply ignore it and let the situation get even worse.
So still no big deal, not our problem as a consumer right? Well actually these type of issues do tend to affect the consumer quite often as it turns out. As stated above if the profit loss is too high the company may discontinue the product or most of the times they simply raise the price to try and make up for the loss. So we as the consumer could potentially look at paying 45 dollars for what was once a 35 dollar book all thanks to the people out there who want to get something for nothing at the expense of the big bad companies.
Just a little food for thought and not necessarily meant to point any fingers at Emass, just a bit of useful information when debating over the internet as it relates to copyrighted material.
Though Emass-web was useless without the books. Now sure when the 4e power cards were added, it then started to infringe on material that had been copywrited. But seems to me that the 3.5+ sheets were still within fair use.
Why is it that everyone is automatically concluding that his 4e support made his site cross the line for WotC?
From what I heard he was also way beyond the line with his offered 3.5e content. He didn't restrict himself on the SRD but offered spells, feats, ... from all the splatbooks which were not allowed by either SRD or OGL.
Why is it that everyone is automatically concluding that his 4e support made his site cross the line for WotC?
From what I heard he was also way beyond the line with his offered 3.5e content. He didn't restrict himself on the SRD but offered spells, feats, ... from all the splatbooks which were not allowed by either SRD or OGL.
We think it was the 4e content which crossed the line because it was shortly after adding 4e content that the site was terminated. He hosted the 3.0 and 3.5 content for many years, nearly the entire life of 3.0/3.5, without any action or attention from WOTC.
And the fact is that he did NOT offer any 3.0/3.5 feats at all, and the spells were all summarized with a short descriptive text and page number. Never did he copy a spell direct from a book and put it up on his site.
There's also the little fact that he was using logo's that were trademarked to WotC (and others) in his free character sheets.
And if this was the infringing content, they could have asked him to change the logo or temporarily take the sheets down until he found a new one. There was no reason to send such a strongly-worded letter. As you saw from his e-mail, the letter from WOTC gave no room for negotiation, and his ISP deleted all data at the letter's request.
We think it was the 4e content which crossed the line because it was shortly after adding 4e content that the site was terminated. He hosted the 3.0 and 3.5 content for many years, nearly the entire life of 3.0/3.5, without any action or attention from WOTC.
And the fact is that he did NOT offer any 3.0/3.5 feats at all, and the spells were all summarized with a short descriptive text and page number. Never did he copy a spell direct from a book and put it up on his site.
so becuse he got away with breaking the law for a long time he should always get away with it???
And if this was the infringing content, they could have asked him to change the logo or temporarily take the sheets down until he found a new one. There was no reason to send such a strongly-worded letter. As you saw from his e-mail, the letter from WOTC gave no room for negotiation, and his ISP deleted all data at the letter's request.
what part of illigal, and he was breaking the law are you not getting??? If ALL it was about was the logo, or just the 3.5 splat books, or the power cards, or the rituels, or the chargeing (stepping over the line of fan site)...you would have a point...but add it aall togather and...yes they had reason for a C&D letter...
Umm standard procedure is to send a C&D, and THEN negotiations begin.
yes, but in this case the company that he used had it's own polocy to destroy all affending materal...so he was out of luck...
so becuse he got away with breaking the law for a long time he should always get away with it???
No, I didn't say he should 'get away with it'. Why would they allow him to host such content for free for many years and then suddenly react so strongly? You cannot tell me that WOTC wasn't aware of a very popular fansite since 2001...
what part of illigal, and he was breaking the law are you not getting??? If ALL it was about was the logo, or just the 3.5 splat books, or the power cards, or the rituels, or the chargeing (stepping over the line of fan site)...you would have a point...but add it aall togather and...yes they had reason for a C&D letter...
I understand the word illegal perfectly fine. You seem intent on twisting my words, and now you're typing so furiously to get your point across that you can't even spell properly. My point is that he did NOT host any splat books, I don't know where you're getting this. He did not host any feats. He did not copy and paste any powers from the book, they were all summarized with page number references. You could not go play the game by looking at his website.
The paid area, which you seem to be so intent on, was nothing more than storage. You could do everything as a free user that you could in the paid part of the site except for save your work. He charged for character storage space, NOTHING MORE. Hosting power cards that don't have the full power text, or summaries of rituals with page numbers, is nothing like what you and others keep insisting was going on at this website.
Nobody was hosting full books for free, or giving out rules and powers text left and right, so calm down! I never said they had no reason for a C&D letter either, I said they should not have worded it in such a way that the ISP felt it was necessary to wipe all customer data from the server, all backups, and physically remove the servers from the internet. That is overkill for the situation, and there is a process set up to handle such infringement. They should have stuck to the process, negotiated, told him exactly what content was infringing so he could change it or take it down.
No, I didn't say he should 'get away with it'. Why would they allow him to host such content for free for many years and then suddenly react so strongly? You cannot tell me that WOTC wasn't aware of a very popular fansite since 2001...
WotC knowing and WotC Legal knowing are two very separate things. The people who are most likely to know about it at WotC may not have cared and so did nothing. WotC legal would hate for a precedent about the DnD logo being able to be used freely to be set so would issue the CnD.
I understand the word illegal perfectly fine. You seem intent on twisting my words, and now you're typing so furiously to get your point across that you can't even spell properly. My point is that he did NOT host any splat books, I don't know where you're getting this. He did not host any feats. He did not copy and paste any powers from the book, they were all summarized with page number references. You could not go play the game by looking at his website.
The paid area, which you seem to be so intent on, was nothing more than storage. You could do everything as a free user that you could in the paid part of the site except for save your work. He charged for character storage space, NOTHING MORE. Hosting power cards that don't have the full power text, or summaries of rituals with page numbers, is nothing like what you and others keep insisting was going on at this website.
You know you say that, but I hear to get the sheets on your mobile phone you had to pay (I never cared to use Ema's sheets so I can't really comment about it), which is well. Paying to have CR'd matieral.
Nobody was hosting full books for free, or giving out rules and powers text left and right, so calm down! I never said they had no reason for a C&D letter either, I said they should not have worded it in such a way that the ISP felt it was necessary to wipe all customer data from the server, all backups, and physically remove the servers from the internet. That is overkill for the situation, and there is a process set up to handle such infringement. They should have stuck to the process, negotiated, told him exactly what content was infringing so he could change it or take it down.
Most large companies react instantly to CnD's as it can be very expensive not to. Most ISP's are large companies or owned by large companies. Its not the best response but being angry at WotC for the reaction of the ISP is like blaming the sun for heating the ocean and causing hurricanes.
You know you say that, but I hear to get the sheets on your mobile phone you had to pay (I never cared to use Ema's sheets so I can't really comment about it), which is well. Paying to have CR'd matieral.
So ordinary character sheets now infringe on WOTC's copyright? Or just having them on a mobile phone? Or are you saying getting the dnd logo on a character sheet on your phone is bad? I don't understand your point here.
This is a direct quote that I received at D&D Experience 2008 from Chris Perkins when talking about HeroForge. This comment was made right after we meet with Scott Rouse and Chris Perkins about working with WotC on creating an offline Character Gen for 4E that could work on all platforms and not exclude anyone. And yes we made it clear in those talks that it would not be free.
When asked "So Chris what do you think of our Proposal?" Chris says to me, "I don't like to weigh in on things with out to much thought but, We like the fact the programs like HeroForge exist. Not everone is going to like what we (WotC) might put out and compition is a good thing. At least if they don't like our Character Generator then they still have something to use that keeps them playing the game and staying with the hobby."
I even have emails from Scott Rouse telling us that the proposal will have to wait until after the Gold edition of the Character Gen is released, but to "Forge ahead" with our project. Even after he knew our plans to not be for free any more. But now they are going to do this sort of thing to a fellow competitor. Can we say monopoly.
Now I also know for a fact at GenCon the WotC character generator didn't have certain features in it that they do now. Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until right after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our app.
Also I know for a fact that a lot of the ideas of how we would build our app have been used by WotC in theirs, because of them saying at D&D XP that year, "we haven't been able to figure out how we should do that, what would you do?"
Stupid us I guess for being the nice guys and answering those questions.
I can guarentee that HeroForge has a HUGE target on our backs, and that we are on the 10 most wanted list at WotC. Sheets like ours and Emma's are the reason that they even cared about doing thier online tools in the first place. We have helped set the standard for what players and DM's want in a character Gen and now WotC wants to destroy us all because they feel we are a threat.
Maybe it is time that all of us behind the crosshairs see what legal rights we have in this matter. The fact that WotC isn't even interested in making a little extra cash from licensing their material to third party Gens is a little sad. In this economy any exrta is a good thing. Smart businesses would be looking for extra income, no matter how big they are.
I for one know that we are not ready to bring out the white flag and throw in the towel.
is there anyone that belives he was not breaking the law???
No.
Everyone feels the law was violated.
That is not the question.
The question is:
Is there someone here who feels the punishment fit the crime?
Is there someone here who feels it could not have been handled more diplomatically and less harsh?
I can guarantee that HeroForge has a HUGE target on our backs, and that we are on the 10 most wanted list at WotC. Sheets like ours and Emma's are the reason that they even cared about doing thier online tools in the first place. We have helped set the standard for what players and DM's want in a character Gen and now WotC wants to destroy us all because they feel we are a threat.
Maybe it is time that all of us behind the crosshairs see what legal rights we have in this matter. The fact that WotC isn't even interested in making a little extra cash from licensing their material to third party Gens is a little sad. In this economy any extra is a good thing. Smart businesses would be looking for extra income, no matter how big they are.
I know GMforPowergamers would be happy to see HeroForge gone because its... violating the law! Full text of power in the power cards. And cards that are much more usable and don't repeat the same information twice (holy crap, a card with divine challenge that's printed in a readable font size!).
If they could C&D you they probably would, but since there's no money involved anywhere it's safe for the moment.
But it's probably a matter of time before they realize how many people are using HeroForge instead of their for-pay generator.
I know GMforPowergamers would be happy to see HeroForge gone because its... violating the law! Full text of power in the power cards. And cards that are much more usable and don't repeat the same information twice (holy crap, a card with divine challenge that's printed in a readable font size!).
If they could C&D you they probably would, but since there's no money involved anywhere it's safe for the moment.
But it's probably a matter of time before they realize how many people are using HeroForge instead of their for-pay generator.
Let me make clear that the Sheets that appear on www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge for 4E are not HEROFORGE. We no longer do a spreedsheet we have a real application, that doesn't even have Power Cards, so know your facts.
You're from: http://www.heroforgesoftware.com/ ?
Honestly never looked far enough down google to see there were multiple D&D related heroforges.
My bad.
You're from: http://www.heroforgesoftware.com/ ?
Honestly never looked far enough down google to see there were multiple D&D related heroforges.
Yes we are the ones that used to be in charge of the 3.5 sheet but we have passed that torch and have moved forward to what we had hoped would be a postion that would benefit the 4E gamers like we did the 3.5 ones.
But I see that now the battle lines have been drawn. And that we are probably on the side that will be targeted by WotC. We will see how that goes. But don't forsee us just giving up. Especially sine we were basically given permission to go forward by Brand Management, when they had the chance then to say no. Documented and saved.
I even have emails from Scott Rouse telling us that the proposal will have to wait until after the Gold edition of the Character Gen is released, but to "Forge ahead" with our project. Even after he knew our plans to not be for free any more. But now they are going to do this sort of thing to a fellow competitor. Can we say monopoly.
Hmm, they make the game. They spent the money to develop the game. You are complaining that they Do want competition in the market of character generators, but when a character generator crosses whatever line in the sand they stop them.
Basically: You want them to allow you to use their product freely to make money, with no stipulations despite the investment they have made in it.
Yea. Hasbro and WotC is teh evils for that.
Now I also know for a fact at GenCon the WotC character generator didn't have certain features in it that they do now. Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until right after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our app.
Also I know for a fact that a lot of the ideas of how we would build our app have been used by WotC in theirs, because of them saying at D&D XP that year, "we haven't been able to figure out how we should do that, what would you do?"
Stupid us I guess for being the nice guys and answering those questions.
I can guarentee that HeroForge has a HUGE target on our backs, and that we are on the 10 most wanted list at WotC. Sheets like ours and Emma's are the reason that they even cared about doing thier online tools in the first place. We have helped set the standard for what players and DM's want in a character Gen and now WotC wants to destroy us all because they feel we are a threat.
Maybe it is time that all of us behind the crosshairs see what legal rights we have in this matter. The fact that WotC isn't even interested in making a little extra cash from licensing their material to third party Gens is a little sad. In this economy any exrta is a good thing. Smart businesses would be looking for extra income, no matter how big they are.
Kay, lemme dig out a link for you about IP rights, from EFF. The reality is, if you are using their IP in any way shape or form you have limited to no rights (generally speaking, fair use is a fuzzily defined area, but probably wouldn't extend to character generators).
IP law for multimedia and web developers
I for one know that we are not ready to bring out the white flag and throw in the towel.
Just keep in mind if you are using their IP, you don't have a legal leg to stand on. Especially as the people you talked to don't work on the Character builder directly.
And are not on the legal team with all certainity.
Oh and also:
Teh eVilZ copurrazionZ!
Oh yes so Evilz of them to want their IP protected.
Hmm, they make the game. They spent the money to develop the game. You are complaining that they Do want competition in the market of character generators, but when a character generator crosses whatever line in the sand they stop them.
Basically: You want them to allow you to use their product freely to make money, with no stipulations despite the investment they have made in it.
Yea. Hasbro and WotC is teh evils for that.
No. I don't want then to do or not do anything. What I am saying is that at least we approached WotC professionally and talked to them about what we wanted to do and didn't just go and do it. We also didn't have something out like 2 days after the release date like some of these other generators out there.
We have always wanted to work with WotC and not against them. But it seems that they are just not interested in that. Very sad.
We are HUGE supportes of the game and the company that makes it. Otherwise why would we put our lives aside for the past year making an app to make playing our favorite game easier for people.
It has always been our goal to help WotC sell more books through use of our system. I would love to know how many users of HeroForge went out and bought books because they needed them to use the sheet or because they saw something cool in the sheet and wanted to know more about it.
I am just saying that I guess we need to start watching our backs as does anyone else that has a 4E anything.
Oh yes so Evilz of them to want their IP protected.
I agree with protecting ones IP.
But why not make a profitable licensing agreement for 3PP and make some money? Instead they are going the monopoly route. I mean D&DI has plenty of other features that make it worth the money you pay for it beyond the character gen. I see no reason they should be going down the road they are when a more profitable solution exists for them.
I know GMforPowergamers would be happy to see HeroForge gone because its... violating the law!
I have two of the spread sheets from there site saved, and there 3.5 one too...also I used the ones actualy in quastion...I would be upset too, infact i would be quite sad...but I wouldn't blame WotC...I also have in the past bought bootleg movies...I don't curse theaters when I can't get them...
Full text of power in the power cards. And cards that are much more usable and don't repeat the same information twice (holy crap, a card with divine challenge that's printed in a readable font size!).
you mean Wotc doesn't have the best sheets and cards...I am shocked shocked I say 
If they could C&D you they probably would, but since there's no money involved anywhere it's safe for the moment.
But it's probably a matter of time before they realize how many people are using HeroForge instead of their for-pay generator.
No. I don't want then to do or not do anything. What I am saying is that at least we approached WotC professionally and talked to them about what we wanted to do and didn't just go and do it. We also didn't have something out like 2 days after the release date like some of these other generators out there.
We have always wanted to work with WotC and not against them. But it seems that they are just not interested in that. Very sad.
Oh I see, what you are saying is that a case where we aren't aware of the specific conditions that the CnD brought up it means WotC is out to get everyone?
I don't see this as the case, mostly as there are other sites (like yours) that keeps sheets up. That a flurry of CnD's haven't happened tells me some things. Namely WotC doesn't care about character sheets, even auto fill ones. There was something specific Ema's site did/had that caused WotC legal to be upset and they issued CnD about it.
We are HUGE supportes of the game and the company that makes it. Otherwise why would we put our lives aside for the past year making an app to make playing our favorite game easier for people.
It has always been our goal to help WotC sell more books through use of our system. I would love to know how many users of HeroForge went out and bought books because they needed them to use the sheet or because they saw something cool in the sheet and wanted to know more about it.
I am just saying that I guess we need to start watching our backs as does anyone else that has a 4E anything.
Again to be blunt: If you work with Anyone's IP's that is not yours, you should be careful about doing so.
Stopping someone from using your IP does not make you a monopoly. Letting someone use you IP today does not mean you have to let them tomorrow. Get it in writing!
Licensing is usually a very bad thing to offer. It is far too involved to explain on a message board. Get an MBA or hire a consultant (like me
) for details.Paraphrasing (aka indirect quote) is just as wrong as (direct) quoting. There is an author and publisher who got in trouble for their "version" of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books.
And more Harry Potter examples:
http://www.wnct.com/nct/news/science/article/harry_potter_lawsuit/18308/
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_Harry_Potter
I think it wasn't even so much the automation as the DIRECT QUOTING of powers. Oh and the use of trademarked logos.
The website NEVER directly quoted any power or ritual.
Charging to store illeagal items you helped create is still wrong. Remember possession of stolen (or other illeagal) goods is illegal. So it doesn't really matter if Ema charged for the character sheets or storage - the end result is the same.
The ignorance in this post is staggering, so I'm taking it one step at a time.
First, no it is NOT illegal to charge for storage. That said, possession of 'stolen' or illegal goods has no bearing on this argument. We're talking about copyright infringement, not some bestbuy TV heist. Having data on a server that infringes on someone's copyright is a very grey area, and is not automatically a violation. Even if it is found to be a violation, it is not automatically 'breaking the law' and usually ends up with a cease & desist order from the company whose rights are infringed upon. Legal action is generally taken when a site refuses to take down the infringing material.
In any case, nobody here is saying that emass web was correct in what it was doing, but some of us are trying to sort out the truth from blatant and vicious, idiotic lies being thrown around. Nowhere on his site were entire powers quote, or entire books made available. He did not let people 'have splatbooks for free'. It's amazing how many people are jumping on the bandwagon to denounce a website which they admit they've never used, and start spouting idiot comments like "DIRECT QUOTING of powers".
Licensing is usually a very bad thing to offer. It is far too involved to explain on a message board. Get an MBA or hire a consultant (like me
This is your personal opinion, and that's fine, but you express it as though it were fact and imply that all the people 'in the know (wink wink)' know that licensing is a bad deal. If you're expressing an opinion please try to make that clear, as people will read this and get the wrong impression. Licensing has its place, and can be very good in certain situations for all parties involved.
Paraphrasing (aka indirect quote) is just as wrong as (direct) quoting. There is an author and publisher who got in trouble for their "version" of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books.
I don't see how this could possibly be true. Simply saying that paraphrasing is just as bad as direct quoting is misleading, as it could be as generic or specific as the author wishes. I could paraphrase a power by saying "Bolt of fire is a warlock power that throws balls of fire" or saying "Bolt of Fire is a warlock power with x range and x area, which does x damage and has these keywords." both examples are paraphrasing, and neither are anything like directly quoting copyrighted material and making it available for free or for money.
In any case, nobody here is saying that emass web was correct in what it was doing, but some of us are trying to sort out the truth from blatant and vicious, idiotic lies being thrown around. Nowhere on his site were entire powers quote, or entire books made available. He did not let people 'have splatbooks for free'. It's amazing how many people are jumping on the bandwagon to denounce a website which they admit they've never used, and start spouting idiot comments like "DIRECT QUOTING of powers".
Not according to some people on ENWorld:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/249918-emas-rpg-sheet-website-down-11.html#post4657612
I have sitting right in front of me a file of Warlord Attack powers I printed off Ema's site only recently 7th Jan 2009 which clearly has ALL the power text and even the power quote for Hammer and Anvil for example.
The website NEVER directly quoted any power or ritual.
Thats not what I have heard, but I prefer my own Open Office sheets....anyway, the point is, Ema site was in violation. Ema himself said so before the entire site got munched.
I don't see how this could possibly be true. Simply saying that paraphrasing is just as bad as direct quoting is misleading, as it could be as generic or specific as the author wishes. I could paraphrase a power by saying "Bolt of fire is a warlock power that throws balls of fire" or saying "Bolt of Fire is a warlock power with x range and x area, which does x damage and has these keywords." both examples are paraphrasing, and neither are anything like directly quoting copyrighted material and making it available for free or for money.
Actually from my knowledge of IP Laws, the courts have sided with paraphrase of copy righted material being the same as direct quoting. Fair Use, however, is an large gray area of the law, and the way courts decide one day is not indicative of how they decide later.
Edit> Also Forsaken, would you mind editing your earlier post and fixing who said what? As I don't want to be accused of saying X when its not me saying it
(The bottom two quotes).So is this how third party tool and content providers can expect to be treated? Discuss.
So is this how third party tool and content providers can expect to be treated? Discuss.
Until (when/if) the Fansite Policy is ever released, then yes. WotC can serve a C&D order on obvious infringements of their copyrighted material. I, personally, love Ema's offerings, and have used his Char. sheets for years...however...he should have known better. Will I miss them? Yes. Did he deserve it? Yes. There are rules for these things. No matter how sweet the material is, you have to follow the rules, or face the consequences. It's not like he's getting sued. WotC imposed a C&D Order, and he complied. When/if the Fansite Policy is released, he can put them back up again. Whether he will or not is up to him, though. It just might have torqued his butt so much that he washed his hands of WotC...time will tell.
Discussion over.
Edit> Also Forsaken, would you mind editing your earlier post and fixing who said what? As I don't want to be accused of saying X when its not me saying it
Whoops! Fixed that, sorry!
Thanks, it also occurs to me, that names of powers are Technically trademarked now (since the Monopoly suit days), and thusly: Even having power cards that just prints the name of powers on it is a Dark Gray area of IP law.
Whew, that puts some other websites in danger. I know of a few that host or sell 4e power cards.
My storage comments were along the lines of pawnshops that get in trouble for storing or selling stolen goods. Or someone who gets busted for drugs in their car that a friend put there. Or a girlfriend who gets busted for holding her boyfriend's gun. Not that Ema did anything this bad, but these are somewhat similar and might be more familar. The end result in all these examples is that crime as well as storage got someone in trouble.
The licensing comment was not a reference to an "insider's secret," but new studies. I was trying to avoid making this thread even more complex with unimportant topics. Yes, some licenses are good for both parties. Most are bad for at least one party in the long run. If anyone really is interested we can discuss in a new thread or e-mail.
And my paraphrasing comment was explained by Aluman. Think of it like plagerism in school. "I am claiming that I created it, but it's really someone else's."
And if anyone thinks they are in the grey or that WotC might come after you, send them an e-mail or set up a meeting.
So is this how third party tool and content providers can expect to be treated?
When they violate intellectual property and copyright laws, yes. In fact, it's how they ought to be treated.
I think you're here for no other reason than to rabblerouse. Either you had no idea what the circumstances surrounding Ema's shutdown were, in which case you shouldn't have ignorantly spouted off about it, or you were aware of the circumstances and just don't care about others' property rights, in which case you don't deserve to have yours respected either.
Again to be blunt: If you work with Anyone's IP's that is not yours, you should be careful about doing so.
I just hope that when the ISP deleted all of the files/data on the site, none of it was IP created by Ema.
Before anyone replies half-cocked at me, yes I know, Wizards didn’t cause the IP to delete all the files and data, yes I know there was Wizards IP material on the site, but if any of the files and data on said site were intellectual property of Ema and had nothing to do with the C&D letter, then it was wrongly destroyed!
Doesn't the broad stroke response from the ISP worry any of you fans who have your own created IP material on your sites that might be destroyed because a large company who is interested in protecting their IPs uses such a broad stroke to protect their IP instead of warning the user that if the data isn't removed, legal action will be taken?
My storage comments were along the lines of pawnshops that get in trouble for storing or selling stolen goods. Or someone who gets busted for drugs in their car that a friend put there. Or a girlfriend who gets busted for holding her boyfriend's gun. Not that Ema did anything this bad, but these are somewhat similar and might be more familar. The end result in all these examples is that crime as well as storage got someone in trouble.
Which is a very poor comparison. You're equating a violation of a criminal law with the violation of a civil law which is an entirely different beast.
I have a few thoughts on the general discussion, and I'll try to be brief.
I seriously doubt the public will ever know the details leading up to this, but as far as I can tell Wotc's first action here was the C&D. Given the benefit that Wotc gains from having the community support it's product it would suggest to me that approaching the website and working with them to identify the offending material would be a better solution. Sending a form C&D seems to be, well bad form; especially considering that the fansite policy still remains to be seen.
When they violate intellectual property and copyright laws, yes. In fact, it's how they ought to be treated.
I think you're here for no other reason than to rabblerouse. Either you had no idea what the circumstances surrounding Ema's shutdown were, in which case you shouldn't have ignorantly spouted off about it, or you were aware of the circumstances and just don't care about others' property rights, in which case you don't deserve to have yours respected either.
My understanding of the current licensing is that names of powers and game terminology can be used, although the actual text description of the power is protected by copyright. Ema's website provided significantly, non-trivially altered wording for powers that still described the power's mechanics. Game mechanics, in and of themselves, are not protected by intellectual property law.
I'm not aware that Ema's was charging for anything other than central storage and management of character sheets. Character and power sheets themselves were always free of charge.
Not a huge fan of rabblerousing, but I don't see the actual violation here. Do you have anything to back up the accusation of intellectual property violation?
Anyone who gets that reference gets a cookie.
Whew, that puts some other websites in danger. I know of a few that host or sell 4e power cards.
Selling would cause issues if not GSL'd properly, hosting is another matter. My knowledge of Trademark IP laws is very thin, but from what I recall if its for free and you acknowledge the Trademark holder its legally ok.
Edit> It also relies on a court deciding that power names are 'intrinsic identifiers of the product'
A C&D order is, as far as I know (which is not that far, really) the first step and exactly what you want. A C&D is basically a "hey you did something wrong, cease this behavior ASAP".
I don't think the C&D order stated "immediately delete all files NOW!" and it was very likely a big overreaction on the side of the ISP. A sad thing, really, but we can't turn the time back...
From what I understand, normally yes a C&D order is the primary step. But depending how the letter is written, it can be misinterpreted to mean delete all files especially if it's translated incorrectly into a different language.
My understanding of the current licensing is that names of powers and game terminology can be used, although the actual text description of the power is protected by copyright. Ema's website provided significantly, non-trivially altered wording for powers that still described the power's mechanics. Game mechanics, in and of themselves, are not protected by intellectual property law.
I'm not aware that Ema's was charging for anything other than central storage and management of character sheets. Character and power sheets themselves were always free of charge.
Not a huge fan of rabblerousing, but I don't see the actual violation here. Do you have anything to back up the accusation of intellectual property violation?
Yes.
Per the GSL:
This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators;
Emphasis mine. Ema's was both a web site and interactive product, as well as arguably being a character creator, and thus cannot use the GSL, which means Ema did not have permission to utilize even the references (to say nothing of the full-text power cards that Ema's generator purportedly produced).
But the masses jerk their knees anyway without bothering to put forth what little effort it would require to get a sense of the circumstances before casting aspersions on one party or the other.
I don't think the C&D order stated "immediately delete all files NOW!" and it was very likely a big overreaction on the side of the ISP. A sad thing, really, but we can't turn the time back...
To add to this, anyone who has their only copy of a web site's info on the server's hard drives is asking for trouble, anyway. Smart money is to back up the darned site every day, and I'm hoping anyone who does have their IP on someone else's server is stowing a backup personally, too.
I agree with this, and find myself wondering if Fantasy Grounds is going to get the axe as soon as WOTC's gametable comes out.
It is in the same boat, operating for years without any action. It fills the same niche that the gametable will, and likely does some things better. Will it get the axe now that we're in the new 4e age and WOTC suddenly discovered the internet?
SmiteWorks distributes d20/OGL (3.5e) materials within the terms of the OGL, so no worries there. SmiteWorks does not distribute any 4e content at all.
I wouldn't worry about Fantasy Grounds.
Doesn't the broad stroke response from the ISP worry any of you fans who have your own created IP material on your sites that might be destroyed because a large company who is interested in protecting their IPs uses such a broad stroke to protect their IP instead of warning the user that if the data isn't removed, legal action will be taken?
That's what backups are for. Personally, I'd never fully, 100% trust someone else to keep my IP for me. There would be some sort of backup in case something catastrophic occurred with the ISP. I've seen three such instances where, because of a server crash or lapses in payment shutting servers down, important IP would have been lost if it hadn't been backed up "offlne" (CMP, PlanetAD&D and an Alanik Ray Ravenloft fan site).
That's what backups are for. Personally, I'd never fully, 100% trust someone else to keep my IP for me. There would be some sort of backup in case something catastrophic occurred with the ISP. I've seen three such instances where, because of a server crash or lapses in payment shutting servers down, important IP would have been lost if it hadn't been backed up "offlne" (CMP, PlanetAD&D and an Alanik Ray Ravenloft fan site).
That only works up to the point where the site was backed up, but if you've got people posting blogs on your site and the site gets taken down prior to the back up, even if you're backing up every 24 hours, you could still loose IP.
That only works up to the point where the site was backed up, but if you've got people posting blogs on your site and the site gets taken down prior to the back up, even if you're backing up every 24 hours, you could still loose IP.
Good thing 99.9% of all ISP's and webhosters make you agree that can do so.
Doesn't the broad stroke response from the ISP worry any of you fans who have your own created IP material on your sites that might be destroyed because a large company who is interested in protecting their IPs uses such a broad stroke to protect their IP instead of warning the user that if the data isn't removed, legal action will be taken?
You mean like sending a C & D letter?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist
A cease-and-desist letter is a letter demanding that the recipient refrain from a certain behavior or face legal action.
Source: http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/cd.php
People may think they have been sued when they receive a cease and desist letter. This isn't the case. The letter may threaten a lawsuit, but it is not the same as a complaint that is filed when an actual lawsuit begins.
Additional useful link for further information:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7
Simply asking someone to stop using your IP qualifies as a request to cease and desist. From my understanding, WotC had not necessarrily moved to legal action yet. The idea that the legal division of a company is handling the situation before any legal action is taken is perfectly reasonable (and common). This is generally done not to intimidate or cause further issues, but to prevent additional issues from arising (since legal departments tend know what they can and cannot do, and how the issue must be handled prior to legal action much better than those not educated in law do). Sadly this does prevent outsiders from knowing nuch about the actual circumstances (at least while things are still not finalized).
I even have emails from Scott Rouse telling us that the proposal will have to wait until after the Gold edition of the Character Gen is released, but to "Forge ahead" with our project. Even after he knew our plans to not be for free any more. But now they are going to do this sort of thing to a fellow competitor. Can we say monopoly.
I'm sure most people can say monoploy. And hyperoble for that matter.
Now I also know for a fact at GenCon the WotC character generator didn't have certain features in it that they do now. Funny thing is that those features didn't appear until right after we posted Screenshots of a couple pages of our app.
Wow.
In the first place, assuming that they added new features solely because you happened to post some screenshots is incredibly arrogant.
In the second, so what? If you were that possessive over your 'features' then you should have patented them.
I can guarentee that HeroForge has a HUGE target on our backs, and that we are on the 10 most wanted list at WotC. Sheets like ours and Emma's are the reason that they even cared about doing thier online tools in the first place. We have helped set the standard for what players and DM's want in a character Gen and now WotC wants to destroy us all because they feel we are a threat.
How are you guaranteeing it? Will you forfeit your house or car if someone says they can't see a target on your back (huge or otherwise)?
Please provide proof that Wizards even has a 'most wanted list', let alone that you're in the top ten of this non-existing-outside-your-paranoid-delusions list.
Please show the logical link (note, link, not leap) between Wizards acting to protect its trademarks (which it has to do in order to maintain said trademarks) and wanting to 'destroy' you, or that they see you as a threat.
Note, if you don't understand the basics of trademark, patent and copyright law then you might want to consult with some lawyers who do before releasing your software.
Maybe it is time that all of us behind the crosshairs see what legal rights we have in this matter. The fact that WotC isn't even interested in making a little extra cash from licensing their material to third party Gens is a little sad. In this economy any exrta is a good thing. Smart businesses would be looking for extra income, no matter how big they are.
I'd suggest you do find out what legal rights you have as evidently from your post you have no idea about intellectual property rights and the laws pursuant to them.
As for the licensing side, why would they license something which they're doing themselves (a character generator)? Said license would only reduce their own revenue streams.
Moreover you're wrong, WotC has licensed their material via the GSL. Whether it's a good license is another matter but it's disengenous of you to claim that they haven't licensed 'their material to third party Gens (sic)'.
I for one know that we are not ready to bring out the white flag and throw in the towel.
Please don't, I'm sure you have many more paranoid consipracies to spread in the future.
If they could C&D you they probably would, but since there's no money involved anywhere it's safe for the moment.
While commercial gain is one of the considerations for fair use, it's only one of them. Providing something for free does not indemnify you from a copyright violation (e.g. photocopying a Harry Potter book and giving it away for free is a breach of copyright).
Thanks, it also occurs to me, that names of powers are Technically trademarked now (since the Monopoly suit days), and thusly: Even having power cards that just prints the name of powers on it is a Dark Gray area of IP law.
The only Monopoly trademark suits I know of concern the name 'Monopoly' or the tradedress of the game. There's nothing in any of the cases I know of which would make powers trademarked. In fact, precedent has it that such things are not trademarkable at all (in their current form and usage).
Please cite the case which you're refering to.
Well, if that is your opinion, so be it. I still say it's a vast difference between the two.
Remember that not all use of copyrighted information is illegal. Wholesale copying and selling normally is, but that is not what Ema was doing. If he needed a push over to the straight and narrow, they could have done that instead of closing him down like some coke dealer.
There are some issues that are getting twisted up here...
Distributing copyrighted/trademarked material for free is every bit as illegal as distributing copyrighted/trademarked material for profit. Whether or not Ema was charging money is irrelevant. Yes, it adds insult to injury, but Ema should have been shut down even if he wasn't charging money.
Copyright law isn't really all that complicated as far as this issue is concerned. You can't distribute someone else's work whole-cloth without paying them for it. Ema's site contained copyrighted material, in the form of spell and power listings. Whether or not they were paraphrased or re-worded slightly doesn't matter either. If they were recognizable as the original material, it would have been more than enough to hold up in court (It's a FARgate... we are so not getting sued).
Trademark law is even simpler. Ema was using trademarks belonging to Wizards of the Coast, LucasFilm, and others. That alone is more than enough for a Cease and Desist. There's also some caveats in trademark law that encourage companies to protect their trademarks a bit more carefully than they might otherwise do.
Doesn't matter if they were good. Doesn't even matter if they were better than WotC's power cards. They were blatently illegal. If he had distributed blank power cards that could be filled in by the user... if he had distributed only SRD approved materials in SRD approved format... if he had aquired the appropriate distribution rights... if he had only distributed his own material... then it wouldn't have been an issue.
But that wasn't the case. Ema was distributing Wizards of the Coast's copyrighted material without proper credit and recompense going to Wizards of the Coast. You may see him as a "Modern Day Robin Hood", but he was still a theif. Is that harsh? Yes, it is. But it's true. Whether or not he was "doing a good thing" or "helping the community" is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Wizards of the Coast was well within their rights to request that the site be shut down. The fact that Ema can't/won't now create a tool that follows the appropriate copyright and trademark laws has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast. That's on him.
The funny thing is, Wizards of the Coast could have very easily sued Ema for damages, but they let him get off with nothing more than a Cease and Desist. For anyone who hasn't ever gotten a C&D, it's pretty much just a polite letter asking you to stop. He got off pretty easy, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse.
The only Monopoly trademark suits I know of concern the name 'Monopoly' or the tradedress of the game. There's nothing in any of the cases I know of which would make powers trademarked. In fact, precedent has it that such things are not trademarkable at all (in their current form and usage).
Please cite the case which you're refering to.
The case was the long standing one between Antimonopoly and Parker Brothers/General Mills/Hasbro. In the end Trademarks have become automatically generated (Thus Monopoly while not covered by Patents IS a register trademark).
FAQ about Trademarks
Do I have to register my trademark?
No, but federal registration has several advantages, including notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration.
Without it being registered its as much if you can prove that say "Rain of Blows" clearly identifies something You have done over other stuff.
Edit> Essentially as they couldn't hold the patents to Monopoly, Hasbro had trademark laws changed to reflect copyright laws and autoapplied (Or rather applied pressure to Congress to do so).
actions WoTC did were legal and approrpiate
or
what emass-web was doing was illegal.
Let us just for arguments sake, assume that those two items are true.
Do you believe that WoTC did the right thing for their customers?
Becuase they did not have to take this action.
They could have gone to Emma and opened up discussion to come up with a way that the material they truly disliked could be eliminated without completely shutting down the site and alienating all fans of WoTC products.
You know.. behave rationally?
If they wanted the logo's removed.. ok. I don't know what Emma would have thought about that but it does not seem unreasonable.
If they wanted the full text from power cards removed (I never saw that anyway.. but if they were there.. sure.. whatever). IT wouldn't have changed the overall ease-of-use of the form fill able sheets. So sure.. get rid of that too.
But from what I can tell.. no such discussion ever opened up. WoTC just seems to want to shut it down.. kill it off.. destroy it.. and at the same time alienate all the avid fans of WoTC using that valuable resource.
Maybe I was looking at the wrong bits of the page.. but I can't imagine how you could make a character with Emma's forms without doing quite a bit of research with your hard bound books before hand. But it sure was nice to be able to, once you've made your long term plans for your character.. quickly click some buttons and print out the sheet just in time for your buddies to be coming over to start the game.
Or even better.. print it out at someone else's house because you picked up your gaming folder but somehow, the stupid character sheet isn't in there.
Nope.. not anymore. All gone.
So really.. the point of all this being legal or illegal really is a moot point to me. Its whether or not it served the company / customer relationship.
Do you really think it did?
I think it is going to be more difficult and time consuming to deal with character generation now.. I'm going to have to go over my co-players sheets much more closely ... it is more time consuming to get a game going... is this what serves the company / customer relationship best?
All this discussion trying to justify that
actions WoTC did were legal and approrpiate
or
what emass-web was doing was illegal.
Let us just for arguments sake, assume that those two items are true.
Do you believe that WoTC did the right thing for their customers?
Becuase they did not have to take this action.
yes
They could have gone to Emma and opened up discussion to come up with a way that the material they truly disliked could be eliminated without completely shutting down the site and alienating all fans of WoTC products.
You know.. behave rationally?
wow you mean by sending a C&D letter???
If they wanted the logo's removed.. ok. I don't know what Emma would have thought about that but it does not seem unreasonable.
If they wanted the full text from power cards removed (I never saw that anyway.. but if they were there.. sure.. whatever). IT wouldn't have changed the overall ease-of-use of the form fill able sheets. So sure.. get rid of that too.
You mean like sending a C&D letter to stop doing the illegal things like what you had above...
But from what I can tell.. no such discussion ever opened up. WoTC just seems to want to shut it down.. kill it off.. destroy it.. and at the same time alienate all the avid fans of WoTC using that valuable resource.
now you are just makeing things up...he said that his ISP deleted it...not WotC
Maybe I was looking at the wrong bits of the page.. but I can't imagine how you could make a character with Emma's forms without doing quite a bit of research with your hard bound books before hand. But it sure was nice to be able to, once you've made your long term plans for your character.. quickly click some buttons and print out the sheet just in time for your buddies to be coming over to start the game.
sounds great...infact that is what I loved about his site...but I knew it was not a grey area in the law...it was breaking said law...
Or even better.. print it out at someone else's house because you picked up your gaming folder but somehow, the stupid character sheet isn't in there.
Nope.. not anymore. All gone.
that sucks...I agree...
So really.. the point of all this being legal or illegal really is a moot point to me. Its whether or not it served the company / customer relationship.
Do you really think it did?
yes...see below...
I think it is going to be more difficult and time consuming to deal with character generation now.. I'm going to have to go over my co-players sheets much more closely ... it is more time consuming to get a game going... is this what serves the company / customer relationship best?
Ok, so here is the long and short of it. WotC didn't twearl there mustash and say "How can we screw the players today"...they saw a problme...and they fixed it.
Again, a C&D is neither a lawsuit nor an "we want to kill you" order. It's simply a "hey you use stuff unlawful, (please) take it down."
how is this being lost in this discussion...
Again, a C&D is neither a lawsuit nor an "we want to kill you" order. It's simply a "hey you use stuff unlawful, (please) take it down."
If they wanted to open a discussion they send it to Emma.
If they want to shut it down, they send it to the ISP.
Which did they do?
If they wanted to open a discussion they send it to Emma.
If they want to shut it down, they send it to the ISP.
Which did they do?
why would sending it to the ISP be shutting it down?
why would sending it to the ISP be shutting it down?
Webhosts typically shut down a site as soon as it is established to be in copyright violation. If they do not, the lawsuit could be extended to include them.
More than likely the C&D was sent to both, as is standarad procedure for these kinds of things. The host shut down the site in response. Ema can still discuss the matter with WotC and once an agreement is reached the site could be relaunched without the offending content. That Ema did not back up the material is no one's fault but his own.
You should read a bit farther above. A Cease & Desist Letter is the first step to tell someone he does something wrong. That's normal legal proceedings. Ema can either call WotC Law Dept. back and try to talk with them or put up new sheets without providing close to whole books regarding the powers.
Again, a C&D is neither a lawsuit nor an "we want to kill you" order. It's simply a "hey you use stuff unlawful, (please) take it down."
I said the same thing earlier; why is a form C&D (to the ISP, who has no editorial control over the website) the first step? It doesn't imply that you're interested in working with the other party, and certainly doesn't encourage the other party to contact you to clear the matter up. Friendly and open contact should be the first step, followed by a C&D if the other party is unwilling to cooperate.
I said the same thing earlier; why is a form C&D (to the ISP, who has no editorial control over the website) the first step? It doesn't imply that you're interested in with the other party, and certainly doesn't encourage the other party to contact you to clear the matter up. Friendly and open contact should be the first step, followed by a C&D if the other party is unwilling to cooperate.
Really the first step, if you desire an amicable resolution, is to pick up the phone.
If they wanted to open a discussion they send it to Emma.
If they want to shut it down, they send it to the ISP.
Which did they do?
Are you sure that Ema didn't get a CnD and just chose to ignore it?
Really the first step, if you desire an amicable resolution, is to pick up the phone.
um...I work with a couple big companies...that is SOOO not the way it works...
buisnesses like to have paper trails...that is the reson for the C&D and yes it is a way to lead to an amicable resolution
All this discussion trying to justify that
actions WoTC did were legal and approrpiate
or
what emass-web was doing was illegal.
Let us just for arguments sake, assume that those two items are true.
Do you believe that WoTC did the right thing for their customers?
Becuase they did not have to take this action.
They could have gone to Emma and opened up discussion to come up with a way that the material they truly disliked could be eliminated without completely shutting down the site and alienating all fans of WoTC products.
You know.. behave rationally?
If they wanted the logo's removed.. ok. I don't know what Emma would have thought about that but it does not seem unreasonable.
.....
Translation: I feel entitled to be allowed to do as I please with whatever I want, that WotC enforces its IP means its nothing but a big bad bully that make little girls CRY!
I said the same thing earlier; why is a form C&D (to the ISP, who has no editorial control over the website) the first step? It doesn't imply that you're interested in with the other party, and certainly doesn't encourage the other party to contact you to clear the matter up. Friendly and open contact should be the first step, followed by a C&D if the other party is unwilling to cooperate.
As GM put it, Paper Trail.
Believe or not, big companies hate going to lawsuit land, as there are MANY times that big companies lose suits they should win, before they even begin to go there they make sure as they can that every other resource is exhausted and more than that, they make sure every single I is dotted and T crossed and backed up by reams of paper work.
As GM put it, Paper Trail.
Believe or not, big companies hate going to lawsuit land, as there are MANY times that big companies lose suits they should win, before they even begin to go there they make sure as they can that every other resource is exhausted and more than that, they make sure every single I is dotted and T crossed and backed up by reams of paper work.
And you can still create a paper trail with amicable contact. Granted, we have no way to know if this has been attempted, and being a legal matter neither side is going to discuss it. However, it appears to me that the C&D was the first action by Wotc. Given the situation, I don't see how this can accomplish anything with the fanbase but martyring Ema.
And you can still create a paper trail with amicable contact. Granted, we have no way to know if this has been attempted, and being a legal matter neither side is going to discuss it. However, it appears to me that the C&D was the first action by Wotc. Given the situation, I don't see how this can accomplish anything with the fanbase but martyring Ema.
It shouldn't martyr Ema. Ema broke the law. One way or another.
It shouldn't martyr Ema. Ema broke the law. One way or another.
As may be, but I'm referring to public perception not a courtroom.
I said the same thing earlier; why is a form C&D (to the ISP, who has no editorial control over the website) the first step? It doesn't imply that you're interested in with the other party, and certainly doesn't encourage the other party to contact you to clear the matter up. Friendly and open contact should be the first step, followed by a C&D if the other party is unwilling to cooperate.
You're assuming it was the first step. You're assuming Ema wasn't contacted before and/or if he says he wasn't that he's telling the truth.
As for the rest of it, it's evident you don't deal with copyright law (or violators) if you think that friendly and open contact should be the first step. In legal terms a C&D is friendly and open contact.
You're assuming it was the first step. You're assuming Ema wasn't contacted before and/or if he says he wasn't that he's telling the truth.
And I said as much. Not in the statement that you quoted, but I try not to repeat myself too much ;). There is no way to know, but as the situation appears to me the C&D was Wotc's first action.
And I said as much. Not in the statement that you quoted, but I try not to repeat myself too much ;). There is no way to know, but as the situation appears to me the C&D was Wotc's first action.
Its an acceptable first action, especially as compared to TSR or Palladium WotC is REALLYYY light in handing out CnD's. The ones they do invariably are clearly breaking the law.
And I said as much. Not in the statement that you quoted, but I try not to repeat myself too much ;). There is no way to know, but as the situation appears to me the C&D was Wotc's first action.
Which is based on a wild ass guess by yourself as short of a matching statement from both parties there's no way to know.
Moreover, as I and others have pointed out, a C&D is the standard first step. They could have gone directly to litigation.
I've dealt with legal cases professionally. Sometimes there's something that happens that takes a difficult case and just blows it open. Like if someone wants to sue an employer for racial discrimination, a regular case might involve slogging through attendance records, employee reviews, and months of effort. And then suddenly you find out that the guy's boss called him a horrible racial slur while he was packing up his desk to leave. And suddenly your difficult case becomes a blowout.
That's what using someone else's logos on your stuff does. Its like showing up for court in your trial for theft while wearing a jacket you stole from your victim with his name monogrammed on the back.
Which is based on a wild ass guess by yourself as short of a matching statement from both parties there's no way to know.
Moreover, as I and others have pointed out, a C&D is the standard first step. They could have gone directly to litigation.
Ok, so I based an opinion on personal conjecture. You're basically calling me out for having an opinion that doesn't match your own.
I understand that a C&D as a first step is a standard business practice. I'm saying that it's not the only option and that in a situation like this it's probably not good PR.
WotC, like almost every major corporation out there, is not going to comment on legal matters that are in the process of being resolved, or are finished. It is common business practice.
We don't know if there were steps taken prior to this. WotC isn't going to say anything, and I would be surprised if Ema will say anything about this as well.
And as mentioned above, the ISP probably has very little choice in the matter once they receive a C&D letter. As mentioned previously, the ISP allowing the material to stay up, once it has been pointed out to them that the material is in violation of one or more international IP laws, puts the ISP in a very large set of crosshairs with very little protection.
Ok, so I based an opinion on personal conjecture. You're basically calling me out for having an opinion that doesn't match your own.
I understand that a C&D as a first step is a standard business practice. I'm saying that it's not the only option and that in a situation like this it's probably not good PR.
It actually IS the only option if its trademark infringement, if you do ANYTHING that could potentially be construed as not defending your trademark, then it can be grounds for your trademark not being upheld (See cola).
It actually IS the only option if its trademark infringement, if you do ANYTHING that could potentially be construed as not defending your trademark, then it can be grounds for your trademark not being upheld (See cola).
Ok, I could accept that. Assuming this was an issue of trademark infringement then anything but a C&D would have probably been legally damaging to Wotc. It's actually a shame that the details about this aren't clear, but thats the nature of these things I suppose.
It actually IS the only option if its trademark infringement, if you do ANYTHING that could potentially be construed as not defending your trademark, then it can be grounds for your trademark not being upheld (See cola).
So.. you realize that the word "Player's Handbook" is a trademark?
see bottom of first page of any of the hardbound books.
So... try a simple search for that term on google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="players's%20handbook"&btnG=Search
My point of that is.. there is such a thing as fair use. Surely not every site on there that even refernces that word is going to require a C&D sent to them?
So.. you realize that the word "Player's Handbook" is a trademark?
see bottom of first page of any of the hardbound books.
Yes actually. Its why you don't see WoD Player's Handbooks.
So... try a simple search for that term on google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="players's%20handbook"&btnG=Search
My point of that is.. there is such a thing as fair use. Surely not every site on there that even refernces that word is going to require a C&D sent to them?
Actually trademarks there isn't a fair use clause, there are ways to referance it and remain respectful of the trademark and use it, but Fair Use implies a way to use it without referance to ownership. Player's handbook, Dungeon Master, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual and a few other things are firmly trademark. Whether or not something like 'Rain of Blows' is would require the courts to sort out as WotC hasn't filled 'em, but its possible.
What isn't in dispute is that Ema was USING logos and trademarked words on for-profit website, in a manner that is NOT legally permissible.
I've used emass-web since 4th edition came out due to the amazing quality of the sheets. I've also been a D&D Insider subscriber since the day subscriptions were available due to the amazing quality of the articles and resources.
The character sheets are easily replaceable now that the Character Builder has been released. Overall I'm pleased with them. Could they be improved? Absolutely. Are they good enough? You know it.
However, I mostly used emass-web due to the fact that I was able to save the character sheets online. This allowed my players to edit them as necessary during the week so we could print them out and roll right into gaming as soon they walked in on gaming nights. With the character builder, all the characters are saved on my system and players have to use valuable gaming time updating them prior to starting play.
Now I reach the main point of my post:
Can anyone recommend a resource (preferably free or cheap) that would allow simple hosting/saving of Character Builder files in such a way that my players would be able to edit them during the week? They each have a copy of the character builder to use for editing.
Thank you for your responses.
I understand that Ema's website got taken down due mostly to content he posted concerning 4th edition powers, and that he had people pay money to store content on his site. While I agree that Wizards was legitimate in what they did in taking down Ema's site, I felt they did a disservice to 3.5 ed. gamers who used that site to streamline the complex spellcasting mechanisms of 3.5 with services that seemingly didn't intrude on IP that one had to acquire by actually buying the physical incarnation of the books.
With that in mind, is there any other website that has such an interface for making comprehensive 3.5 spell sheets like Ema did? Is such a service highly illegal? Is such a service in the works with Wizards' D&D insider?
Now I reach the main point of my post:
Can anyone recommend a resource (preferably free or cheap) that would allow simple hosting/saving of Character Builder files in such a way that my players would be able to edit them during the week? They each have a copy of the character builder to use for editing.
Thank you for your responses.
Mediafire
4shared
Online sheets can be hosted at
Myth-Weavers
Tangledweb
Please note in regards to both above that they are NOT character builder compatible.
Mediafire and 4Shared both allow uploading and downloading of files for free, I would suggest using them to host the sheet and download when editing needs to take place.
I said the same thing earlier; why is a form C&D (to the ISP, who has no editorial control over the website) the first step? It doesn't imply that you're interested in working with the other party, and certainly doesn't encourage the other party to contact you to clear the matter up. Friendly and open contact should be the first step, followed by a C&D if the other party is unwilling to cooperate.
I expect that Ema was likely sent a C&D at the same time as the ISP, as typically the company is trying to minimize damage and increase the likelihood of removal (by sending to both they get the better of the two parties response time and decrease the odds of needing to file for a C&D order). The letter being sent to the ISP was also likely a manner of giving the ISP the chance to seperate themselves from the issue.
Any request made for someone to stop using protected content constitutes a C&D letter, regardless of how friendly it is. My entire previous post was made in an effort to show people that the first contact made about this will be viewed as a C&D. I am making a C&D whether I say " Stop using my IP immediately or be sued!" or "Excuse me, would you mind removing the power descriptions from your website, as they are protected material?". The reason it was done by letter (as with virtually anything that has a reasonable chance of reaching the legal system) was to protect the companies interest. Even if a phone call were possible (and that is highly unlikely, as most people don't tend to place phone numbers for direct contact online), it would not be done as the conversation would become hearsay. When dealing with a circumstance this critical, chances are not going to be taken (and this is to the advantage of both parties involved).
I would also like to add that unless Ema has posted the letter, we have no idea of the tone involved. I can be extremely nice and still leave little room for an option other than taking the information down immediately. Typically the information would need to be taken down while it is worked out regardless of how open or closed either party is to discussion.
Those of us here defending WotC are not necessarily trying to vilify Ema (at least from what I can tell), merely showing that those automatically assuming that WotC are being unreasonable and cruel do not have adequate information to make such a claim (and we likely never will). Simply because someone is respected and well liked does not make them infallible, nor does it grant immunity from the consequences of a mistake. Based on the fact that WotC hasn't issued C&D letters to everyone using the term Player's Handbook without proper citing (and I'm sure that is only the beginning of possible infractions that could be found with only minor searching), it is reasonable to believe that this request was not issued lightly.
While I agree that Wizards was legitimate in what they did in taking down Ema's site, I felt they did a disservice to 3.5 ed. gamers who used that site to streamline the complex spellcasting mechanisms of 3.5 with services that seemingly didn't intrude on IP that one had to acquire by actually buying the physical incarnation of the books.
More than likely the C&D request specified a certain degree of content, the choice to delete everything would have been the ISP's (likely because it would be simpler than trying to eliminate the specified information or waiting for a response from the creator). Remember that the content being taken down quickly is in the best interest of the ISP, else they might be held liable as well. WotC would have no ability to request removal of legally viable information, and doing so in a written document could potentially harm their legal defense later (if the issue moves that direction). WotC did less of a "disservice" to 3.5e player's than either the ISP (assuming they chose to not wait and deleted everything in an effort to best protect themselves) or Ema (for not having backups and putting up illegal content). Honestly though, I don't think anyone involved did a "disservice" to 3.5 players. The circumstances suck, but trying to blame WotC for defending their IP is like claiming the victim of a crime is doing the community a disservice by seeking justice against the perpetrator of the crime, because the perpetrator does community service and donates to charities.
Really the first step, if you desire an amicable resolution, is to pick up the phone.
Yes. Because Ema's Italian phone number and real name was posted all over the website. ;)
I greatly enjoyed using Ema's dynamic 3.5 spell sheets, as not only did they provide organization in the form of listing a page number to go find the full description of the spell yourself (saving a great deal of time at the gaming table from having to thumb through books) but also a brief enough description for things like saves, durations, ranges of the spells, if spell resistance applies, etc. to use simple spells like Magic Missile or Invisibility without a hitch. These spell sheets made my full-casting-type characters (especially clerics and druids) fun and viable to use without being a drain on the play experience. They were also quite customizable (i.e. you could get sheets for a specialist wizard, or a neutral good druid, or domains for a cleric). Also, NO OTHER WEBSITE I've found has artificer infusion lists, aside from Crystal Keep - and those aren't as streamlined as I'd like.
I understand that Ema's website got taken down due mostly to content he posted concerning 4th edition powers, and that he had people pay money to store content on his site. While I agree that Wizards was legitimate in what they did in taking down Ema's site, I felt they did a disservice to 3.5 ed. gamers who used that site to streamline the complex spellcasting mechanisms of 3.5 with services that seemingly didn't intrude on IP that one had to acquire by actually buying the physical incarnation of the books.
With that in mind, is there any other website that has such an interface for making comprehensive 3.5 spell sheets like Ema did? Is such a service highly illegal? Is such a service in the works with Wizards' D&D insider?
Could not agree more, you took the words out of my mouth. I contacted Emanuel and he clearly said that the content is now gone forever.
I'm very sad to see this stuff go, specially the spell sheet and the generation of them. The format was top notch and saved me hours and hours of looking up stuff, and was printed on very neatly looking pages.
WotC, you dont care much of your customers do you? I'm pretty sure 3.5 still has a much bigger customer base than 4.0 and many ppl I know use Emanuel's sheets (emass-web.com). Shame tbh, and just another reason not go 4.0.
I'm pretty sure 3.5 still has a much biggercustomer basewang than 4.0...
Why mince words?
Uhm, sorry but I dont get your point? 3.5 has more players than 4.0, you dont think?
You're saying that 3.5 is better and more popular than 4e, but that maybe you'd give 4e a try if WotC let other people use its IP? That's interesting logic.
This is from Ema himself:
I'm sorry to inform you that this site is no more.
Wizards of the Coast asked me to take it down, and I complied.
I'm sorry for all the fans who will miss it - I will miss it, too - but it was the right thing to do.
Time to move on...
Ema.
And you can find more information here. Pen and Paper Games asked Ema personally what happened. Here is the complete information.
I recently wrote to the founder of emass-web.com to find out any further information he could share about the taking down of his site. Emass-web.com, which provided a popular and robust database for character creation, was recently taken down after Ema. the founder of the site, received a Cease & Desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. For legal reasons, he could not comment on the specifics, but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned. Below is the reply I received.
"Actually, there's not much to say... I received a Cease & Desist letter from WotC legal branch.
I did what they asked, and decided to remove the site.
Am I disappointed? Well, what I'm really sorry about is that I'm not allowed to carry on what was a work of love and a source of joy in bringing something useful to the community.
Am I venomous towards WotC? Not really. They're doing their job. I respect their intellectual property, over which I never meant any harm, and I understand they try to fiercely defend it against any real or perceived threat.
Will I stop buying their products? Not at all. I love the game, it has been my favorite hobby for the last 20 years or so. I will keep on playing and DM'ing D&D just as before.
Will I develop any other RPG-related Web content? I don't know, really. In case I do, I will be extra careful to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
So that's it.
I saw a lot of venom towards WotC flying around... as I said, they're only doing their job. While I understand you're disappointed, don't let what happened ruin your enthusiasm for the game.
I've also seen exceptionally wild speculations, from the idea that WotC could have hired me (nope, but if they ask me, I will gladly do some freelance work for them) to the incredibly-far fetched one that Scott Rouse secretly came to Italy to discuss the matter with me (not at all, but if Scott ever wants to come by I'll offer him a good margarita).
No global conspiracies, no secret deals, nothing out of the ordinary, believe me.
It's been a great time, and the messages of solidarity and appreciation I keep receiving and/or seeing on various forums fill me with pride and honor.
But - unfortunately - it had to go. As they say, "all good things must come to an end"...
Thanks,
Ema."
What Ema did was illegal. He understands this and willingly complied. He never meant any harm and was willing to make corrections to avoid any problems. He is even willing to work with WotC on further projects if the opportunity comes up.
I don't see the problem. WotC should protect their product. I used Ema's sheets and they were very comprehensive. It was very easy to create most of the character using only the online tools he provided. I'm sure that those who are bad-mouthing WotC would have done the same thing if they had any IP to protect.
As for those who think they are going to be targeted next, perhaps this is a great time to open some dialog with WotC and make sure that you can showcase your product.
You're saying that 3.5 is better and more popular than 4e, but that maybe you'd give 4e a try if WotC let other people use its IP? That's interesting logic.
Did I ever say 3.5 is better than 4.0?
I'm questioning their logic as many other tools are still about, like HeroForge etc etc. These tools use copyrighted texts too, so I guess it had to do with save online functionality and the fact he made money off it.
From what I recall of Heroforge, or at least the 3.5 edition, it didn't use any copyrighted text. It only gave the mechanical information for the feats, not the fluff.
In the first place, assuming that they added new features solely because you happened to post some screenshots is incredibly arrogant.
It's not without precedent however; the Fantasy Grounds dice roller screenshot on the DDI page was proof of that.Could not agree more, you took the words out of my mouth. I contacted Emanuel and he clearly said that the content is now gone forever.
I'm very sad to see this stuff go, specially the spell sheet and the generation of them. The format was top notch and saved me hours and hours of looking up stuff, and was printed on very neatly looking pages.
WotC, you dont care much of your customers do you? I'm pretty sure 3.5 still has a much bigger customer base than 4.0 and many ppl I know use Emanuel's sheets (emass-web.com). Shame tbh, and just another reason not go 4.0.
If WotC and Ema could hash out an agreement to get the site back up, couldn't ema put out a call to former users for old master copies of the character sheets (they were PDFs, correct?)? For that matter, "online" sheets could be cached on Google still for recovery.
WotC, you dont care much of your customers do you? I'm pretty sure 3.5 still has a much bigger customer base than 4.0 and many ppl I know use Emanuel's sheets (emass-web.com). Shame tbh, and just another reason not go 4.0.
Pretty sure? Based on what? The way your left knee hurts?
Pretty sure? Based on what? The way your left knee hurts?
hey be fair...he might have poll results, and sales numbers...
hey be fair...he might have poll results, and sales numbers...
I think it's safe to say that it's just as likely that I am in fact Jesus reborn.
;)
This site was superior to anything WOTC has done and is updated the day after the books and articles are published, not nine months later and with a monthly fee to avoid losing your records.
This is the proverbial last straw. Me and six other gamers are done with purchasing 4.0 products. Good luck to the rest of you. Just remember - Greed kills.
Amazing how the site can function for years filled with D&D material from multiple versions of the game while WOTC stumbles around unable to make a character generation site and suddenly, magically, it's a copyright problem now.
This site was superior to anything WOTC has done and is updated the day after the books and articles are published, not nine months later and with a monthly fee to avoid losing your records.
This is the proverbial last straw. Me and six other gamers are done with purchasing 4.0 products. Good luck to the rest of you. Just remember - Greed kills.
Site A). vilates the IP law not realizing it.
B). gets CnD about it
C). complies
D). Releases that He (the owner of the site) personally is not upset with WotC over it, and has no intention to not buy stuff.
7 random gamers: WAAAA you guys are greedy 'cause you don't want people stealing stuff from you!
Its good to see fanboy entitlement has not died.
Amazing how the site can function for years filled with D&D material from multiple versions of the game while WOTC stumbles around unable to make a character generation site and suddenly, magically, it's a copyright problem now.
This site was superior to anything WOTC has done and is updated the day after the books and articles are published, not nine months later and with a monthly fee to avoid losing your records.
This is the proverbial last straw. Me and six other gamers are done with purchasing 4.0 products. Good luck to the rest of you. Just remember - Greed kills.
This post is bad and you should feel bad. And if those six other gamers really are following your whims, they should all feel bad too. They need to find a new person to make their moral judgments for them, because you are not very good at it.
Also, I really hope this kind of attitude is indicative of people in general and not simply gamers. I would hate to have yet another reason for disliking who we, as tabletop gamers, have become.
ojacid, it's clear that you have little (if any) respect for property laws and people's ability to protect what they own. Could you please provide your location so that we can come take all of your things? We promise we'll yell at you and get hopping mad when you tell us that we can't keep any of it.
Now imagine if WoTC grabbed Ema and gave him an opportunity to be a sort of "free agent". He makes character sheets and such with the official stamp of WoTC, they are good because he is an "in the trenches" player and DM, they are customized to what players and DMs really want, and they would sell like hotcakes if sold separately or would be downloaded and copied officially from WoTC material (like off the Wizards website or in a published book). Instead, we will have user-creators hiding and wondering if they will be shut down and we will have players and DMs who will have fewer choices for sheets. And believe me, everyone likes choices - its hard to even get a small group to agree on one sheet for everyone to use.
Amazing how the site can function for years filled with D&D material from multiple versions of the game while WOTC stumbles around unable to make a character generation site and suddenly, magically, it's a copyright problem now.
This site was superior to anything WOTC has done and is updated the day after the books and articles are published, not nine months later and with a monthly fee to avoid losing your records.
This is the proverbial last straw. Me and six other gamers are done with purchasing 4.0 products. Good luck to the rest of you. Just remember - Greed kills.
Did you just happen to skipp the large paragraph a few post up where Emma admitted he was wrong? Or was that all photoshop and I'm going insane?
My point of that is.. there is such a thing as fair use. Surely not every site on there that even refernces that word is going to require a C&D sent to them?
Standard disclaimer: IANAL. And while the definition of "fair use" may not always be clear-cut, giving away somebody else's copyrighted materials definitely does not fall within the scope of "fair use."
Edit: As I reread this, I am not sure that I understood Reyzoul's point. If that's so, never mind …
Standard disclaimer: IANAL. And while the definition of "fair use" may not always be clear-cut, giving away somebody else's copyrighted materials definitely does not fall within the scope of "fair use."
Edit: As I reread this, I am not sure that I understood Reyzoul's point. If that's so, never mind …
My point.. going back to my oooooriiiiginal post if you take the time to do so.
Was simply this. I dind't say it very simply.. I tend to give out examples that try to lead people down a road.. but.. that doesn't work very well on forums I guess.
Anyway.
Take it as a given that WoTC was within their rights to do what they did.
Fine with that.
On the other hand.. they did not have to do what they did. They did not have to alienate all those customers. Emma's wasn't hurting anything.. do you think they lost sales? I know there are trolls here that somehow think you could go to Emma's and get all the information in the book.. perhaps that is true. I was a user and I never found that to be the case. I found it made the game much easier and accessible.. you referred to the books every time the enevitable rules questions come up -- um.. are you sure that spell allows you to move it beyond line of sight? -- out comes everyone's books while we all try to quickly get to the answer before everyone else at the table. -- yet it also kept combat fast(er than it would normally be) because you had the key bits at your fingertips. This helps WoTC.. if it is easier to play, more will, which means more market. At least that works for me <-- customer at the moment.
Anyway, WoTC, in my opinion, did not have to take this kind of drastic action. There were other ways they could have dealt with this. It is not true that you must absolutely forbid anyone from using any logo's you have registered. You just have to make sure you know what is being used and that it isn't being used in a distasteful way or in a way you disapprove. So.. people control this through licenses.
Joe grants Bob a license to use his logos and limited use of materials on his website with the proviso that Joe can revoke said license for whatever reason he might choose.
These licenses do not even have to be between two parties exactly. Take the granting of you to print the character sheet in the back of the book. That is an implied license for use. Yet you didn't sign anything.
This is very typical. Said licenses are hardly ever revoked unless they (Bob in this case) is doing something like drawing the big NO symbol over the logo or using it as a prop in an electronic online dart board.. or similarly slandering the logo and materials in some way.
And also recall that there is supposedly a fansite policy out there.. on someone's desk at WoTC, which will grant everyone licenses to do all kinds of things with their work in order to develop said fansites. They just haven't bothered to get it off whom ever's desk yet and show it to us.
And by the way.. I did some cusory glances around the AD&D web-ring and found many instances of people using the trademarked phrases.. and the official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons logo's. Certainly that can be enough of a reason that justifies WoTC's action.. but it can't possibly be the reason why they did it. I don't buy that.
Work with them? Why would they do that, exactly? What's the benefit to WotC?
Seriously folks. WotC is a company which exists to make money. Ema was distributing their IP en-masse without their permission, and without paying them. Moreover, its in a service which competes with a service they themselves provide.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17843641#post17843641
You know what WoTC should have done...they should have hired Ema or offered to buy his materials.
Now imagine if WoTC grabbed Ema and gave him an opportunity to be a sort of "free agent".
Ema said he wasn't available to work for WotC but would be willing in the future to do some freelance stuff. Check out my previous post for his stance on all this.
Replys like that is a waste and brings nothing to the topic. And if you dont think 3.5 still has a bigger group of players, fine. That's your opinion. But please spare me with comments like yours, it does nothing else than make you look bad.
But posting a statement like that is provocative in the first place, and asking for agressive responses.
But posting a statement like that is provocative in the first place, and asking for agressive responses.
And has no citable source that provides objective evidence of the claim. Therefore, it's a bunch of hot air.
I recently wrote to the founder of emass-web.com to find out any further information he could share about the taking down of his site. Emass-web.com, which provided a popular and robust database for character creation, was recently taken down after Ema. the founder of the site, received a Cease & Desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. For legal reasons, he could not comment on the specifics, but he did confirm that he received a Cease & Desist letter from the legal branch of Wizards of the Coast in regards to portions of his website, and decided to shut down the site in its entirety instead of leave up something less than what he envisioned. Below is the reply I received.
"Actually, there's not much to say... I received a Cease & Desist letter from WotC legal branch.
I did what they asked, and decided to remove the site.
Am I disappointed? Well, what I'm really sorry about is that I'm not allowed to carry on what was a work of love and a source of joy in bringing something useful to the community.
Am I venomous towards WotC? Not really. They're doing their job. I respect their intellectual property, over which I never meant any harm, and I understand they try to fiercely defend it against any real or perceived threat.
Will I stop buying their products? Not at all. I love the game, it has been my favorite hobby for the last 20 years or so. I will keep on playing and DM'ing D&D just as before.
Will I develop any other RPG-related Web content? I don't know, really. In case I do, I will be extra careful to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
So that's it.
I saw a lot of venom towards WotC flying around... as I said, they're only doing their job. While I understand you're disappointed, don't let what happened ruin your enthusiasm for the game.
I've also seen exceptionally wild speculations, from the idea that WotC could have hired me (nope, but if they ask me, I will gladly do some freelance work for them) to the incredibly-far fetched one that Scott Rouse secretly came to Italy to discuss the matter with me (not at all, but if Scott ever wants to come by I'll offer him a good margarita).
No global conspiracies, no secret deals, nothing out of the ordinary, believe me.
It's been a great time, and the messages of solidarity and appreciation I keep receiving and/or seeing on various forums fill me with pride and honor.
But - unfortunately - it had to go. As they say, "all good things must come to an end"...
Thanks,
Ema."
Just so people know what happens if they skipp the last page.
Again, clearing things up.
I had emass sheets, including those for powers, which included very much complete details on the powers.
Okay, instead of:
You had:
Is the power usable, because he left out a few words? Sure as hell. It was that way with all powers, IIRC, so it was a very direct infringement with WotC's IP.
I have this first-hand guys and I will try to see if my USB-Stick still has the one character sheet I gave to another player, including the printed "power sheet".
Leichenreiter, that snippet is not IP, it's pure mechanics and as such can't be copyrighted or patented. The full expression of the text and the formatting of the power is considered IP (at least I believe that WotC is considering the powercard format trade dress).
Replys like that is a waste and brings nothing to the topic. And if you dont think 3.5 still has a bigger group of players, fine. That's your opinion. But please spare me with comments like yours, it does nothing else than make you look bad.
:rolleye2:
Please. I ain't the one trying to pass off fiction as fact.
One such a thing might not be a problem, but if all powers freely available are not a problem in legal, then I'd like to say the law is f-ed up.
Well, perhaps you consider it effed up, but it's what allows us to debate mechanics to mind-numbing levels of detail on this and other forums, provided we don't copy and paste the actual text. Copyright and trademarks do not protect ideas per say -- they protect a particular expression of those ideas.
It's hard to say what exactly prompted the C&D given the level of silence that surrounds legal matters. Personally, I suspect it was the use of protected trademarks rather than the game mechanics.
On reviewing the section of the GSL that ItaraKoturo referenced, it does look like he also violated the terms of the character sheet being interactive and a web application. The GSL appears to only cover static works that can be printed on physical sheets of paper -- which, in this day and age, is like mandating that all works be cuneiform writing on clay tablets. That's a separate rant, though.
Its likely Trademark issues not Copyright issues that got Ema's site in trouble, but as I don't have the CnD and am not in contact with Ema I can't verify this.
I think tis time to let this topic die though.
Well, perhaps you consider it effed up, but it's what allows us to debate mechanics to mind-numbing levels of detail on this and other forums, provided we don't copy and paste the actual text. Copyright and trademarks do not protect ideas per say -- they protect a particular expression of those ideas.
Fair use would do that for us anyways, just like it does for books, movies, news articles, and everything else that you can excerpt.
The uncopyrightability of game mechanics is... problematic in some regards. It technically leaves companies like WOTC without much in the way of protectable rights, and leaves a lot of room open for copycat works. But no one creates copycat works, so things mostly work out. If there were more money in games, say, the amount of money available in computer programs, I'd expect the law regarding game rules to shift until it resembles the law regarding computer programs. But that hasn't happened, and the law tends to stay in stasis as long as everyone is getting along reasonably well.
The uncopyrightability of game mechanics is... problematic in some regards. It technically leaves companies like WOTC without much in the way of protectable rights, and leaves a lot of room open for copycat works. But no one creates copycat works, so things mostly work out. If there were more money in games, say, the amount of money available in computer programs, I'd expect the law regarding game rules to shift until it resembles the law regarding computer programs. But that hasn't happened, and the law tends to stay in stasis as long as everyone is getting along reasonably well.
Game mechanics can be patented, however patent is a much weaker form of protection the auto copyright of presentation and trademarking of key identities.
Thusly: Not patenting is better protection. Yes I can make a game system using the mechanics of DnD 4E but unless I walk a very careful line, it will be trademark and or copyright infringement.
Game mechanics can NOT be patented. Only the expression of such game mechanics.
No expression of mechanics can be copyrighted, patents can be applied to game mechanics, however it requires giving up of copyright and trademark protections (which last longer and are better).
Reference (from a IP lawyer)
Reference 2
Oh and I doubt there is a bigger 3.5E player base in all honesty... but fantasize on, we all know 4E is made of dead babies.
I think there is a larger player base for 3.5 but that is for one simple reason. At least if we take player base as people who have/know how to play a game. Then I believe that the number of people who have played 3e since it came out is larger then the number of people who have played 4e since it came out.
There has just been that much more time for people to have been exposed to it. If we want to assume that in 8 years or so that the amount of player base for 4e will be just as large or larger then 3e is now, then fine, but as it stands I think the numbers are in favor of 3e.
Were I to move to a random town in the US at least, that I would have a better numerical chance to find someone who has/knows how to play 3e then I would 4e. Thus I think the player base is larger.
It doesn't mean that a lot of the people are no longer playing 3e and are now playing 4e, it also doesn't mean that some people haven't left both editions behind and found other games.
I may be coming at it from another angle then the post you were replying to, but figured I'd toss it out there anyway.
I printed out an "official" sheet the other day because I didn't have a printer, I only had a copier and a Players Handbook. And that was the only reason. For some reason, the "official" sheets always seem to be under the quality of the user-created ones. Ema had some good ideas with the automatic spell lists and the dynamic sheets.
You give the reason yourself later on.
they are good because he is an "in the trenches" player and DM, they are customized to what players and DMs really want, and they would sell like hotcakes if sold separately or would be downloaded and copied officially from WoTC material (like off the Wizards website or in a published book).
Unfortunantly I think the exact thing that makes them great is the thing that means they might not sell as well to the general public. Each group finds the sheet that they need/want. If I'm playing a combat based char I may want/need a different empasis then if I am playing a caster. Online sales could work perhaps, but I'm not sure how likely they are to be able to sell printed copies. Back in the 2e days they put out a pack of sheets of different types for different chars/races. Not sure how well they sold but they were out there.
Yeah, sounds like cut and dried IP infringement to me.
Work with them? Why would they do that, exactly? What's the benefit to WotC?
Seriously folks. WotC is a company which exists to make money. Ema was distributing their IP en-masse without their permission, and without paying them. Moreover, its in a service which competes with a service they themselves provide.
Why would they do that... well if there is a demand for something, (there were users, so most would say that there must have been some demand) and someone else was meeting it, (Ema was apparently) this was causing you potential problems, (companies wanting to protect IP and profit margins) and you can not only fix the problems, but turn around and start filling the demand yourself... I know that I wouldn't have minded being able to download several different char sheet versions from WotC's website. All they would have needed to do was go with a "quit using our IP" note as they did, but add a "no charges, don't do it again, here is a one time freelancer payment, we will take over" and they not only get to look good from a PR standpoint, they get to be the place where people go to get the "good" 4e sheets, and they have product they can put out without any further outlay of capital.
I enjoyed Emmas a great deal and I'm sorry to see it go. If WoTC had been doing their job, they would have put out a product that was at least comparable. But, they were too busy destroying the game that Arneson & Gygax put together to care that tha best gaming products were not their own. In a way I'm thrilled that Emmas is gone because that means my 4th ed. character is gone as well. Good riddance! If I wanted to pay a monthly subscription to play a Warcrack Wanna-Be I'd just play Warcrack. I've played D&D since 1981 and I'm going back to second ed. WoTc Take a leap.
Thanks for sharing. I feel my world view has expanded now that I have heard your profound and rational opinion on this matter.
And, by the way, there is no such thing as "IP THEIFT" [sic]. Whether using parts of the texts from PH was legal or not (under italian law) is hard to tell when I never saw how it was done.
What does Italian Law have to do with this?
What does Italian Law have to do with this?
I think Ema was in Italy?
I think Ema was in Italy?
Italy has signed the international copyright treaties. Since the IPs are owned by an US company it would be handled in an US court with US laws. Also Italy is part of the EU, taking ideas from people is as much illegal in the EU as it is in the US.
Italy has signed the international copyright treaties. Since the IPs are owned by an US company it would be handled in an US court with US laws. Also Italy is part of the EU, taking ideas from people is as much illegal in the EU as it is in the US.
Somehow that doesn't sound right. I would assume that in the country where the law was broken, that would be where it would be brought to court. Unless they wanted to extradite...
Somehow that doesn't sound right. I would assume that in the country where the law was broken, that would be where it would be brought to court. Unless they wanted to extradite...
International copyright treaties stipulate the court and laws of the country where the infringement takes place matters.
Ema made the character sheets for free. Ema sold space to hold characters; it's no diffrent then me going to a free web host and uploading my character to be saved. No diffrent than me downloading blank power cards and filling in the blank except I payed someone to fill in the blank for me. This is an outrage!
LOL, someone said this isn't a war against the fans, I beg to differ; it's like saying the "War on Terror" is not war against the terrorists!
Wizards is everything but consumer friendly; especially since they started to charge $10 for 5 character sheets.
Hmmm, leads me to think that since ideas cannot be copyrighted, the fans should band together in unison and create their own version of "D&D".
Strength = Muscle
Dexterity = Agility
Constitution = Physique
Intelligance = Intellect
Wisdom = Insight
Charisma = Allure.
Just a thought!
Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
I have to respectfully disagree with you there I'm afraid. I found WotC's 3e to be a wonderful step back towards the spirit of the game, though YMMV of course.
Hmmm, leads me to think that since ideas cannot be copyrighted, the fans should band together in unison and create their own version of "D&D".
Too late, (either
or depending on your outlook) there are several OGL retro clone sets of rules out there, at least if you are looking backwards. Clones of 1e AD&D, White Box, or Basic depending on your preferred flavor/style of game. (in at least some cases the OGl rulesets are more or less an excuse to be able to publish material for the older rulesets)Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
Wow...yea evil WotC...and Good old TSR...I am sick of hearing this...
Ema made the character sheets for free. Ema sold space to hold characters; it's no diffrent then me going to a free web host and uploading my character to be saved. No diffrent than me downloading blank power cards and filling in the blank except I payed someone to fill in the blank for me. This is an outrage!
lets try this again... EMA BROKE THE LAW...it is not anyone's fault but his own that his site got a C&D
LOL, someone said this isn't a war against the fans, I beg to differ; it's like saying the "War on Terror" is not war against the terrorists!
It is a War on Criminal activitity...or why do they not shut down all the other fan sites???
Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
Heh...umm, you mean TSR who sent out CnD's to private website holders for mentioning Dungeons and Dragons? that TSR?
Ema made the character sheets for free. Ema sold space to hold characters; it's no diffrent then me going to a free web host and uploading my character to be saved. No diffrent than me downloading blank power cards and filling in the blank except I payed someone to fill in the blank for me. This is an outrage!
LOL, someone said this isn't a war against the fans, I beg to differ; it's like saying the "War on Terror" is not war against the terrorists!
Wizards is everything but consumer friendly; especially since they started to charge $10 for 5 character sheets.
Hmmm, leads me to think that since ideas cannot be copyrighted, the fans should band together in unison and create their own version of "D&D".
Strength = Muscle
Dexterity = Agility
Constitution = Physique
Intelligance = Intellect
Wisdom = Insight
Charisma = Allure.
Just a thought!
Or you know...it could be that since Ema was using stuff illegally (as he admitted to doing) that the website had to be shut down. But please by all means, make your system.
Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
Then go back to 2nd ed. Seriously. No one can stop you from playing the game you enjoy the most.
Ema made the character sheets for free. Ema sold space to hold characters; it's no diffrent then me going to a free web host and uploading my character to be saved. No diffrent than me downloading blank power cards and filling in the blank except I payed someone to fill in the blank for me. This is an outrage!
As someone who made liberal use of these sheets, I would call it unfortunate and unwise. People torturing others on my behalf is an outrage, taking down a website I liked isn't even close.
LOL, someone said this isn't a war against the fans, I beg to differ; it's like saying the "War on Terror" is not war against the terrorists!
The "War on Terror" is not a war on terrorists. It's impossible to fight a war on terrorists. They aren't a political entity, they're a group of people so labeled because of the way they choose to further an ideology and the label is entirely subjective. Also, it's not a war on the fans. I don't feel like WotC hates my guts. I feel they want me to play their game if I want to and I feel like they want to facilitate that experience as much as possible.
Wizards is everything but consumer friendly; especially since they started to charge $10 for 5 character sheets.
Everyone who has played the game for more than a week knows you don't buy character sheets that way. Those are for making money off of parents and noobs. Which they have every right to do. It's like games workshop primer.
Hmmm, leads me to think that since ideas cannot be copyrighted, the fans should band together in unison and create their own version of "D&D".
Strength = Muscle
Dexterity = Agility
Constitution = Physique
Intelligance = Intellect
Wisdom = Insight
Charisma = Allure.
Just a thought!
I think a bunch of companies beat you to that idea.
Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
Sombody doesn't know the history of the game I take it? TSR was pretty much the definition of a douchebag company. WOTC is Mister Rogers compared to them.
Sombody doesn't know the history of the game I take it? TSR was pretty much the definition of a douchebag company. WOTC is Mister Rogers compared to them.
Indeed. I was 13 years old when I received a cease-and-desist order from TSR which claimed I was violating their rights by having a small, poorly designed website up in which I detailed the events of my current AD&D 2nd Edition campaign, because I posted a few monsters and items that I had created for it.
WotC hasn't done anything even remotely close to that.
Indeed. I was 13 years old when I received a cease-and-desist order from TSR which claimed I was violating their rights by having a small, poorly designed website up in which I detailed the events of my current AD&D 2nd Edition campaign, because I posted a few monsters and items that I had created for it.
WotC hasn't done anything even remotely close to that.
wow...I have herd 3rd or 4th person accounts of jerky behaviar...but this is the first time I have had it from the horse's mouth...that is horrid...
Leichenreiter, that snippet is not IP, it's pure mechanics and as such can't be copyrighted or patented. The full expression of the text and the formatting of the power is considered IP (at least I believe that WotC is considering the powercard format trade dress).
Incorrect. Sort of.
Pure mechanics are in fact patentable. D&D is not patented, however, and probably is unpatentable due to lack of novelity.
Conversely, reproducing their text is an infringement of their IP. Simply changing the wording is inadequete; you could go through and change every single word in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but if it was Larry Hotter's Wizard Rock, and the book was just a rephrasing of the book, it'd be a violation of JK Rowling's copyright.
Fundamentally people don't understand what the deal with this is. Commentary is perfectly acceptable, but you cannot reproduce the original work in its entirety - or nearly so - in so doing. So I can talk about powers, I can even -copy paste- powers directly from the books in a review or something similar, but I could not copy-paste -all- the powers, or even a significant percentage of them, without infringing. It is quite possible to talk about powers without copy-pasting them, as well, which is what we often do.
Basically, there's a distinction between -talking about- a work and -reproducing- a work, and if you reproduce a work, that part is infringing, even if it is in the context of talking about it. Though there are exceptions to even this. It all boils down to fair use.
What they were doing - providing the full text of all powers, or a paraphrase thereof - is illegal, ESPECIALLY given it was actually reproduction, not in the context of commentary. There is nothing fair use about that.
Man, I wish TSR still made the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. I used to have faith in Wizards but they have done nothing but run the spirit of the game to the ground; ground it up; sliced it; diced it; and everything in between.
TSR would have sued them hardcore.
Ema made the character sheets for free. Ema sold space to hold characters; it's no diffrent then me going to a free web host and uploading my character to be saved. No diffrent than me downloading blank power cards and filling in the blank except I payed someone to fill in the blank for me. This is an outrage!
No. You don't understand.
Character sheets are not infringing. Well, unless they're WotC's character sheets. WotC probably wouldn't care if you hosted their character sheets elsewhere, though. I mean, you shouldn't, but I doubt WotC would C&D you.
What Ema's did was reproduce power text. That's a big no-no for what should be obvious reasons.
Wizards is everything but consumer friendly; especially since they started to charge $10 for 5 character sheets.
They charge $0 for the character sheet PDF, which is freely available for download and printing from their website.
I never have once bought character sheets. I don't know anyone who has.
Off-topic War on Terror
Who is a terrorist is easily defined. A terrorist is someone who uses primarily terror as opposed to direct force in order to manipulate people.
An occupying army is not a terrorist force. Someone who lights a cross on fire and plants it in someone's front yard is a terrorist.
The War on Terror is really a War on Islamic Militants, with it being used to justify other, unrelated things. It is not a war on all terrorists (such as, say, the KKK, Ayran Nations, various militia groups in the US, ect.), but they like to make it sound that way for political reasons.
The "War on Terror" is not a war on terrorists. It's impossible to fight a war on terrorists. They aren't a political entity, they're a group of people so labeled because of the way they choose to further an ideology and the label is entirely subjective. Also, it's not a war on the fans. I don't feel like WotC hates my guts. I feel they want me to play their game if I want to and I feel like they want to facilitate that experience as much as possible.
Who is a terrorist is easily defined. A terrorist is someone who uses primarily terror as opposed to direct force in order to manipulate people.
An occupying army is not a terrorist force. Someone who lights a cross on fire and plants it in someone's front yard is a terrorist.
The War on Terror is really a War on Islamic Militants, with it being used to justify other, unrelated things. It is not a war on all terrorists (such as, say, the KKK, Ayran Nations, various militia groups in the US, ect.), but they like to make it sound that way for political reasons.
On a strange side note, I've actually found myself agreeing with Titanium Dragon on something*...
The world may be coming to an end... :D *On the war on terror bits at least, but in this case on the rest as well.
On a strange side note, I've actually found myself agreeing with Titanium Dragon on something*...
*On the war on terror bits at least, but in this case on the rest as well.
I (who fight with himon alot of things) also 100% stand by T Dragons statements so far in this thread...
I was a constant user of the emass-web website and character manager. Given the power and utility of the site, it was totally worth it. Especially considering that I don't play 4e, and only needed the 3.5e parts of the site, this is a particularly problematic move.
Again, I'm not interested in participating in an IP flamewar here. I'm pretty sure there was infringement going on here. At best, it was iffy, and I'm sure ema had very little money to throw at legal costs.
What I'm pointing out is the manner in which this was handled. Emass-web provided an INCREDIBLY useful service. It is a service that WotC has no intention to provide. Even if I had a windows machine (I don't), would I rather use the .NET framework application for character creation, or would I rather have a web-based application that's accessible anywhere? Just look at the iPhone-friendly part of the site.
Simply put, emass-web was better than anything WotC was providing. And it was put together buy one guy as a labor of love. If you guys knew what you were doing, you'd offer him a job. Instead, you wiped it out. So now, I'm stuck fiddling around with printed character sheets that are sub-par.
In a move of somewhat-silly protest, I've cancelled all my thread subscriptions here. I would actually delete my account over this, but it's actually impossible to do that. So, instead, I'm just going to have to stay logged out.
There's all these steps and missteps around 4e. This was just the last one for me. After 25 years playing D&D (and a hell of a long time participating on these forums), I'm done with it. I'm playing 3.5 from here on out, and maybe someday I'll play 4e. But if I ever do play 4e, I'll buy a copy, used. WotC will not get another dollar out of me, and they will not get another pageview out of me. That's it, it's done. If some CM feels like talking, you know my email.
I'm just posting into this thread to make my position known. I'm not participating in the flaming.
I was a constant user of the emass-web website and character manager. Given the power and utility of the site, it was totally worth it. Especially considering that I don't play 4e, and only needed the 3.5e parts of the site, this is a particularly problematic move.
Again, I'm not interested in participating in an IP flamewar here. I'm pretty sure there was infringement going on here. At best, it was iffy, and I'm sure ema had very little money to throw at legal costs.
What I'm pointing out is the manner in which this was handled. Emass-web provided an INCREDIBLY useful service. It is a service that WotC has no intention to provide. Even if I had a windows machine (I don't), would I rather use the .NET framework application for character creation, or would I rather have a web-based application that's accessible anywhere? Just look at the iPhone-friendly part of the site.
Simply put, emass-web was better than anything WotC was providing. And it was put together buy one guy as a labor of love. If you guys knew what you were doing, you'd offer him a job. Instead, you wiped it out. So now, I'm stuck fiddling around with printed character sheets that are sub-par.
In a move of somewhat-silly protest, I've cancelled all my thread subscriptions here. I would actually delete my account over this, but it's actually impossible to do that. So, instead, I'm just going to have to stay logged out.
There's all these steps and missteps around 4e. This was just the last one for me. After 25 years playing D&D (and a hell of a long time participating on these forums), I'm done with it. I'm playing 3.5 from here on out, and maybe someday I'll play 4e. But if I ever do play 4e, I'll buy a copy, used. WotC will not get another dollar out of me, and they will not get another pageview out of me. That's it, it's done. If some CM feels like talking, you know my email.
*Face palm* Ema even admits he was wrong and f'd up, but no this all on the eveel WoTC, DAMN THEM! DAMN THEM TO THE FOULEST DEPTHS OF HELL FOR DOING WHAT ANYONE WOULD DO IF SOME JAGOFF WAS VIOLATING THEIR PRODUCT LAWS! DAMN THEM! KKKKKKKKKKKHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
I'm just posting into this thread to make my position known. I'm not participating in the flaming.
I was a constant user of the emass-web website and character manager. Given the power and utility of the site, it was totally worth it. Especially considering that I don't play 4e, and only needed the 3.5e parts of the site, this is a particularly problematic move.
Again, I'm not interested in participating in an IP flamewar here. I'm pretty sure there was infringement going on here. At best, it was iffy, and I'm sure ema had very little money to throw at legal costs.
What I'm pointing out is the manner in which this was handled. Emass-web provided an INCREDIBLY useful service. It is a service that WotC has no intention to provide. Even if I had a windows machine (I don't), would I rather use the .NET framework application for character creation, or would I rather have a web-based application that's accessible anywhere? Just look at the iPhone-friendly part of the site.
Simply put, emass-web was better than anything WotC was providing. And it was put together buy one guy as a labor of love. If you guys knew what you were doing, you'd offer him a job. Instead, you wiped it out. So now, I'm stuck fiddling around with printed character sheets that are sub-par.
In a move of somewhat-silly protest, I've cancelled all my thread subscriptions here. I would actually delete my account over this, but it's actually impossible to do that. So, instead, I'm just going to have to stay logged out.
There's all these steps and missteps around 4e. This was just the last one for me. After 25 years playing D&D (and a hell of a long time participating on these forums), I'm done with it. I'm playing 3.5 from here on out, and maybe someday I'll play 4e. But if I ever do play 4e, I'll buy a copy, used. WotC will not get another dollar out of me, and they will not get another pageview out of me. That's it, it's done. If some CM feels like talking, you know my email.
Grow up. If you're unable to afford yourself the level of maturity necessary to separate corporate property protection from the hobby game you're playing, you probably shouldn't be playing D&D in the first place. Yeah, you're ever so slightly inconvenienced by the removal of Ema's illegal service. Poor you. Instead of shrugging and readjusting to a life without law-breaking, you throw a tantrum, blame the company for protecting its property, and decide you'll boycott everything they do.Man, we gamers have gotten to a point where we just suck as consumers and human beings.
I was a constant user of the emass-web website and character manager. Given the power and utility of the site, it was totally worth it. Especially considering that I don't play 4e, and only needed the 3.5e parts of the site, this is a particularly problematic move.
It is possible that WotC could have asked for the offending material to be removed. Maybe they did, maybe not. I think that would have been acceptable.
Again, I'm not interested in participating in an IP flamewar here. I'm pretty sure there was infringement going on here. At best, it was iffy, and I'm sure ema had very little money to throw at legal costs.
There was nothing iffy. He really was breaking the law. It seems that WotC didn't want a big legal fight either. They chose to ask him to stop rather than send in the suits.
What I'm pointing out is the manner in which this was handled. Emass-web provided an INCREDIBLY useful service. It is a service that WotC has no intention to provide. Even if I had a windows machine (I don't), would I rather use the .NET framework application for character creation, or would I rather have a web-based application that's accessible anywhere? Just look at the iPhone-friendly part of the site.
Make this known to WotC. Not here on the forums but in an actual letter to them. Let them know that you want a web-based application. You aren't alone. Several others have said the same thing. There is some merit to this.
Simply put, emass-web was better than anything WotC was providing. And it was put together buy one guy as a labor of love. If you guys knew what you were doing, you'd offer him a job. Instead, you wiped it out. So now, I'm stuck fiddling around with printed character sheets that are sub-par.
Sub-par is a matter of opinion. As for offering Ema a job, if you read what I posted earlier, Ema is not interested in a job. Also, it's not the responsibility of the victim to offer compensation. If someone broke into your home would you offer them a job securing the doors?
In a move of somewhat-silly protest, I've cancelled all my thread subscriptions here. I would actually delete my account over this, but it's actually impossible to do that. So, instead, I'm just going to have to stay logged out.
I agree, it's a silly protest.
There's all these steps and missteps around 4e. This was just the last one for me. After 25 years playing D&D (and a hell of a long time participating on these forums), I'm done with it. I'm playing 3.5 from here on out, and maybe someday I'll play 4e. But if I ever do play 4e, I'll buy a copy, used. WotC will not get another dollar out of me, and they will not get another pageview out of me. That's it, it's done. If some CM feels like talking, you know my email.
I guess the problem is solved then.
It is possible that WotC could have asked for the offending material to be removed. Maybe they did, maybe not. I think that would have been acceptable.
They did. Reportedly, the ISP decided to delete everything. WotC simply asked that the offending material be removed.
But Ema's ISP chose to nuke the site.
So send the DRAMA! to the ISP, not Wizards.
Make this known to WotC. Not here on the forums but in an actual letter to them. Let them know that you want a web-based application. You aren't alone. Several others have said the same thing. There is some merit to this.
This is one of the points that keep getting lost in this whole mess.
There are a number of people for who a non-web based solution isn't going to work unless WotC also makes a mac version. (myself not included but it's still a legit portion of the market not being served)As a side note, I would like to thank you Mr. Loblaw both for a reasoned response to the over the top drama, for seeing the above gem of reality in it's rambling, for breaking up the quotes so it was easier to read, and for keeping a more level head then many on both sides of this mess.
To be fair, it's the rare game company that bothers with Mac releases until very, very recently. I view it as god's own punishment for people giving money to Apple.
Considering that I have yet to entirely forgive Apple for going to the Mac 100% and ditching the AppleII users I can't really complain about people holding unreasonable feelings toward companies.
That said, it almost seemed (back when the question of a mac version first came up on the boards) as if they had never considered the question, which (imho, ymmv) shows a lack of foresight/planning ahead. It would also be an advantage that a web based program could offer. (along with WotC being able to tie it more directly to a subscription model then something downloaded and run on ones own machine) Sure it may be a minority, but it's a big enough group that they should at least have considered for service.
Out of curiosity did you take it down?
Yes, I did. My parents didn't have the money to stand against any kind of legal challenge, and I wasn't willing to go to court over the thing. It did sour me on TSR for years, and it wasn't until WotC bought them out and acted totally different that I began buying D&D products again.
There are a number of people for who a non-web based solution isn't going to work unless WotC also makes a mac version. (myself not included but it's still a legit portion of the market not being served)
Macs hit what... 10% of the market share in early 2009? It would have to be conclusively proven to WotC that the investment in Mac support would provide a return on the investment for them to do so. With market share that small without taking into account that D&D gamers using Macs would be even smaller, they don't really have incentive to do so.
Macs hit what... 10% of the market share in early 2009? It would have to be conclusively proven to WotC that the investment in Mac support would provide a return on the investment for them to do so. With market share that small without taking into account that D&D gamers using Macs would be even smaller, they don't really have incentive to do so.
The proportion who have mac could be smaller or larger; I don't think anyone's done a survey to really find out, unless say, the board polls what kind of OS you have when you log in (and that may only work in certain browsers).
Anyway, beyond the macs, what about the Linux users? Can we assume if it works on Macs the linux folks could get it working as well?
I've cancelled all my thread subscriptions here. I would actually delete my account over this, but it's actually impossible to do that. So, instead, I'm just going to have to stay logged out. That's it, it's done. If some CM feels like talking, you know my email.
Can I have your stuff?
Another advantage to web-based is that you can get your character from anywhere that you can access the internet. I know that sometimes people forget their characters and it would be really nice to be able to just print it out. I think it could really help with RPGA events.
You don't need a web-based application to do this. If you have an RPGA character, the intelligent thing to do would be to e-mail the .dnd4e file to yourself (or store it somewhere online) so that you can just download it to whichever computer you're using the Character Builder on, wherever you are.
You don't need a web-based application to do this. If you have an RPGA character, the intelligent thing to do would be to e-mail the .dnd4e file to yourself (or store it somewhere online) so that you can just download it to whichever computer you're using the Character Builder on, wherever you are.
Which would require having the Character Builder installed on that machine, thus it is not a web-based application.
Which would require having the Character Builder installed on that machine, thus it is not a web-based application.
I think he means changing it to a .png, .jpg, PDF, or some other format that can be opened with anything (which you can do). I might be wrong, though...wouldn't be the first time.
I think he means changing it to a .png, .jpg, PDF, or some other format that can be opened with anything (which you can do). I might be wrong, though...wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks, I wasn't aware that was possible (I haven't used CB yet). The way he posted suggested that Character Builder would need to be installed on each local system.
I don't think it would be difficult for WotC to do something like this. I don't think it would be as good or flexible as the CB but I do think it could be very useful.
Which would require having the Character Builder installed on that machine, thus it is not a web-based application.
If you won't have access to a machine with the Character Builder at your unnamed RPGA convention (which is very unlikely, considering that's normally where Wizards demos their Character Builder), then the smart thing to do is to e-mail yourself a PDF of the character sheet. The one limitation is that if you level enough that you want a new version of your sheet you won't be able to edit it.
Those sheets were the best available, very user friendly, and a lot better than the original ones from WotC.
If there was illegal or copyrighted content on the site, then WotC has a point in shutting in down. But I don't agree on how it was done at all.
Why didn't they contacted the site owner, and pointed out where he made copyright infractions, and asked him to adjust his site, instead of sending the C&D, and wiping all data.
In the old days, (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons was about having fun. Now it's only about making money.
Just my 2 cents.
In the old days, (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons was about having fun. Now it's only about making money.
Right, because TSR didn't care about making money.
They wanted to go bankrupt, even.
[caveat] I am not a lawyer. [/caveat]
I am probably going to suprise a few people, but in this case I sadly think that Wotc did the only thing they could by sending the C&D letter. It has nothing to do with printing the game mechanics either or about charging or not charging. Near as I can tell, the real issue is trademark protection and Ema did violate (again near as I can tell) Wotc's trademark.
If Wotc didn't sent a C+D, they'd lose the trademark (at least potentially) since trademarks must be agressively defended (there is no 'fair use' for trademarks). Thus Ema got in trouble over IP is....but TRADEMARK IP.
That said some points:
1. I do not believe that Ema ever signed the GSL. That means that all provisions excluding the creation of character creators or interactive character sheets in the GSL do not apply.
2. Game Mechanics Can NOT Be Copyrighted We've been through this before. As long as you change the wording on powers and "instructions" and AFIACT that INCLUDES character sheets (but not trademarks), you're well in the legal safe-zone. I know Kenzer is doing this. However, I'd check with a REAL GOOD IP Lawyer first just to be sure.
3. I think this sets a real bad and unfortunately precedent. I would be taking the other side of this had Ema not violated Wotc's trademark, but it looks to me like they did...and Wotc IMHO took advantage to extend that to control over things they don't have control over (Game Mechanics and Instructions) which is a very unfortunate predent, but the one to blame here is Ema for not crossing his legal 'T's' and dotting his legal 'I's' first.
-Polaris
2. Game Mechanics Can NOT Be Copyrighted We've been through this before. As long as you change the wording on powers and "instructions" and AFIACT that INCLUDES character sheets (but not trademarks), you're well in the legal safe-zone. I know Kenzer is doing this. However, I'd check with a REAL GOOD IP Lawyer first just to be sure.
This is wrong. Incredibly wrong, in fact.
The problem is, more or less, that while you cannot copyright game mechanics, you can copyright the presentation of game mechanics, your text, ect.
This is where people fail. Simply rewording something -does not mean you aren't violating their copyright-. Larry Hotter and the Wizard's Rock as a simple rewording of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not legal, its an infringement on Rowling's IP.
So while you can, in theory, duplicate game mechanics, in practice its very difficult, perhaps impossible, to do so without infringing on things which actually can be copyrighted.
This is wrong. Incredibly wrong, in fact.
The problem is, more or less, that while you cannot copyright game mechanics, you can copyright the presentation of game mechanics, your text, ect.
EPIC FAIL
Read some lawbooks starting with Nimmers. Review Seldon v. Baker, TSR v. Mayfair Games and other such cases. For that matter simply look up what the US Govt has to say. GAME MECHANICS can not be copyrighted. As long as you avoid exact wording, and trademarked terms (and patents) YOU ARE GOOD!
Do yourself a favor and go do a search on Steerpike7's posts on this topic on these boards. He *is* an IP lawyer, and he has said repeatedly that I am correct on this issue.
This is where people fail. Simply rewording something -does not mean you aren't violating their copyright-. Larry Hotter and the Wizard's Rock as a simple rewording of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not legal, its an infringement on Rowling's IP.
EPIC FAIL
Harry Potter and Rowling's works are works of literature and NOT instructions or game mechanics and thus have more IP protection.
So while you can, in theory, duplicate game mechanics, in practice its very difficult, perhaps impossible, to do so without infringing on things which actually can be copyrighted.
Wrong. It can and has been done repeatedly for games. Go do some research.
-Polaris
Read some lawbooks starting with Nimmers. Review Seldon v. Baker, TSR v. Mayfair Games and other such cases. For that matter simply look up what the US Govt has to say. GAME MECHANICS can not be copyrighted. As long as you avoid exact wording, and trademarked terms (and patents) YOU ARE GOOD!
I'm well aware you cannot copyright game mechanics. The problem is, there are things which you can indeed copyright, and which make it very difficult to copy something like D&D.
Fundamentally, it is in theory possible to copy the mechanics of D&D, but in practice, I really doubt you would win that lawsuit.
I'm well aware you cannot copyright game mechanics. The problem is, there are things which you can indeed copyright, and which make it very difficult to copy something like D&D.
Fundamentally, it is in theory possible to copy the mechanics of D&D, but in practice, I really doubt you would win that lawsuit.
WRONG. Once again EPIC FAIL.
What you say would be a big suprise to the makers of Anti-Opoly which is blatently a Monopoly Clone, but since Game Mechanics aren't considered IP, it was legal (and yes that was settled via lawsuit). Also Mayfair games won the IP portion of the lawsuit that TSR brought against them (the court found that Mayfair was in breech of contract but affirmed that game mechanics and instructions aren't intellectual property).
Basically you are wrong. It's not that hard to copy DnD assuming you can avoid trademarked terms and exact wording. The question is if you can afford the court costs until you won. Hence my comment about needing a good lawyer (see Kenzer who is doing just this).
-Polaris
I only used the site for the 3.5 Character sheets, so I really can't comment on anything else on the site.
Those sheets were the best available, very user friendly, and a lot better than the original ones from WotC.
If there was illegal or copyrighted content on the site, then WotC has a point in shutting in down. But I don't agree on how it was done at all.
Why didn't they contacted the site owner, and pointed out where he made copyright infractions, and asked him to adjust his site, instead of sending the C&D, and wiping all data.
In the old days, (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons was about having fun. Now it's only about making money.
Just my 2 cents.
Once again another person who does not know the history of the game *Or is wearing the rose colored glasses*. I've only been playing D&D for about two years and even I know TSR was one of the most money grubbing greedy companies out there.
Once again another person who does not know the history of the game *Or is wearing the rose colored glasses*. I've only been playing D&D for about two years and even I know TSR was one of the most money grubbing greedy companies out there.
TSR under Lorraine Williams was certainly one of the most money-grubbing and fan-unfriendly companies around (at least in gaming). This is true. Even under Gygax, TSR was quite protective of it's IP, but pre-Williams, TSR was relatively fan friendly and committed to having fun. It was under this arrangment that the various Judge's Guilds were formed (a 'd20' community before there was d20 or an OGL).
Basically TSR stopped being about gamers when Gygax was forced out and I am concerned that WOTC is following the same path even if I am forced to agree with Wotc's actions in this case.
-Polaris
WRONG. Once again EPIC FAIL.
What you say would be a big suprise to the makers of Anti-Opoly which is blatently a Monopoly Clone, but since Game Mechanics aren't considered IP, it was legal (and yes that was settled via lawsuit). Also Mayfair games won the IP portion of the lawsuit that TSR brought against them (the court found that Mayfair was in breech of contract but affirmed that game mechanics and instructions aren't intellectual property).
A). Its Anti-monopoly.
B). The particulars of Anti-monopoly v Hasbro et all (it ended with Hasbro) was that while Hasbro held the trademarks of Monopoly, it did not, however hold the patents to Monoply which has no baring in ANY dnd case as no RPG system has had patents filled.
Basically you are wrong. It's not that hard to copy DnD assuming you can avoid trademarked terms and exact wording. The question is if you can afford the court costs until you won. Hence my comment about needing a good lawyer (see Kenzer who is doing just this).
-Polaris
Strength can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for purposes of a specific term within the rules of a game to establish certain secondary mechanic
Armor Class can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for the purposes of a specific term within the rules a game to establish a certain secondary mechanic
ergo: Str v AC can be argued with court as originating with two terms WotC/Hasbro for purposes of a mechanic of a game.
Ergo: For the common person to copy any Str v AC term is grounds for a lawsuit.
A). Its Anti-monopoly.
B). The particulars of Anti-monopoly v Hasbro et all (it ended with Hasbro) was that while Hasbro held the trademarks of Monopoly, it did not, however hold the patents to Monoply which has no baring in ANY dnd case as no RPG system has had patents filled.
Actually you are wrong about this. The Anti-Monopoly case serves as precedence that game rules and instructions can not be copyrighted along with many other cases. It does INDEED apply to RPGs and in fact it was cited in TSR v. Mayfair during the Judge's pre-trial ruling that TSR could only proceed on breech of contract grounds.
You, sir, are badly mistaken.
Strength can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for purposes of a specific term within the rules of a game to establish certain secondary mechanic
You'd lose. Strength has been used in multitude of unique games not owned by Hasbro WOTC for nearly the same if not the same game mechanical purpose (Palladium RPG comes immediately to mind). You can argue anything in court. It does not mean you'd win. Same goes for the other five basic stats.
Armor Class can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for the purposes of a specific term within the rules a game to establish a certain secondary mechanic
See above. You'd lose. Armor Class is too generic a term to be trademarked at this late date. That assumes that the other game even uses the exact term "Armor Class" instead of "Defense Rating", "Armor", or a plethora of other equivalent but non-protected terms.
ergo: Str v AC can be argued with court as originating with two terms WotC/Hasbro for purposes of a mechanic of a game.
You'll lose. Mechanics of a game can not be owned unless patented. Patents have to be UNIQUE and ORIGINAL and d20 vs Target Number is not. Basically, if anything is used to describe the mechanic of a game, it's NOT PROTECTED, PERIOD. This is why the GSL while reasonable for most types of trademark licenses is unreasonable for game...it's because games inherently have far less protection.
Ergo: For the common person to copy any Str v AC term is grounds for a lawsuit.
False. Read Nimmers. Of course you can FILE a lawsuit over anything, but you'd lose your shirt on this one.
-Polaris
Actually you are wrong about this. The Anti-Monopoly case serves as precedence that game rules and instructions can not be copyrighted along with many other cases. It does INDEED apply to RPGs and in fact it was cited in TSR v. Mayfair during the Judge's pre-trial ruling that TSR could only proceed on breech of contract grounds.
No it doesn't. Charles Darrow filed patents on Monoply, patents require you to give up copyrights. presentation of rules can be copyrighted (its what we call instructions). It does NOT indeed apply to TSR v Mayfair as TSR's creation of DnD predates modern copyright where it is assumed as TSR didn't file for it.
You, sir, are badly mistaken.
I think you are.
You'd lose. Strength has been used in multitude of unique games not owned by Hasbro WOTC for nearly the same if not the same game mechanical purpose (Palladium RPG comes immediately to mind). You can argue anything in court. It does not mean you'd win. Same goes for the other five basic stats.
Palladium uses Physical Strength, not Strength. And being able to argue it in court in fact means you win when it comes to corporation v individual in 99.9% of the cases. Yes Jerry spence and Erin Brockavitch inspire a lot of talk, be the reality is, their cases are on the outside of reality, not how the system works.
See above. You'd lose. Armor Class is too generic a term to be trademarked at this late date. That assumes that the other game even uses the exact term "Armor Class" instead of "Defense Rating", "Armor", or a plethora of other equivalent but non-protected terms.
Actually, Armor Class isn't that generic, just like plain strength measured only a 3-18 scale, that gives bonuses on 12,14,16,18 is not untrademarkable. Especially for RPGs.
You'll lose. Mechanics of a game can not be owned unless patented. Patents have to be UNIQUE and ORIGINAL and d20 vs Target Number is not. Basically, if anything is used to describe the mechanic of a game, it's NOT PROTECTED, PERIOD. This is why the GSL while reasonable for most types of trademark licenses is unreasonable for game...it's because games inherently have far less protection.
Str a trademark abbrevation of Hasbro Dba as Wizards of the Coast v AC a trademarked abbrevation of Hasbro Dba as Wizards of the Coast.
Using Str v AC in an RPG that is plainly direvative of DnD would result in: You losing the case, as the mechanics is not STR v AC its attribute v Defense.
False. Read Nimmers. Of course you can FILE a lawsuit over anything, but you'd lose your shirt on this one.
-Polaris
I wouldn't lose my shirt, the common person would lose their shirt and it would take over 20 years for it to be established by a court the winner once and for all. Ergo: the common person would lose.
No it doesn't. Charles Darrow filed patents on Monoply, patents require you to give up copyrights. presentation of rules can be copyrighted (its what we call instructions). It does NOT indeed apply to TSR v Mayfair as TSR's creation of DnD predates modern copyright where it is assumed as TSR didn't file for it.
Patent is different than copyright. The rules for Monopoly were not copyrighted because of the Patent. The rules for Monopolgy were not copyrighted because Game Rules and Instructions can not be copyrighted. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the US Govt Agency that regulates such matters. It also has strong precedence including Seldon v. Baker, Anti-Monopoly v. Hasbro, and many other precedents. INSTRUCTIONS (including game rules) can NOT be copyrighted PERIOD.
I think you are.
That's nice. I'd go ask a real IP lawyer first. Maybe you'll learn something.
Palladium uses Physical Strength, not Strength. And being able to argue it in court in fact means you win when it comes to corporation v individual in 99.9% of the cases. Yes Jerry spence and Erin Brockavitch inspire a lot of talk, be the reality is, their cases are on the outside of reality, not how the system works.
Do you see a "tm" by strength? No. That's because "strength" even as used in DnD has become "common use" and can not be copyrighted or trademarked. Look it up. The same applies to the other stats.
Actually, Armor Class isn't that generic, just like plain strength measured only a 3-18 scale, that gives bonuses on 12,14,16,18 is not untrademarkable. Especially for RPGs.
Yes it is. Armor class has been used for decades. No trademark has been filed. It's common use. Too bad; so sad.
Str a trademark abbrevation of Hasbro Dba as Wizards of the Coast v AC a trademarked abbrevation of Hasbro Dba as Wizards of the Coast.
Using Str v AC in an RPG that is plainly direvative of DnD would result in: You losing the case, as the mechanics is not STR v AC its attribute v Defense.
Wrong on two counts. First of all strength is common use. Secondly I don't have to call is strength. I can all it Muscle-Power, or many other things and be fine. Again, look it up. Read Nimmers and do a search on posts here under Steerpike7 who IS an IP attorney. Go read Kenzer's stuff (he's also an IP attorney).
I wouldn't lose my shirt, the common person would lose their shirt and it would take over 20 years for it to be established by a court the winner once and for all. Ergo: the common person would lose.
Yes you would. Games aren't protected. Trademarks are protected, but trademarks can't be common use terms (you can't copyright 'Elf' OR STRENGTH). I double dare you to prove me wrong (you can't).
-Polaris
Strength can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for purposes of a specific term within the rules of a game to establish certain secondary mechanic
Armor Class can be argued in court to be trademarked by WotC for the purposes of a specific term within the rules a game to establish a certain secondary mechanic
Please, explain how trademark law could apply to a terms like "strength" or "armor class". Im not clear on how these two terms apply to the US Patent and Trademark Office definition of a trademark as
a word, symbol [etc.....]that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others
Also, note the site states
Trademarks, copyrights and patents all differ. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.
So, Im also curious about what you think these terms actually refer to, for example are they "the source of the goods" covered by trademark, "original artistic or literary work" covered by copyright, or "an invention" covered by patents?
Specifically:
Patents apply to inventions. To qualify as an invention, the product and/or idea has to be unique and new (or a previously unhead unique application)....as approved by the Patent Office. In modern gaming the only game rule that has been patented has been the "tapping" of cards in Collectable Card Games. DnD doesn't have new or unique concepts that could be patented (not at this late date) and WOTC (and Hasbro) has wisely not even tried. Game rules can be patented (see above example) but the bar is extremely high.
Copyright refers to protection of your works of art (including written art) and expression (including written expression). The law and precedent explicitly state (per the US Govt) that instructions (including game rules) are not considered art or expression for this purpose. Thus while the wording can be protected by copyright (and som terms can be trademark) the rules themselves are NOT protected.
Finally there is trademark which is a label that identifies you as the source of goods or ideas. Game Mechanics can't be trademarked either. That's because trademarks are limited to a word or very short phrase used to identify a product. Instructions (and Game Mechancs) are intrinsically too complex to be trademarked.
-Polaris
Patents apply to inventions. To qualify as an invention, the product and/or idea has to be unique and new (or a previously unhead unique application)....as approved by the Patent Office. In modern gaming the only game rule that has been patented has been the "tapping" of cards in Collectable Card Games. DnD doesn't have new or unique concepts that could be patented (not at this late date) and WOTC (and Hasbro) has wisely not even tried. Game rules can be patented (see above example) but the bar is extremely high.
It'd be pretty dubious anyway.
But the patent office has issued a lot of bad patents that never should have been issued due to gross incompetency.
Reservered area for future linking to exact sources about trademarking.
You couldn't own the standard set of ability score names. Trademarking them is out of the question. They're too genericized.
At one time I agreed with you TD, but then as I started looking at, the amount of stuff that CAN be trademarked (and is) is just as obscene, much of is probably because no one challenges it, but de facto or de jure, it is what it is.
(For instance until Coke-cola stopped enforcing it, Cola was their trademark as well as Coke, and cola is actually a term for the plant that colas come from).
If Polaris is correct, someone may want to go explain to Mayfair Games why they went through what they went through.
The Judge explains it. Mayfair games was in the right when it came to IP law. However, they were found guilty of breach of contract which supercedes IP law. Basically Mayfair games signed away some of their IP rights inadvertently and got beaned by it.
-Polaris
Basically if you can state that term X applies to a specific set of your IP (including How the rules presented) then it can be trademarked. Like copyrights (and in fact due to pressure from Hasbro during the antimonoply v Parker Brothers days) Trademarks are assumed. Trademark has a way to use them while respecting them (not fair use but similar) however trying to make money while using someone else's trademarks is as open and shut of an IP case as you get.
Reservered area for future linking to exact sources about trademarking.
Wrong. Trademarks are not assumed. If a trademark isn't clearly and vigorously defended, IT CEASES TO EXIST. Ask Xerox. As much as I disagree with T-D at times, he is perfectly correct. Things that enter the public domain can NOT be trademarked. You are wrong about the complexity and things that can be trademark. Go to the US Govt site already linked and they explain it. Better yet consult an IP lawyer and they can explain it to you (and do a search here for Steerpike7's posts on this topic....he explains the distinction between what is trademarkable, copyrightable, and patentable and he IS an IP attorney.
Do your homework. You'll find I am correct.
-Polaris
At one time I agreed with you TD, but then as I started looking at, the amount of stuff that CAN be trademarked (and is) is just as obscene, much of is probably because no one challenges it, but de facto or de jure, it is what it is.
Not it's not. Again, common use terms can not be trademarked. Of course ultimately it's up to a judge to determine if a term entered the common use or public domain as it's called. Just because a company claims a trademark does NOTmake it a valid trademark.
(For instance until Coke-cola stopped enforcing it, Cola was their trademark as well as Coke, and cola is actually a term for the plant that colas come from).
Coke stopped enforcing it because their lawyers were told it wasn't enforceable for just the reason you state. It was the common name of a plant. If you do not or can not enforce a trademark, it ceases to exist.
-Polaris
Thanks.
Basically if you can state that term X applies to a specific set of your IP (including How the rules presented) then it can be trademarked. Like copyrights (and in fact due to pressure from Hasbro during the antimonoply v Parker Brothers days) Trademarks are assumed. Trademark has a way to use them while respecting them (not fair use but similar) however trying to make money while using someone else's trademarks is as open and shut of an IP case as you get.
Reservered area for future linking to exact sources about trademarking.
Aluman, can you explain how the terms "strength" and "armor class" are actually trademarked?
What is it about those terms which "identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others"?.
Finally there is trademark which is a label that identifies you as the source of goods or ideas. Game Mechanics can't be trademarked either. That's because trademarks are limited to a word or very short phrase used to identify a product. Instructions (and Game Mechancs) are intrinsically too complex to be trademarked.
-Polaris
Trademarks will only identify the source of goods or services; "ideas" and "game mechanics" are not a source (of goods), they are not goods(products), and they are not a service.
I would like to refer you to this qoute from the US Patent and Trademark Office
When specifying the goods and/or services, use clear, concise terms, i.e. common commercial names and language that the general public easily understands. If you fail to list any recognizable goods or services, we will return your application and refund your fee.
I would also like to point out that the Trademark for Dungeons and Dragons is refering to specific products used in commerce. The general use of Dungeons and Dragons as the name of a game is not covered by trademark because games are played (as an activity), not sold (as a product).
I stand corrected, but that just accentuates my point. Game Mechanics have no protection under US IP law unless patented. None, Zero, Nada.
-Polaris
Polaris, you may be right here. But could you please not word your posts like a condescending ass****?
He isn't. There's no way to tell people they're wrong without telling them that they're wrong. Plus it involves law and IP, which always sounds at least a little condescending because people really understand neither very well in general.
Chaos-Disciple,
I stand corrected, but that just accentuates my point. Game Mechanics have no protection under US IP law unless patented. None, Zero, Nada.
-Polaris
Here is the opinion rendered in the case of TSR v. Mayfair. I'm not great at legalese, but I did note that the word "copyright" appears twice in the opinion and is close to a non-issue. The word "trademark" appears dozens of times, and the phrase "breach of contract" appears several times, as does the word "breach". The phrase "game mechanics" appears zero times. The suit seems to hinge on Mayfair Games' use of the AD&D (etc.) trademark to market their products and whether that use abides by the terms of Mayfair's contract with TSR. But I encourage anyone who is interested in the issue to read the opinion and draw his/her own conclusions, since I am an absolute novice in legal matters.
The Baker v. Selden opinion is also on the internet, and is far more readable. Some of you may have been confused (tricked, even) into thinking this case centers on, or at least pertains fairly directly to, games of some sort.
The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Selden's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book.
This is a case from 1879 in which a suit was brought because Baker wrote a book describing a bookkeeping system of substantially the same nature as the system described in Selden's book. Again, feel free to read for yourself if you are curious as to how much bearing this case has on the issue at hand.
I am not trying to show that game mechanics are protected by IP law. If you are planning on rewriting D&D and selling it or giving it away*, you may want to talk to a lawyer** first. If you get a C&D letter from WotC, you may not want to disregard it just because a few dudes*** on the internet said that game mechanics were not protected by law.
*In practice, either option will yield about the same amount of money.
**In real life, not on the internet.
Here is the opinion rendered in the case of TSR v. Mayfair. I'm not great at legalese, but I did note that the word "copyright" appears twice in the opinion and is close to a non-issue. The word "trademark" appears dozens of times, and the phrase "breach of contract" appears several times, as does the word "breach". The phrase "game mechanics" appears zero times. The suit seems to hinge on Mayfair Games' use of the AD&D (etc.) trademark to market their products and whether that use abides by the terms of Mayfair's contract with TSR. But I encourage anyone who is interested in the issue to read the opinion and draw his/her own conclusions, since I am an absolute novice in legal matters.
If you read it, you will find that this is a ruling on pre-trial motions (which never happened because the case was ultimately settled). To read the case you have to READ THE CONTEXT and not just look for works such as "game mechanics". Essentially TSR sued on three grounds:
1. That Mayfair voilated TSR's copyright. This was nixed by the Judge. This affirmed case law precedent from Anti-Monopoly and Baker v. Seldon which ruled that instructions (which include game mechanics) can not be copyrighted.
2. TSR alleged that Mayfair voilated it's trademark.
3. TSR alleged that Mayfair was in breach of contract.
These last to go together, and the judge did find that in fact TSR was essentially correct on the last two points.
The Baker v. Selden opinion is also on the internet, and is far more readable. Some of you may have been confused (tricked, even) into thinking this case centers on, or at least pertains fairly directly to, games of some sort.
It does. The case doesn't look like it but it does. Read Nimmers and read what the US Govt has to say on the issue (and Emwasick...you know better than this because Steerpike7 handed you your head....and ArcTan's as well on this very point). The case involves a book on instructions and the court ruled that instructions are not protected by copyright. Game rules are considered instructions by no less than the federal government!
This is a case from 1879 in which a suit was brought because Baker wrote a book describing a bookkeeping system of substantially the same nature as the system described in Selden's book. Again, feel free to read for yourself if you are curious as to how much bearing this case has on the issue at hand.
I am not trying to show that game mechanics are protected by IP law. If you are planning on rewriting D&D and selling it or giving it away*, you may want to talk to a lawyer** first. If you get a C&D letter from WotC, you may not want to disregard it just because a few dudes*** on the internet said that game mechanics were not protected by law.
It's a good thing you're not because you're wrong. I've already said multiple times that you should talk/consult a good IP attorney before even traisping into issues that are remotely questionable. HOWEVER, you will find that I am correct. Even the US Govt quite openly and blatently admits that game mechanics are considered INSTRUCTIONS (which means that the Seldon precedent applies) and that means they can't be copyrighted. Go do a search on these very forums for posts by Steerpike7 who is an IP attorney and he says much the same.
-Polaris
That being said, a heck of a lot of things ARE copyrightable (and trademarkable), so if you start with the explicit intention of copying a game that someone else wrote while carefully treading the line between copying the entire game's mechanics without copying anything protected, it is EXTREMELY LIKELY that you will screw up enough to get yourself sued.
I've done a lot of self defense seminars, and taught a few as well. If you have male students, you inevitably have That Guy. That Guy wants to beat someone up and/or kill them without getting in legal trouble. So he questions you over and over on what sort of force he can use if someone does this, and whether he can use a weapon if they do that, etc, etc. He's not interested in hearing, "you can best protect yourself by walking away." No, he wants to maim someone and he wants to know the magic words he has to say and the magic actions the other guy has to take that will render everything he does totally legal. Essentially he wants to do something that's almost always illegal, and he wants to know the magic rules that will make it legal.
That Guy sucks. That Guy is going to kill someone, or get himself killed.
Don't be the copyright world version of That Guy.
It's a good thing you're not because you're wrong. I've already said multiple times that you should talk/consult a good IP attorney before even traisping into issues that are remotely questionable. HOWEVER, you will find that I am correct. Even the US Govt quite openly and blatently admits that game mechanics are considered INSTRUCTIONS (which means that the Seldon precedent applies) and that means they can't be copyrighted. Go do a search on these very forums for posts by Steerpike7 who is an IP attorney and he says much the same.
-Polaris
Stating someone is wrong about IP laws is 99.99% of the time wrong. IP laws are murky unsettled quagmire (mostly by design).
Yes game mechanics are not covered by IP laws.
However terms are.
While Ideas are not trademarkable
Elements of a game are (q.v. Anti-Monopoly v Parker Brothers)
While game mechanics aren't copyrightable,
The presentation therein are.
Meaning:
If you have a term like 'cleave' that within your game references something Very specific, then it does indeed violate trademark laws to reference it. Despite the fact that cleave is a common term.
If you quote verbatim more than a few lines of the rules that are not directly mechanics (which is 1d20+modifers v diffculty class) then you violate copy right laws.
The reason patents aren't applied to games more often isn't that they don't qualify for it, its that applying for a patent Requires you to give up other IP standing, which game mechanic presentation pretty much covers RPG game mechanics, ergo: Its better to stick with copyrights.
Is what I just said accurate? Yes.
Is it how the courts will rule each case, No.
Edit> But at the end of the day, if Hasbro takes an individual to court over IP, then they have already won. The civil system will drag out court cases of this nature almost endlessly. Unless I am mistaken the who owns the rights to the UNIX Kernel is still be metted out in courts. Therefor even the exactness of what can be and can't be trademark doesn't matter, if Hasbro can stop you from doing what you want until the next edition comes out they have effectively won.
Game mechanics aren't copyrightable because they're a process and a process is covered by patent law, and anything covered by patent law is by definition not copyrightable.
Correct and furthermore there is nothing in DnD (or any other RPG) that is original enough or unique enough to be patenable (it's a very high bar).
That being said, a heck of a lot of things ARE copyrightable (and trademarkable), so if you start with the explicit intention of copying a game that someone else wrote while carefully treading the line between copying the entire game's mechanics without copying anything protected, it is EXTREMELY LIKELY that you will screw up enough to get yourself sued.
(rest snipped)
For the record I am not condoning nor encouraging the behavior you are talking about. I am posting what I am to clear up some pretty blatent misconceptions. Not only are you too likely to screw up if you try to blatently clone a game, but it generally isn't worth the bother (people will buy the original most likely). It matters because of how derivative works are defined. If the only thing dervivative about a supplemental work is the game mechanic itself, then you should be AOK legally (but AGAIN I'd consult a good IP attorney to make damn well and sure you are AOK). This also matters for Emas (the topic) because he ran afoul trademark IP protection NOT copyright protection as far as I can determine. There is a difference. It's also why the GSL while a good deal for many IP licenses is (still) a poor deal for games.....because the law allows so much more for games without a license.
Stating someone is wrong about IP laws is 99.99% of the time wrong. IP laws are murky unsettled quagmire (mostly by design).
Mostly true, but some things do have clear precendence even in IP law. The idea that a process (instruction, game rule, game mechanic, recipie, etc) is not protected is pretty damn solid.
Yes game mechanics are not covered by IP laws.
However terms are.
No. Terms might be. If the term does not fit the tight definition of what can be trademarked (Chaos Disiciple explained it above) OR the term has entered "common use" (or pubic domain as it's sometimes called), then the term is not protected. Ask Xerox sometime.
While Ideas are not trademarkable
Elements of a game are (q.v. Anti-Monopoly v Parker Brothers)
Only if it meet the precise definition of trademark AND it's not public domain. "Cleave", "Strength", ect don't qualify. Neither does anything that isn't vigorously protected.
While game mechanics aren't copyrightable,
The presentation therein are.
The exact presentation is protected meaning you can't photocopy a game book (or instruction manual) and sell it for your own.
Meaning:
If you have a term like 'cleave' that within your game references something Very specific, then it does indeed violate trademark laws to reference it. Despite the fact that cleave is a common term.
Totally false. Did you read the US Govt requirements for trademarks? Cleave is not a trademark NOR is it trademarkable because it's a common term.
If you quote verbatim more than a few lines of the rules that are not directly mechanics (which is 1d20+modifers v diffculty class) then you violate copy right laws.
You don't have to quote verbatim.
The reason patents aren't applied to games more often isn't that they don't qualify for it, its that applying for a patent Requires you to give up other IP standing, which game mechanic presentation pretty much covers RPG game mechanics, ergo: Its better to stick with copyrights.
No. You have to show the patent office that your invention/idea is new, and unique or a new and unique way of doing something established. That's an extremely high bar and to my knowledge the most recent example was "tapping" for Collectable Card Games, and even that was contraversial.
Is what I just said accurate? Yes.
No. Read what Chaos Disciple linked when it comes to trademarks.
Rest snipped (not really relevant)
-Polaris
Not to mention Orange
Tide
Skys
Seems that commonality of word is NOT grounds for it not to be trademark'd within a singular business.
Aka: You are wrong.
Really? Then tell me: How come Coke (common slang for the coca leaf in any form) is a trademark?
Not to mention Orange
Tide
Skys
Seems that commonality of word is NOT grounds for it not to be trademark'd within a singular business.
Aka: You are wrong.
No I'm not. Did you bother to read your own links? It's not just the word that's trademarked but the precise presentation of it (including design and color scheme). "Polaris" by itself is not trademark. The same work with the 'star' in the "P" is (trademarked by a waterski company).
HOWEVER, in all such cases you will see a "TM" underneath the label. DID YOU BOTHER TO READ THE LINKS THAT CHAOS DISCIPLE POSTED!
Yes I'm shouting, but this has gone beyond the pale. The US GOVT says you are wrong.
-Polaris
the TM after an item isn't nessarcy for Trademark law.
You acquire Trademarks automatically if you can establish that in your field/business your use of the term came first and is distinctive. Aka: WotC wins this in the RPG field as NO ONE entered it before TSR.
Cleave in WotC is a clearly defined power that damages monster 1 and monster 2.
Ergo: Its distinctive.
The only one they may not have proof of maintaining is Strength (STR) but that would require me digging through a lot of game manuals to see how various systems that have it abbreviate it.
No Polaris you are wrong, if I was to use Orange as a DSL provided name, even with different color scheme I would be violating Trademark law. You don't see this because you are purposefully and willful ignorant.
I can read what the US Trademark office has to say. You apparently can not....and you are calling me willfully ignorant? Lol!
the TM after an item isn't nessarcy for Trademark law.
Yes and no. You have to register it and protect it. Trademarks are NOT automatic. You also neglect to mention there are multiple entries under "orange" each with it's own source product and design. That wouldn't be possible if you were correct (but of course you are not correct).
You acquire Trademarks automatically if you can establish that in your field/business your use of the term came first and is distinctive. Aka: WotC wins this in the RPG field as NO ONE entered it before TSR.
False. You have to register your trademark and you have to do it before someone else uses it. See "12th Man" case of TAMU vs Seattle Seahawks. TAMU was forced to settle because of this very problem.
Cleave in WotC is a clearly defined power that damages monster 1 and monster 2.
Ergo: Its distinctive.
It's a distinctive process and processes can not be trademarked (or copyrighted). Again, please do some reading.
The only one they may not have proof of maintaining is Strength (STR) but that would require me digging through a lot of game manuals to see how various systems that have it abbreviate it.
Good luck with that, because I am certain you are wrong. Go do a "search" on Steerpike7's posts on this topic (and he IS an IP attorney) or for that matter go ask an IP attorney. You might learn something.
-Polaris
I can read what the US Trademark office has to say. You apparently can not....and you are calling me willfully ignorant? Lol!
No apparantly you cannot, as you think the trade dress is tied into the trade mark itself.
If I make another detergent called Tide even without using their exact trade dress I am violating Trademark laws.
Yes and no. You have to register it and protect it. Trademarks are NOT automatic. You also neglect to mention there are multiple entries under "orange" each with it's own source product and design. That wouldn't be possible if you were correct (but of course you are not correct).
Yes they are automatic. Yes there are several oranges, because each one pertains to a different filled you completely FAIL this discussion if you don't understand that Trademarks only apply to one industry except in cases of trademark dilution.
(referance)For you
What are common law rights?
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are many benefits of federal trademark registration.
False. You have to register your trademark and you have to do it before someone else uses it. See "12th Man" case of TAMU vs Seattle Seahawks. TAMU was forced to settle because of this very problem.
See above, you obviously do not know Trademark laws.
It's a distinctive process and processes can not be trademarked (or copyrighted). Again, please do some reading.
Cleave is a term, terms are trademarked, you know nothing.
Good luck with that, because I am certain you are wrong. Go do a "search" on Steerpike7's posts on this topic (and he IS an IP attorney) or for that matter go ask an IP attorney. You might learn something.
-Polaris
This is the last time I post on here, as you are really really showing how ignorant you are, I can easily state 'I am a IP lawyer' and even if I am one it doesn't mean I know the particulars of a specific form of IP, hell I could claim that when I am not one on the forums.
Chaos-Disciple,
I stand corrected, but that just accentuates my point. Game Mechanics have no protection under US IP law unless patented. None, Zero, Nada.
-Polaris
Not entirely true.
If you read the U.S copyrights section on games carefully you will come across this.
Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.
Notice the part about how the text matter describing the the rules of the game can be copyrighted?
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
This means that while and Idea for a game rule can't be copyrighted (say for encounter powers). The text written for a specific rule can be copyrighted (for example the text for a specific encounter power like Dire Wolverine Stike).
Now just how carefully would you have to word your 4e copycat version of Dire Wolverine Strike to avoid infringing upon the text's descriptions potential copyrights? I could see it getting pretty problematic legally.
In short the Idea of a specific Game Mechanic cant be copyrighted but the way the rule is described and written can and that could result in a lot of legal hair splitting.
This is Paul Harvey with the rest of the story:
Lol, where is the link? You provide a quote of *me*, and nothing more.
If you read it, you will find that this is a ruling on pre-trial motions (which never happened because the case was ultimately settled). To read the case you have to READ THE CONTEXT and not just look for works such as "game mechanics". Essentially TSR sued on three grounds:
1. That Mayfair voilated TSR's copyright. This was nixed by the Judge. This affirmed case law precedent from Anti-Monopoly and Baker v. Seldon which ruled that instructions (which include game mechanics) can not be copyrighted.
2. TSR alleged that Mayfair voilated it's trademark.
3. TSR alleged that Mayfair was in breach of contract.
These last to go together, and the judge did find that in fact TSR was essentially correct on the last two points.
Prove what you say. Just a little, just once. The judge nixed nothing. Watch me quote the actual source again:
*1 TSR, Inc. ("TSR") has sued Mayfair Games, Inc.
("Mayfair") and its President Darwin Bromley ("Bromley"), seeking
injunctive relief, damages and contract rescission on the basis
of several claims: (1) copyright infringement, (2) trademark
infringement, false designation and misappropriation, (3) unfair
competition and (4) breach of contract, all arising from
Mayfair's use on its products of TSR's "Advanced Dungeons and
Dragons" trademark. TSR currently moves for summary judgment on
the Fourth Count of its Amended Complaint, which asserts that
Mayfair breached a 1984 Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement")
between the parties. [FN1]
"FN1" is footnote #1, here:
FN1. According to TSR's Mem. 1 n.1, its success on that
claim "would subsume the relief it seeks for trademark
infringement." And because Mayfair is not now distributing the
book that gave rise to TSR's copyright infringement claim, "the
crux of the current dispute would be decided" (id.).
Nothing about a judge "nixing" anything. TSR itself said that the copyright claim was not central to the suit. If you want to be believed, use evidence to support your points. Really, this isn't too demanding of a standard.
It does. The case doesn't look like it but it does. Read Nimmers and read what the US Govt has to say on the issue (and Emwasick...you know better than this because Steerpike7 handed you your head....and ArcTan's as well on this very point). The case involves a book on instructions and the court ruled that instructions are not protected by copyright.
The Supreme Court is part of the US government. Go through the Baker v Selden link and find actual support for your points. Or find another link. Or find something Steerpike7 actually said to "hand me my head". Don't just declare victory, actually win.
For the record, Steerpike7 is a pretty nice guy and we had some good conversations. My impression of those conversations is very different from Polaris's, but I'm not going to bother dredging it up. Nothing I'm saying depends on those conversations, but if someone else can find a real zinger in there, quote and link away.
Game rules are considered instructions by no less than the federal government!
Really? I don't recall voting for you. So far the only backing for your opinion is your opinion. Provide a link instead of dropping names and talking big.
It's a good thing you're not because you're wrong. I've already said multiple times that you should talk/consult a good IP attorney before even traisping into issues that are remotely questionable. HOWEVER, you will find that I am correct. Even the US Govt quite openly and blatently admits that game mechanics are considered INSTRUCTIONS (which means that the Seldon precedent applies) and that means they can't be copyrighted. Go do a search on these very forums for posts by Steerpike7 who is an IP attorney and he says much the same.
-Polaris
You say to talk to an attorney, but in the next breath you counsel us to trust you and believe you. Then you post again and again and again that game mechanics are not protected by law. If a lawyer should be consulted, how on earth are you sure? Why are you so hung up on convincing people to copy D&D and defy WotC? Either it's "blatantly obvious" or it's something you should pay a specialized lawyer thousands of dollars to advise you on.
For the love of sanity, please post a link to some reputable source that backs your points up. Don't type at us real big about how we can do a web search to prove your point. You do a web search to prove your point. If you aren't just trying to shout everyone down, provide something for us to consider.
Game mechanics aren't copyrightable because they're a process and a process is covered by patent law, and anything covered by patent law is by definition not copyrightable.
Patent Law is for inventions
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required
Game mechanics are not protected under any intellectual property laws, and are concidered public domain
so if you start with the explicit intention of copying a game that someone else wrote
People dont write games, they play them.
Though people do write books about games, and those are products.
Please, understand that a game is an activity, it is not a product.
Game mechanics (rules) are simply a list instructions, they are public domain and anyone can use/copy them.
while carefully treading the line between copying the entire game's mechanics without copying anything protected, it is EXTREMELY LIKELY that you will screw up enough to get yourself sued.
Can you give one example of a game mechanic (rule), and identify the specific parts that cant be copied without using someone elses I.P.?
You asked for it: From this link (same as Avenger Greed used)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Here are the first two paragraphs:
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
(emphasis mine)
There it is in black and white direct from the US Govt (and yes Steerpike7 did hand you your head) I invite everyone else to go do a search and see for yourselves.
Avenger Greed,
The paragraph you quote means that you can not photocopy a game. Basically the exact expression might be copyrightable but the rules and mechanics are not just as I have been saying all along. I note that this link ALSO negates what Aluman has been trying to claim.
Now could it be difficult and hairsplitting to clone a game without violating copyright? Maybe but it has been done (see Anti-Monopoly for just one example). I strongly suspect that it would be a lot easier than you think...but that isn't the point nor am I encouraging it. I am merely saying that US IP laws protect games a LOT less than a lot of people including open WOTC partisans like to think. That's just a fact. You can not trademark processes or instructions (Aluman is simply wrong) nor can you copyright them.
Don't take my work for it. Go ask an IP lawyer for yourself.
-Polaris
Cleave is a term, terms are trademarked, you know nothing.
Wrong. Cleave is a one-word description of a process or instruction and per:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
can not be trademarked.
Did you read what Chaos Disciple posted?
-Polaris
In short the Idea of a specific Game Mechanic cant be copyrighted but the way the rule is described and written can and that could result in a lot of legal hair splitting.
Actually, its just the specific artistic expression used in the text thats protected.
Although, the game mechanics can still be discribed a million different ways.
In fact, experianced D&D players even have words to discribe the differance. The artistic expression part is called flavor or fluff, the game mechanics are often called crunch.
So, yes it would be difficult for someone who didnt have much experiance with the game they were writing about.
Patent Law is for inventions
Game mechanics are not protected under any intellectual property laws, and are concidered public domain
Look under Games.
If you can't patent them why are there so many different categories of JUST board games for filling under?
Or how about we turn to real IP lawyers instead of people on a forum.
Here from Edward Manzo
The mechanic of DnD: 1d20+Modifiers vs Target Number. Everything else can be construed as the presentation of that mechanic.
Tread Carefully. Always consult a real lawyer in Person, not just a forum self-professed one.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm
is a good link for trademark issues.
I will quote a few key sections (and if this repeats what Chaos Disciple already did I apoloogize in advance):
What is a trademark?
A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.
Notice that neither "strength" nor "cleave" qualify as "goods" nor a source of goods, and thus aren't valid trademarks. (In addition to being public domain).
Moreover.....
[i]Can the Office refuse to register a mark?
Yes. The Office will refuse to register matter if it does not function as a trademark. Not all words, names, symbols or devices function as trademarks. For example, matter which is merely the generic name of the goods on which it is used cannot be registered. [/i]
That pretty much affirms what I just said above....and while it is true you don't have to register a trademark to have one (and I don't believe I said otherwise), it's not automatic. See the following under "common law":
What are common law rights?
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are many benefits of federal trademark registration.
The bolding in the answer is my own but it does show that trademarks aren't automatic. You have to identify them and protect them (which is why TAMU had to settle with the Seattle Seahawks and why Xerox lost it's trademark).
-Polaris
It means quite literally: If you use that term/style/et cetera in your business, and it can be clearly attributed to your company and references something Specific (either product or otherwise) then its yours.
the (tm) after something is often used to denote unregistered trademarks, but its not required.
Don't believe me? Make a game called parchesisi its past its patent tenure, so you should be safe from that and in your mind nothing else is protectable.
Look under Games.
If you can't patent them why are there so many different categories of JUST board games for filling under?
A new game is an invention (or it can be) and thus can be patented. I've never said otherwise. However, please note that there are zero entries in your list for roleplaying games. There's a reason for that. The dice mechanic is as old as Ancient Rome so you can't patent that (and the d20 also goes back to ancient rome) and method acting has been around since the start of civilization. Basically Gygax and Arneson had one golden opportunity to patent RPGs and they let it slip past. That door for RPGs has long since closed and Wotc isn't even trying to patent DnD.
Or how about we turn to real IP lawyers instead of people on a forum.
Here from Edward Manzo
The mechanic of DnD: 1d20+Modifiers vs Target Number. Everything else can be construed as the presentation of that mechanic.
Tread Carefully. Always consult a real lawyer in Person, not just a forum self-professed one.
Highly arguable. In fact I'd say you'd lose. If a rule is telling me how to apply something or telling me how my character (or piece) behaves, then that is an instruction and virtually every rule in the game (indeed every rule really by definition) is an instruction.
I also call foul on you for some dishonesty on your part. The linked article refers to PATENTS and not copyright....and patents are a different animal.
-Polaris
Emwasick,
You asked for it: From this link (same as Avenger Greed used)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Here are the first two paragraphs:
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
(emphasis mine)
There it is in black and white direct from the US Govt (and yes Steerpike7 did hand you your head) I invite everyone else to go do a search and see for yourselves.
Avenger Greed,
The paragraph you quote means that you can not photocopy a game. Basically the exact expression might be copyrightable but the rules and mechanics are not just as I have been saying all along. I note that this link ALSO negates what Aluman has been trying to claim.
Now could it be difficult and hairsplitting to clone a game without violating copyright? Maybe but it has been done (see Anti-Monopoly for just one example). I strongly suspect that it would be a lot easier than you think...but that isn't the point nor am I encouraging it. I am merely saying that US IP laws protect games a LOT less than a lot of people including open WOTC partisans like to think. That's just a fact. You can not trademark processes or instructions (Aluman is simply wrong) nor can you copyright them.
Don't take my work for it. Go ask an IP lawyer for yourself.
-Polaris
Its funny you bring up Anti Monopoly because this is what Wikipedia says about it...
Anspach's game was subject to challenges in the courts. In 1982, after nine years of legal battles, Anspach won a trademark lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit had been brought over the use of the word "Monopoly" in the game's title. A later act of Congress allowed Kenner's Parker Brothers division to re-register the MONOPOLY trademark; both companies were subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1991, which owns the trademark and rights to the game today. Anspach uses the Anti-Monopoly name under a license from Hasbro (as is stated in his website's legal disclaimers); he assigned the trademark to Parker Brothers at the conclusion of the Anti-Monopoly case and its appeals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly
It caused a whole lot of trouble for the makers of it (a ten year legal battle, a judge put them out of buiness for 6 year out of ten and another ordered them to to have 40,000 games to be put in landfill.
http://www.antimonopoly.com/the_legal_fight.html
So is easy to clone a game as you say without legal trouble? Certainly not from the expample you have given
Congress also passed the Trademark Clarification act of 1984 to nullify the the courts Anti Monopoly ruling so its no longer a valid example.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A5GrrrL0z5IC&pg=PA438&lpg=PA438&dq=Trademark+clarification+act+of+1984&source=bl&ots=qLRzuWzuPc&sig=CsK7vTXGEBC_xA9z-l0oqbgg-8Y&hl=en&ei=f528Sf8amZCxA6y3pEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
that's just a fact. You can not trademark processes or instructions (Aluman is simply wrong) nor can you copyright them.
Also wrong see copyright laws on recipes for example
However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Also the Current Revised Versions of Roberts Rules of Order are also protected under copyrights. (Alternate "unofficial" versions based on the original rule set published in 1915 are legal because that version has since passed into public domain.)
http://www.robertsrules.com/
Don't believe me? Make a game called parchesisi its past its patent tenure, so you should be safe from that and in your mind nothing else is protectable.
The game itself is a protect and so the name of it can be trademarked. No one is saying differently. However a PROCESS, INSTRUCTION, or RULE can not be trademarked. Period.
-Polaris
What that paragraph means and has been repeated affirmed as precedence is that the artistic fluff is protected. That means the artwork is protected by copyright (and that in many cases includes the specific font), AND THE EXACT WORDING is protected as well.
However, the actual RULES for the game ARE NOT and your own link proves it.
Really we settled this here 10 months ago.
-Polaris
Thisis a good place to start for the topic of copyrights and trademark in games and is written by a respected gamer who is also an IP attorney. It touches more on video games than RPGs, but still applies to games in general. I will touch on the highlights:
[i]Example A. Protectable Elements: Expression Not Rules
Consider the classic Pac-Man game. The game is based on the unprotectable concept that Pac-Man must eat dots to win, while avoiding monsters (also known as ghosts) in order to stay alive. That concept is unprotectable; that is, anyone is free to develop a game based on the concept of a character that eats graphic elements of the game while avoiding the "bad guy." However, the particular depiction (that is shape and distinctive appearance) of the Pac-Man character, the way the dots are arranged on the screen, the depiction of the ghosts, and their general layout are protectable. The source code is probably also protectable, but given the primitive nature of the game play, since there are likely many ways in which to write the source code to generate the same audiovisual elements, not much meaningful protection is likely to be gleaned from registering copyright only in the source code (as opposed to the screen displays).[/i]
This illustrates perfectly what I was talking about. The thing is that RPGs by their very nature have less that is inherently protectable than video games or computer games (because code is protectable).
Here is what she has to say about trademarks:
A trademark is a source identifier—it identifies the exclusive source of a product. The best trademarks consist of entirely invented terms or phrases (words that are not in the English vocabulary) but suggestive marks will also qualify. Trademarks that are descriptive may not be protectable without a showing of massive sales or many years (at least five) of use. One example would be GAMING for a magazine devoted to the gaming industry. That is because such terms potentially can be associated with multiple (rather than a single) source. Designations that are not protectable are common language terms (RACE CAR GAME) that describe product categories. They are "generic" and can never function as trademarks.
The bolded emphasis is mine and it directly contradicts what Aluman is trying to claim. Notice too that Trademarks that are 'descriptive' may not be protectable (even if they are valid trademarks). Also note what she says about common language terms They are NOT protectable just as I've said all along.
-Polaris
Wow, this thread is starting to feel like déjà vu.
I hear you. Sorry to repeat what you said, but some people apparently didn't get it the first time.
-Polaris
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
[i]How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
[/i]
Again, game mechanics fall under the above category.
-Polaris
I hear you. Sorry to repeat what you said, but some people apparently didn't get it the first time.
-Polaris
I dont mind you refering to, or rephrasing the points that I make. In fact, I also recommed using the sources I link (and find more, if you can) to help everyone following the thread understand the subject being discused.
-Polaris
Emwasick,
You asked for it: From this link (same as Avenger Greed used)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Here are the first two paragraphs:
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
(emphasis mine)
There it is in black and white direct from the US Govt (and yes Steerpike7 did hand you your head) I invite everyone else to go do a search and see for yourselves.
Yes, copyright protection extends to words and images, not ideas. Alas, the line is blurry between the two. Your own emphasis only goes to show that the copyright on D&D certainly does not prevent anyone from making World of Darkness or GURPS or HERO or Tunnels & Trolls or any other game "based on similar principle." Those principles are "make-believe, possibly with dice and rules."
Steerpike7, who you claim has strongly supported the idea that games can be copied, gives us this piece of his advice that perfectly illustrates your point. Then your friend wrecan, another lawyer, comes along and makes it even clearer that you know the law and should be believed.
Before I go, here's another awesome post in which Steerpike7 totally eviscerates my argument. Mother of pearl, just remembering the way I felt that day makes me sick to my stomach.
anyway, being that reading through the first 5 pages seamed like Ema violated the copyright and next inline states no he did not, and both post oppinions why or why not.
Rinse and repeat.
I have my opinion too, but no reason to get involved in this headache
Look under Games.
If you can't patent them why are there so many different categories of JUST board games for filling under?.
Patent law is based on the manufacturing of devices/objects/products, and they do not cover ideas.
And agian, games are not products, they are activities, and game mechanics/rules, are ideas/instructions/information.
If your not aware of this, the devices (you could potentially patent) used in role-playing games are usually pencils, paper, books, dice, and ofcourse tabletops.
The mechanic of DnD: 1d20+Modifiers vs Target Number. Everything else can be construed as the presentation of that mechanic.
Correct, but there are millions of ways to present that information/rule.
Patent law is based on the manufacturing of devices/objects/products, and they do not cover ideas.
And agian, games are not products, they are activities, and game mechanics/rules, are ideas/instructions/information.
If your not aware of this, the devices (you could potentially patent) used in role-playing games are usually pencils, paper, books, dice, and ofcourse tabletops.
Um no. Look at some of the patents, Parchessi had a patent for the way it USED the board, and the board itself.
The Game Mechanics can be patented, and in fact Gygax Could have patented DnD as it was a unique game mechanic.
Essentially anything you create can fall under one of two protective laws: Patents and Copyright.
If you don't want RPG rules to be patented then they are covered by copyright. There is NOTHING that can be created that doesn't enjoy a degree of protection, at least initially.
Correct, but there are millions of ways to present that information/rule.
Yes there are, fortunately the presentation of rules IS copyrightable. However this is actually good news in general as you can use bits and pieces of copyrighted works in your own work so long as its not the majority (and a few other considerations), which is why products like 4E Kingdoms of Kalamar can exist. However, when you get to quoting even just powers that you change the name on, you run into legal trouble.
Um no. Look at some of the patents, Parchessi had a patent for the way it USED the board, and the board itself.
The Game Mechanics can be patented, and in fact Gygax Could have patented DnD as it was a unique game mechanic.
Essentially anything you create can fall under one of two protective laws: Patents and Copyright.
If you don't want RPG rules to be patented then they are covered by copyright. There is NOTHING that can be created that doesn't enjoy a degree of protection, at least initially.
A "board" is a device/product, as I stated earlier products can get a patent.
"Game mechanics" are ideas/information, they cant be protected by patent, copyright, or trademark. (BTW that makes them 100% public domain.)
Btw, Ideas are copyrightable in general. Technically they are not, but by placing the idea on a piece of paper it becomes copyrighted, while that doesn't extend to material (for example: If I put the idea for a new hammer on a piece of paper, while the wording is, the idea itself isn't), when it comes to game rules its such a blurred line that any one would have a easy chance to get into the court system able it.
First a quick definition from the patent office for you
248 ... Race to a finish (e.g., backgammon):
This subclass is indented under subclass 243. Games wherein each participant is provided with a set of one or more contest elements, at least a portion of the set is intended to be moved between a starting location and a finish location on the pattern, each set is initially equal in number to all other sets in the contest, and the contest ends when one of the participants moves a specified number of his elements to their finish location.
Now onto various patents specifically
Patent: 5544892, 5857911, 5879233, 5935002, 6012984, 6174237, 6604997, 6824462, 7104542, 2004/0132521, 2005/0116416
First other referances
Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. The official Encyclopedia on Bridge, 5.sup.th edition, published by the ACBL, keyword "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". cited by other.
Then the VERY first claims
1. A method of conducting a tournament based on a card game, comprising: arranging players at a plurality of tables such that at least two players are seated at each table, and whereas each player occupies a numbered seat at a table; assigning the players to groups, wherein each separate group comprises all of the players seated at a particular numbered seat; dealing a set of cards to the players, wherein players in different groups receive different cards, and wherein all of the players within same group receive the same cards; allowing the players to play a hand of a card game using the cards they have been dealt, wherein each of the players may place bets during the hand, and wherein all players are limited to betting the same maximum amount during each hand, wherein during play of the hand, a player may make a separate challenge bet with his hand chips, wherein the separate challenge bet is extended only to other players within the same group.
Notice that NOT ONCE does this mention a new or inventive deck of cards, nor does it mention new or inventive chips.
Go ahead and purse the rest:
You'll notice as you read the claims (The actual meat of the patent)
1. Referances to Black Jack.
2. No referances to diagrams of new cards.
Things we learn:
A). Its not mandatory for a patent to require a new physical item.
B). Its entire possible to patent game mechanics.
You know why? There are two types of patents 'design' and 'process' patents. game mechanics are 'processes'. Very few board games get design patents, as they require images used to make the board Not be copyrighted.
Few also get process patents as then your specific rule wording can't be copyrighted either.
Copyright protection is Much stronger than Patent over the long haul, as Patents only guarantee you for 20 years, meanwhile copyrights are pretty much for life.
Fine chaos, for you let me dig out some relevant patents, so you can read them and notice how GAME MECHANICS (how the pieces move around the board) are patented as well.
Btw, Ideas are copyrightable in general. Technically they are not, but by placing the idea on a piece of paper it becomes copyrighted, while that doesn't extend to material (for example: If I put the idea for a new hammer on a piece of paper, while the wording is, the idea itself isn't), when it comes to game rules its such a blurred line that any one would have a easy chance to get into the court system able it.
First a quick definition from the patent office for you
Now onto various patents specifically
Patent: 5544892, 5857911, 5879233, 5935002, 6012984, 6174237, 6604997, 6824462, 7104542, 2004/0132521, 2005/0116416
First other referances
Then the VERY first claims
Notice that NOT ONCE does this mention a new or inventive deck of cards, nor does it mention new or inventive chips.
Go ahead and purse the rest:
You'll notice as you read the claims (The actual meat of the patent)
1. Referances to Black Jack.
2. No referances to diagrams of new cards.
Things we learn:
A). Its not mandatory for a patent to require a new physical item.
B). Its entire possible to patent game mechanics.
You know why? There are two types of patents 'design' and 'process' patents. game mechanics are 'processes'. Very few board games get design patents, as they require images used to make the board Not be copyrighted.
Few also get process patents as then your specific rule wording can't be copyrighted either.
Copyright protection is Much stronger than Patent over the long haul, as Patents only guarantee you for 20 years, meanwhile copyrights are pretty much for life.
Agian, ideas are not protected by copyright.
I appreiciate your effort, but your example discribes lots of products (cards, tokens, chips, peices, board, etc), and this is how they qualify for the patent. When getting the patent on the products a applicant must explian how the product is used, that is why they include the game mechanics, but the patent only covers the product, not how to use the product.
Once agian you seem to ignore the differance between a product and an ideas/information.
I think you have past the point of receiving information, and are not just determined you are right. It is true that ideas can't be copyrighted, however how you present those ideas Can be, as IS.
Its like the fact that if you convicted of murdering someone who turns out to be alive, you can Technically kill them and they can't charge you with murder.
They will charge instead with violation of civil rights, assault with deadly force and other related crimes that amount to the same thing but you won't Technically be charged with murder.
"Tapping" in Magic: the Gathering is (I believe) patented. Isn't that a process/game mechanic?
So lemme toss a question in here, Chaos. I ask because I don't know.
"Tapping" in Magic: the Gathering is (I believe) patented. Isn't that a process/game mechanic?
I am a patent examiner in Canada, so I will try to briefly explain. (Note that I am in the chemical division in Canada, so this is not at all my area of expertise, nor do I know any of the prior art. This is in no way representative of the opinion of CIPO, Industry Canada, the Governent of Canada, yada yada yada).
Fisrt of all, some definitions:
"patent" means letters patent for an invention;
"invention" means any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
The tapping mechanic in MtG (which is, IIRC, simply turning it 90 degrees to indicate a diffence in status of the card) is what was patented. (I don't recall if it was patented in Canada, and I am too lazy to check right now, to be honest).
One of the things that a patent examiner looks at is to see if there is anything similar in the prior art. That is, is there a mechanic of changing the orientation of a card on a table that would lead someone experienced in game design, to come to the same idea. Chances are, there was nothing. The only similar card mechanic that I can think of off-hand is the flipping of a card over to indicate that it is in-play or out-of-play. The tapping mechanic indicates a third state. Note that, going by memory, it isn't the rules that go along with tapping a card in Magic that are patented, it is the action of tapping the card to indicate it entering a third state that is patented. The card is being used in a new way.
Would *I* have given it a patent, I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the art to know off-hand. It would all very much depend on *how* they wrote their patent application and how they worded their claims. (The claims are how you define what you r invention is and must define distinctly and in explicit terms the subject-matter of the invention for which an exclusive privilege or property is claimed.)
Yes, copyright protection extends to words and images, not ideas. Alas, the line is blurry between the two. Your own emphasis only goes to show that the copyright on D&D certainly does not prevent anyone from making World of Darkness or GURPS or HERO or Tunnels & Trolls or any other game "based on similar principle." Those principles are "make-believe, possibly with dice and rules."
Steerpike7, who you claim has strongly supported the idea that games can be copied, gives us this piece of his advice that perfectly illustrates your point. Then your friend wrecan, another lawyer, comes along and makes it even clearer that you know the law and should be believed.
Before I go, here's another awesome post in which Steerpike7 totally eviscerates my argument. Mother of pearl, just remembering the way I felt that day makes me sick to my stomach.
You should feel sick because you are deliberately leaving out most of the relevant information and mischarerizing the rest.
For the record I am NOT encouraging people to copy games NOR did I claim that Steerpike7 was or encouraged it. He did say that it was reasonably possible (a post I note you did not link to) within IP law as it currently stands.
He also gave the very standard disclaimer that you should rely on your own attorneys and not on messageboards....and I have said the same here several times.
Finally you are IMHO deliberately only telling half the story with wrecan. Wrecan is an IP litegator and he quite openly wants to change legal precendent because he thinks games and RPGs specifcally need more protection but even HE admitted that the precedent was what I stated itg was.....but then offered hypothetical legal arguments to change that precedence so that RPG rules could be treated more like computer code (which is protected) rather than instructions (which is not).
I note you can't be bothered to offer the complete story. Instead you seem to assume that people will take your links at face value without reading them (I at least quote excerpts from my links).
You and ArcTan were handed your heads on this issue 10 months ago. Leave it at that.
-Polaris
If you don't want RPG rules to be patented then they are covered by copyright. There is NOTHING that can be created that doesn't enjoy a degree of protection, at least initially.
False. Instructions (of any form) are not copywritable. The presentation of them MAY be but as I showed in my links, that is very little protection because it's very easy to use a different presentation.
In a way (which is why wrecan wants to change precendence), RPGs get the worst of both possible worlds. In board games, rules and rule mechanics can't be copyrighted by the presentation may be. However, most of a board game is presentation including (but not necessarily limited to) the actual board and board design, pieces, art (of course), often the font, the exact wording of the rules, and pictorial descriptions. That's most of a board game and RPGs have almost none of that. Game play in an rpg does not depend on unique pieces or pictorial descriptions or even a specific game board with a specific layout.
OTOH, RPGs are physically written works making them instruction manuals and NOT computer code (which is protected) which means they don't get the protection of CRPGs where most of the instructions that wouldn't be protected are buried in the code which is.
That's just the way it is. Don't believe me? Ask Kenzer who is doing 4E material under IP law alone and Wotc hasn't said a peep.
-Polaris
Copyright protection is Much stronger than Patent over the long haul, as Patents only guarantee you for 20 years, meanwhile copyrights are pretty much for life.
As I recall copyright only lasts for 70 years (95 in some cases). Not only that but anything that was patented voids future copyright once the 20 year clock has expired. Not only that but processes if part of an invention might be patenable (it's a high bar though esp for RPGs....and that window has long since closed) but certainly are NOT copyrightable.
-Polaris
As I recall copyright only lasts for 70 years (95 in some cases). Not only that but anything that was patented voids future copyright once the 20 year clock has expired. Not only that but processes if part of an invention might be patenable (it's a high bar though esp for RPGs....and that window has long since closed) but certainly are NOT copyrightable.
-Polaris
Yup. Part of the deal with a patent is that, for the life of the patent, the patent holder holds the exclusive right to determine how the invention is used (if it is used at all). However, once the patent has expired, it becomes public domain, free for anyone to use.
So lemme toss a question in here, Chaos. I ask because I don't know.
"Tapping" in Magic: the Gathering is (I believe) patented. Isn't that a process/game mechanic?
I looked into "tappinng" and found a few things.
Wikipedia had this
A patent was granted to Wizards of the Coast in 1997 for "a novel method of game play and game components that in one embodiment are in the form of trading cards" that includes claims covering games whose rules include many of Magic's elements in combination, including concepts such as changing orientation of a game component to indicate use (referred to in the Magic and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules as "tapping") and constructing a deck by selecting cards from a larger pool.[48] The patent has aroused criticism from some observers, who believe some of its claims to be invalid.[49]
In 2003, the patent was an element of a larger legal dispute between Wizards of the Coast and Nintendo, regarding trade secrets related to Nintendo's Pokémon Trading Card Game. The legal action was settled out of court, and its terms were not disclosed.[50]
I could'nt find a patent specifically for tapping, But the Patent on MtG has several refrence to the act of tapping a card.
I found an image that shows the MtG cards, and includes terms like tapped, untapped, graveyard and library.
I think that "tapping" is a rule and not a part of the cards/product, the term simply explains how to use the card. So as I said in my last post; the product (in this case the cards) recieve the patent, but instructions (such as tapping) on how to use the product are not protected.
claim 1
1. A method of playing games involving two or more players, the method being suitable for games having rules for game play that include instructions on drawing, playing, and discarding game components, and a reservoir of multiple copies of a plurality of game components, the method comprising the steps of:
each player constructing their own library of a predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game components from the reservoir of game components;
each player obtaining an initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the library of game components and drawing at random game components from the player's library of game components; and
each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:
(a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game components available for play by taking the one or more game components from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a playing surface; and
(b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by:
(i) selecting one or more game components; and
(ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.
each player constructing their own library of a predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game components from the reservoir of game components;
each player obtaining an initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the library of game components and drawing at random game components from the player's library of game components; and
each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:
(a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game components available for play by taking the one or more game components from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a playing surface; and
(b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by:
(i) selecting one or more game components; and
(ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.
Fiction
You're doing it again. Screenshot or it didn't happen.
Provided herein is a novel method of game play and game components that in one embodiment are in the form of trading cards (10, 12, 40, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64). However, the game components may take other forms, such as a board game, or the game may be played in different media, such as electronic games, video games, computer games, and inter-active network
It seems to focus mainly on the products produced for that method of playing. I notice that they discribe rules, but only as they relate to the cards (which the patent refers to as "game components).
I think the use of the term (card) "tapping" is to similar (in its general use and function) to (dice) "rolling".
The terms refer to an action required to use the product, and (in my opinion) it would be difficult if not impossible to patent a useful term which discribes an action.
Hello, are my posts getting through??
knocks on screen
Hello, are my posts getting through??
They are, but um. I think we are slowly degenerating into flaming here (Hence why I have stopped posting for the most part), as I know Chaos and Polaris has no chance of swaying me and all they are doing is making me annoyed.
knocks on screen
Hello, are my posts getting through??
Im sorry, I thought you were suggesting that the act of turning a card 90 degrees was somehow intellectual property.
Was that your point?
Im sorry, I thought you were suggesting that the act of turning a card 90 degrees was somehow intellectual property.
Was that your point?
My point was a simple explanation for Zherog about the "tapping" patent that WotC has, which you seemed to have completely ignored.
You're doing it again. Screenshot or it didn't happen.
Fiction
Really?
From the above thread started by Steerpike7 which affirms everything I've said here thus far, here is what wrecan had to say. It completely backs up what I said about wrecan wanting to change precedent.
Anything else?
-Polaris
My point was a simple explanation for Zherog about the "tapping" patent that WotC has, which you seemed to have completely ignored.
First, the patent is for cards/products thats why the title is: Trading card game method of play, not (as you put it)"The Tapping Patent"; the patent is for the cards/products, not the term "tapping".
Spoilers from your previous post
1. (ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.
You may notice, they use the words "game components" which are cards, you see they are explaining how to use the product, not claiming they own a term.
2. by turning the trading cards from the first orientation to a second orientation on the playing surface;
Agian just directions on how to use thier product.
All your examples are just directions on how to use the cards, I personally dont see how they relate to intellectual property.
If you care to explain how the term and/or action of "tapping" is intellectual property, please feel free to do so.
Not to sound too much like a wet blanket, but what does patents have to do with anything regarding either RPGs in general or DnD 4E in particular. As far as I know (and wrecan checked in the prior thread I linked to as well), Wotc/Hasbro has not even attempted to patent anything regarding DnD 4E in of itself and understandably so (just about any reasonable mechanic in RPGs would likely fail the patent test) and again as far as I know (for the same reason) no company has attempted to patent anything rules related for any tabletop RPG.
My point is that Patents for tabletop RPGs have long since become a dead letter. Gygax, Arneson, et al might have had a chance back in 1972, but that window has long since closed.
-Polaris
First, the patent is for cards/products thats why the title is: Trading card game method of play, not (as you put it)"The Tapping Patent"; the patent is for the cards/products, not the term "tapping".
I am going to guess that you don't know a whole lot about Patents, do you??
Patents are written in a specific language. It isn't enough to simply read it and pull out words and phrases. You need to read it carefully and with a knowledge of the art to determine what the inventive step is, and thus, what the patent is for.
In this case, the inventive step that WotC has applied for, and received a patent for, is the act of turning the cards 90 degrees to indicate another state.
If you care to explain how the term and/or action of "tapping" is intellectual property, please feel free to do so.
A patent is, by definition, intellectual property.
The fact that WotC holds a patent on tapping cards, means that, until the patent expires, other companies cannot use that same mechanic.
The fact that WotC holds a patent on tapping cards, means that, until the patent expires, other companies cannot use that same mechanic.
*nitpick* It means other companies can't use it without permission which is where licensing agreements come in.
Again, what does this have to do with RPGs? It's pretty much my understanding that patents w/r/t tabletop RPGs have long since become a dead letter and AFAIK Wotc isn't trying to patent anything w/r/t DnD 4E (at least in terms of game mechanics).
-Polaris
From the above thread started by Steerpike7 which affirms everything I've said here thus far, here is what wrecan had to say. It completely backs up what I said about wrecan wanting to change precedent.
Don't misrepresent me or Steerpike7, Polaris.
I never said I wanted to change precedent. Both Steerpike7 and I agreed that the legal line between "game rules" (not protected by IP law) and "the expression of game rules" (protected by IP law) is blurry and there is no precedent setting forth a usable legal standard. We were joking about creating a sham litigation just to get the courts to clarify the law.
I never said I want to change precedent. I don't want to change precedent. As you've said, you're not an attorney. Steerpike7 and I are. I think you misundertood what we were discussing. I mean in post 2 of that thread I wrote "I have no problem with what he wrote about intellectual property law as it applies to games and game rules". So I don't know where you got the idea that I want to change precedent.
Again, what does this have to do with RPGs? It's pretty much my understanding that patents w/r/t tabletop RPGs have long since become a dead letter and AFAIK Wotc isn't trying to patent anything w/r/t DnD 4E (at least in terms of game mechanics).
You did see the question zherog asked above about the tapping patent held by WotC??
So lemme toss a question in here, Chaos. I ask because I don't know.
"Tapping" in Magic: the Gathering is (I believe) patented. Isn't that a process/game mechanic?
I am going to guess that you don't know a whole lot about Patents, do you??
Patents are written in a specific language. It isn't enough to simply read it and pull out words and phrases. You need to read it carefully and with a knowledge of the art to determine what the inventive step is, and thus, what the patent is for.
In this case, the inventive step that WotC has applied for, and received a patent for, is the act of turning the cards 90 degrees to indicate another state.
A patent is, by definition, intellectual property.
The fact that WotC holds a patent on tapping cards, means that, until the patent expires, other companies cannot use that same mechanic.
Agian, its not a patent for the action of tapping a card(which is in no way an inovative step), its a patent on trading cards (which includes methods of play). The purpose of including rules (like tapping) in a patent is not to patent the term or action, its to explain how to use the product.
This is clearly a Trading Card patent, and not a tapping patent.
Fiction
Really?
From the above thread started by Steerpike7 which affirms everything I've said here thus far, here is what wrecan had to say. It completely backs up what I said about wrecan wanting to change precedent.
Anything else?
-Polaris
Wrecan has already told you not to put words in his mouth, but since Steerpike isn't here, let me say this. Your link shows very little. He advanced a theoretical argument that ended with the statement that
On par, it seems to me that most companies who are interested in publishing material compatible with 4E are going to find that participating in GSL is the most sensible way to go forward. But I think it is a mistake to assume categorically that the only way you can produce products compatible with 4E is if you go through the GSL.
This is far from your ALL CAPS claims that anyone who feels like it can copy the rules of any game. Sure, you tell people to talk to a lawyer, but you also tell them repeatedly and emphatically that you are right and that various court cases and laws and lawyers support you firmly. You really need to drop the latter point, because you could seriously mislead someone into taking action that is financially and personally damaging. The most you can say from the above is that a lawyer's free, anonymous advice was that there *may* be some way to legally publish 4e material without the GSL, but that it may not even be worth the trouble.
And for crying out loud, post that link in which someone, anyone, hands me my head. I don't mean a link in which someone disagrees with a position you think I hold. If you can't, please drop the trash-talking and stick to the issue. Or at least mix it up a little, perhaps with a few "yo mamma" jokes or something.
Agian, its not a patent for the action of tapping a card(which is in no way an inovative step), its a patent on trading cards (which includes methods of play). The purpose of including rules (like tapping) in a patent is not to patent the term or action, its to explain how to use the product.
This is clearly a Trading Card patent, and not a tapping patent.
I don't often say that someone is wrong, but unless patent interpretation differs radically in the US than it does in Canada, you are wrong. I examine patents for a living. It is my job to read and interpret patents and determine the inventiveness (or lack thereof) in the application. The parts that I bolded in my quoting of the patent above are the parts that are, most likely, the "inventive step" that resulted in WotC getting the patent.
It is not a matter of reading it. Patents use very specific language and very specific phrases and phrasing.
I don't often say that someone is wrong, but unless patent interpretation differs radically in the US than it does in Canada, you are wrong. I examine patents for a living. It is my job to read and interpret patents and determine the inventiveness (or lack thereof) in the application. The parts that I bolded in my quoting of the patent above are the parts that are, most likely, the "inventive step" that resulted in WotC getting the patent.
It is not a matter of reading it. Patents use very specific language and very specific phrases and phrasing.
Well, I dont like to tell people Im right, but its not your knowledge of IP law thats lacking, its your understanding of game mechanics (take no offense please); I'm a game designer, with twenty years experiance. I've put many, many hours into manipulating game mechanics, and I assure you that I would have no problem recognizing an "innovation".
I will look into it more, but as far as I can tell turning a card 90 degrees (for any reason) is not an innovation.
Wrecan has already told you not to put words in his mouth, but since Steerpike isn't here, let me say this. Your link shows very little. He advanced a theoretical argument that ended with the statement that
Wrecan can characterize it all he likes, but I read his posts and yours and ArcTan's in "Paizo gives Wotc the Finger" (remember that thread)? The thread I linked to was started by Steerpike7 to clarify IP Law questions and I linked to it so people could read it and judge form themselves. (Edit aside: It was started in part to keep people like you from spreading disinformation IMHO.) It's true that wrecan doesn't say directly that he wants to change precedence but he does aknowledge it and then illustrates a way he would fight it (not just in that thread but the Paizo thread) in order to argue that in RPGs written game rules have artistic merit and should be copyrighted. Essentially:
1. Wrecan did not say that I was wrong as a matter of fact.
2. Said that he didn't SAY he wanted to change precedence (which is true) but I would say go read his own posts and judge for yourself.
This is far from your ALL CAPS claims that anyone who feels like it can copy the rules of any game. Sure, you tell people to talk to a lawyer, but you also tell them repeatedly and emphatically that you are right and that various court cases and laws and lawyers support you firmly. You really need to drop the latter point, because you could seriously mislead someone into taking action that is financially and personally damaging. The most you can say from the above is that a lawyer's free, anonymous advice was that there *may* be some way to legally publish 4e material without the GSL, but that it may not even be worth the trouble.
I call strawman. I never said you could COPY the rules of a game. In fact I have repeatedly said the EXACT expression of a game is copyright protected. You should know this and I invite everyone else to go through my posts to find ANYWHERE where I said that you could COPY a game and sell it for your own. You won't find it.
Again Emwasick is dishonestly projecting what he wants my position to be rather than arguing what it is....and that is a classic strawman.
What I am saying and as I've repeatedly shown, game rules are considered processes and instructions which are not protected by copyright. That means that games (esp RPGs) have inherently less protection and other sorts of intellectual property AND it means you can use the same rules just not the same exact expression......because of this the GSL is too strict because the rights that others have under conventional IP law for RPGs is so much greater. That's all.
Going back to my original post, I agreed that Wotc did the right think in this case. However, that was because emass (apparantly) violated Wotc's trademark and that's a completely different kettle of fish.
-Polaris
I don't often say that someone is wrong, but unless patent interpretation differs radically in the US than it does in Canada, you are wrong. I examine patents for a living. It is my job to read and interpret patents and determine the inventiveness (or lack thereof) in the application. The parts that I bolded in my quoting of the patent above are the parts that are, most likely, the "inventive step" that resulted in WotC getting the patent.
It is not a matter of reading it. Patents use very specific language and very specific phrases and phrasing.
Patent interpretation doesn't differ. He's just wrong. He doesn't understand that you can patent a process.
Going back to my original post, I agreed that Wotc did the right think in this case. However, that was because emass (apparantly) violated Wotc's trademark and that's a completely different kettle of fish.
There's also some interaction between copyright and the expression of rules that emass have erred upon. "Str v ac, hit: 1[W]+Str, deal Str damage to an adjacent enemy" is mostly procedural, but it does contain some flavor content, particularly if you keep around the name of the power. In fact, if you can convince the judge to consider the overall site instead of each individual power in isolation, there's creative content in the organization of the powers by class, there's creative content in the association of certain mechanical elements with certain creative elements, the keywords have creative aspects, there's creative content all over the place.
Its not a sure-fire win, and if he stripped the powers down to the bone it gets tougher and tougher, but the more words he kept in that have flavor implications the more room there is to hang at least a reasonable initial filing of a lawsuit.
Oh, and I didn't get a chance to respond to an earlier point someone made about D&D not being patentable. It probably is, but not usefully so. You can patent a combination of material that isn't individually patentable, if the combination is novel and non-obvious. For a sufficiently large aggregate, non-obvious becomes easier and easier. D&D is a very large set of procedural rules. The problem with such a patent, however, is that it only covers the aggregate, not the unpatentable components that make up the aggregate. So obtaining such a patent might be more trouble than its worth.
Well, I dont like to tell people Im right, but its not your knowledge of IP law thats lacking, its your understanding of game mechanics (take no offense please); I'm a game designer, with twenty years experiance. I've put many, many hours into manipulating game mechanics, and I assure you that I would have no problem recognizing an "innovation".
I will look into it more, but as far as I can tell turning a card 90 degrees (for any reason) is not an innovation.
It's not whether *you* feel it is an innovation or not that determines whether it is deserving of an invention. It is the examiner at the USPTO who determines it. And, unfortunately for your position, the USPTO determined that the action of tapping a card *is* inventive and thus patentable.
One of the things that they teach us when learning to examine patents is the necessity of looking at whether something is innovative and/or inventive at the time of the filing of the patent application. You can't simply look at it now, after Magic has been out for 8 (?? I don't know) years and say that it is not innovative. You need to look at the state of collectible card games, when the patent was applied for, and determine whether or not it was innovative *then*. Now that it has been out for 8 years, it is easy enough to say "yeah, there isn't anything novel about tapping the card". But they didn't apply for the patent now, they did so back then.
Wrecan can characterize it all he likes, but I read his posts... It's true that wrecan doesn't say directly that he wants to change precedence but he does aknowledge it and then illustrates a way he would fight it
Stop recharacterizing my posts, Polaris. I did not say I would illustrate a way to "fight it" (by which you appear to mean, fight the law that game rules are not copyrightable).
I have no problem with game rules not being copyrightable. All steerpike7 and I ever discussed was how to handle the very gray area of copyright law in distinguishing between game rules (not copyrighted) and the way they are expressed (copyrighted). You appear to believe the distinction is crystal clear, and it's not. It's a very gray area and you are doing people a grave disservice when you suggest that one could publish a game an merely change the words around to avoid copyright issues.
The law is very murky on that point and you could very well be encouraging people to do something that could end up being deemed a violation.
The GSL's greatest asset is clarity. Though it may be more restrictive than copyright law, it provides clarity so that a TPP would know that he has not accidentally violated WotC copyright and trademarks. Doing it without a license is doable, and may allow you to publish things you couldn't under the GSL, but it comes with serious risks.
1. Wrecan did not say that I was wrong as a matter of fact.
Since you're stating a law, not a fact, I couldn't call you wrong as a matter of fact. And the problem with your statements is that they are misleading, not that they are necessarily untrue. You provide only part of the picture and thereby provide a misleading description of the law.
Yes, game rules cannot be protected by copyright. But the expression of the rules are. And -- and this is the point you almost never acknowledge -- the line between the two is not clear-cut.
I would say go read his own posts and judge for yourself.
Yes, please do, everyone. Polaris is not characterizing my posts accurately. Read them for yourselves.
Let's set the record straight. I have NEVER condoned copying nor have I said (and I hope I haven't suggested) that blatently copying a game was either legal or OK....contrary to what some like Emwasick have suggested. However as you aknowledge, game mechanics and processes are NOT protected by copyright any more than any other instruction. You claim that you don't have a problem with the lack of copyright for game mechanics but then here and on other threads (such as Paizo gives Wotc the Finger) you try to make a case that there is so much artistic merit in the game rules themselves that they might as well be protected. This IS in effect trying to change precedent (and AFAIK it's how code came to be fully protected by copyright even though code in the most fundamental analysis is nothing more than a series of instructions).
I am NOT encouraging people to willy-nilly copy things. What I am saying is that games and espcially RPGs by the very lack of board games and other props have a lot less copyright protection than most assume AND the slam-dunk against emass was trademark violation and not copyright.
FURTHERMORE, I have always said that if you want to do anything remotely questionable for real you should consult an IP attorney.
I jumped in because a lot of people were saying that emass got into trouble because of copyright and that's not really so (at least as far as I am given to understand). I also note that Hasbro has shown a history of trying to fool and/or bully others into thinking that copyright protects games a lot more than it really does.
-Polaris
You claim that you don't have a problem with the lack of copyright for game mechanics but then here and on other threads (such as Paizo gives Wotc the Finger) you try to make a case that there is so much artistic merit in the game rules themselves that they might as well be protected.
I don't think I would ever write something so incoherent.
I have said repeatedly that the manner in which something is expressed is copyrightableand (this is the important part), the line between a game rule and its expression is not well-defined in the law.
This IS in effect trying to change precedent (and AFAIK it's how code came to be fully protected by copyright even though code in the most fundamental analysis is nothing more than a series of instructions).
It is not trying to change precedent ("in effect" or otherwise) and I wish you would stop trying to recharacterize my argument. I am not trying to change precedent in any way. Steerpike7 and I were merely musing idly about how we could collude to clarify an undefined or ill-defined area of the law. No more, no less.
My comments have been repeatedly to point out that the law is not nearly as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be when you stated that game mechanics are not protected.
I am NOT encouraging people to willy-nilly copy things.
You don't intend to, but your sloppy mode of communication could do just that.
I jumped in because
I don't care why you got involved in the thread. I only care about what you said about my position once you did get involved. And what you said was inaccurate. And your attempts to restate my position have not increased in accuracy. So please stop trying to invoke my or Steerpike7's statements. You're not helping your position.
I believe I am accurately protraying your position as you stated it in "Paizo gives Wotc the Finger". You were a lot more neutral in Steerpike7's thread about copyright I will admit. The only thing I am saying is that insturctions, game rules, and processes are not protectable by copyright and you admit that this is in fact correct. You seem to be taking the position here and prior that the line is so murky between expression and rule to be effectively worthless and I strongly challenge that. This IS how code did get to be copyright protected, btw. In short I stand by what I said and I think we've said everything we can to (and about) each other and still stay within the bounds of the CoC. Enough said.
-Polaris
Wrecan,
I believe I am accurately protraying your position as you stated it in "Paizo gives Wotc the Finger".
I just went back and reviewed my posts in [thread=1005471]that thread[/thread]. My substantive contribution begins at post 1724 on that thread.
At no point did I say that I wanted to change legal precedent. In fact, I frequently stated that the line between rules and its expression is unclear.
You may have come away with that impression (though I can't see how you would base that position on anything I wrote). But it was an incorrect impression, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop repeating it.
The only thing I am saying is that insturctions, game rules, and processes are not protectable by copyright and you admit that this is in fact correct.
But by not further stating that the line between that and the expression of game rules is fuzzy, you are giving an incomplete and misleading picture of the state of the law.
You seem to be taking the position here and prior that the line is so murky between expression and rule to be effectively worthless
No, I am not. Once again, your attempt to recharacterize my statements is inaccurate. All I am saying is that the line is unclear, so people should tread carefully. I am not saying it is "worthless".
Look, just stop trying to claim what Steepike7 and I wrote. I still don't think you understood what we were discussing. And when you tell people that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, which is true, do yourself a favor and also warn people that the expression of rules is copyrightable and the law has not clearly defined when one ends and the other begins.
Edit> But at the end of the day, if Hasbro takes an individual to court over IP, then they have already won. The civil system will drag out court cases of this nature almost endlessly. Unless I am mistaken the who owns the rights to the UNIX Kernel is still be metted out in courts. Therefor even the exactness of what can be and can't be trademark doesn't matter, if Hasbro can stop you from doing what you want until the next edition comes out they have effectively won.
That was ruled on a while ago.
Really? Then tell me: How come Coke (common slang for the coca leaf in any form) is a trademark?
Not to mention Orange
Tide
Skys
Trademarks are very specific, that's how. If you had bothered to look, you'd actually notice that there are not one but TWO trademarks on the word Orange; I should say, at -least- two. One is an ISP, the other is a computer hardware maintanence company.
Additionally, they aren't commonly used words. Well, other than Coke, which is probably indefensible now thanks to the South.
Here's the thing: Orange is not a generic term for an ISP. Its a color and a fruit, but it has nothing to do with ISPs. Ergo, if you name your ISP company "Orange", you can reasonably expect to get a trademark on it because "Orange" doesn't mean anything in relationship to ISPs. While a homophone for an extant word, it doesn't really -mean- anything. Its the same reason Apple is trademarked - they aren't referring to the fruit. If they made "Apple Juice", they wouldn't be able to trademark that (though a logo, which was their apple, and a bottle of juice next to it, might be trademarkable assuming it is distinctive enough).
If I make another detergent called Tide even without using their exact trade dress I am violating Trademark laws.
Yes. But you could indeed reference Tide on your label; people do this all the time. "If you like Lucky Charms you'll love this!" and stuff like that is entirely legal, so long as it doesn't mislead the consumer into believing it actually IS Lucky Charms.
The other key is that Tide has nothing to do with the definition of the word tide. A company which constructed tide pools would not be able to defend the trademark "Tide Pools", because it is a general term for the product.
This is why trademarks are difficult for people to understand; they don't understand what exactly is protected. You are only protected if and only if A) it refers to something fairly specific and B) it isn't a generic term for that thing.
It means quite literally: If you use that term/style/et cetera in your business, and it can be clearly attributed to your company and references something Specific (either product or otherwise) then its yours.
Wrong. I can use "orange juice" to describe my orange juice until the cows come home, but I'll never be able to trademark it.
If I made juice from some fruit no one had ever made a juice from before, I STILL wouldn't be able to trademark it because "X juice" is a generic name for "Juice made from X". If I called my website about setting things on fire "Orange Juice", I could own a trademark on it. But if I used the word "sugar" a lot on that webside, I'd never gain a trademark on it unless I was using it as a mark to distinguish my site.
And moreover, not every term is trademarkable. I'm afraid you don't understand trademark law. You have to be using the mark specifically as an identifying mark.
Also wrong see copyright laws on recipes for example
No. You don't understand what is being protected there, I'm afraid.
There is zero copyright protection for the process. There IS copyright protection for the literary expression.
Copyrights cannot, ever ever ever ever EVER, protect processes.
What is protected is the literary expression of it.
Fundamentally, this means I could write a computer game based on D&D's mechanics, because there isn't any literary expression duplication there. I'd be (fairly) safe, assuming my product wasn't confusable with D&D.
The problem is that it isn't "Exact wording", like Polaris is arguing. If it were, copyrights would be useless. Its rather a more subjective thing, wherein it the question is basically is it "too close". It doesn't have to be exact. I'd be much more vulnerable to a lawsuit if I wrote a book which gave the rules of D&D. This is why it is something of a gray area. Copyright law gives no protection to the mechanics of D&D, but it may make it difficult for you to use those mechanics without infringing on WotC's copyrights in certain media.
Essentially anything you create can fall under one of two protective laws: Patents and Copyright.
Not true. You cannot own the laws of physics or mathematics.
Actually, there's a great deal you cannot own which you can create.
"Game mechanics" are ideas/information, they cant be protected by patent, copyright, or trademark. (BTW that makes them 100% public domain.)
Thing is, they're a PROCESS, and you CAN, in fact, patent a process.
That was ruled on a while ago.
Yeah I realized that when I went to dig out, but it still illustrates the point, as that dragged on for over a decade. Which the shelf life of an edition of DnD is around there, and the reality is, it was finally settled in arbitration, where as they Could have still be fighting.
Additionally, they aren't commonly used words. Well, other than Coke, which is probably indefensible now thanks to the South.
Nah Coke has reps who got and harass businesses that sell Pepsi but don't correct people who say coke, they have in fact been defending it. So it would at least go to court, and then Maybe get thrown out as indefisable only to be appealed et cetera.
Here's the thing: Orange is not a generic term for an ISP. Its a color and a fruit, but it has nothing to do with ISPs. Ergo, if you name your ISP company "Orange", you can reasonably expect to get a trademark on it because "Orange" doesn't mean anything in relationship to ISPs. While a homophone for an extant word, it doesn't really -mean- anything. Its the same reason Apple is trademarked - they aren't referring to the fruit. If they made "Apple Juice", they wouldn't be able to trademark that (though a logo, which was their apple, and a bottle of juice next to it, might be trademarkable assuming it is distinctive enough).
Bingo. Similarly, while Cleave is common its not a common reference from within RPGs (outside of D20 games, which can be proven by Wizards as having been defended by them as their IP) Its even worse with something like 'Tide of Iron'. Whether or not such terms Can be trademark'd, I am not clear on, but given that when I investigated the manner with a lawyer during 3.X I was told that feat titles and class names would most likely be presumed to be trademarked, the powers to me contain at least the same style of information as feats: Ergo I can only presume they too would be trademark'd to a degree.
Yes. But you could indeed reference Tide on your label; people do this all the time. "If you like Lucky Charms you'll love this!" and stuff like that is entirely legal, so long as it doesn't mislead the consumer into believing it actually IS Lucky Charms.
Yes you could, but RPGs it could easily be presented that by even stating 'he has tide of iron that is +45 v AC and does 2d20+35 damage' that you are in fact crossing the line.
The other key is that Tide has nothing to do with the definition of the word tide. A company which constructed tide pools would not be able to defend the trademark "Tide Pools", because it is a general term for the product.
This is why trademarks are difficult for people to understand; they don't understand what exactly is protected. You are only protected if and only if A) it refers to something fairly specific and B) it isn't a generic term for that thing.
Yup, but there again: Tide of Iron isn't a generic term for hitting someone with a shield and pushing them backwards even within the RPG industry (except by way of fact that WotC has about 85% of the sells of the RPG industry (2006 figure accured based on the Game Trade mag's percents through the year, probably not accurate of '09 as they slide some in the few reports I saw in '07 (post 4E announcement though)), ergo: It is certainly trademarkable, Potentially (to the degree terms like Zerg for starcraft are).
Wrong. I can use "orange juice" to describe my orange juice until the cows come home, but I'll never be able to trademark it.
If I made juice from some fruit no one had ever made a juice from before, I STILL wouldn't be able to trademark it because "X juice" is a generic name for "Juice made from X". If I called my website about setting things on fire "Orange Juice", I could own a trademark on it. But if I used the word "sugar" a lot on that webside, I'd never gain a trademark on it unless I was using it as a mark to distinguish my site.
And moreover, not every term is trademarkable. I'm afraid you don't understand trademark law. You have to be using the mark specifically as an identifying mark.
USPTO: Orange Juice Trademark
SBE Corp is: a property managment firm.
So long as they cannot contend that your trademark is a common term in the field, it is trademarkable (As an example with in the RPG industry, since Megaverse itself is fairly common term, Palladium Books had to give up its Megaverse trademark and instead re-register Palladium Megaverse)
As an example of what I mean with AC, Tide of Iron and Cleave being registered:
Cyber-Knight
Cyber-knight is a class within the Rifts worlds, though it has been abandonded since then, it was accepted by the USPTO as being trademarkable, as an extension of this: Character Class names are trademarkable (though cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard, and sorcerer would have some issues as would barbarian), Since character classes contain only created material as an extension: Feats, Power Names, Attributes, and Defenses that can be uinquely tied in some way to Wizards can be trademarked. While Strength is a common term, STR abbreviation (the WotC standard) is not within indvidual books.
While most books have a form of Armor, its rarely referred to as AC.
No. You don't understand what is being protected there, I'm afraid.
There is zero copyright protection for the process. There IS copyright protection for the literary expression.
Copyrights cannot, ever ever ever ever EVER, protect processes.
What is protected is the literary expression of it.
Which is what I and Ema have been driving at (I believe for Ema anyway, I won't swear), Polaris and Chaos both say that game mechanics can't be copyright protected, but try and extend to entire game manuals, which is strictly point of fact Not true, most of the presentation of the rules is fully copyrighted.
Fundamentally, this means I could write a computer game based on D&D's mechanics, because there isn't any literary expression duplication there. I'd be (fairly) safe, assuming my product wasn't confusable with D&D.
The problem is that it isn't "Exact wording", like Polaris is arguing. If it were, copyrights would be useless. Its rather a more subjective thing, wherein it the question is basically is it "too close". It doesn't have to be exact. I'd be much more vulnerable to a lawsuit if I wrote a book which gave the rules of D&D. This is why it is something of a gray area. Copyright law gives no protection to the mechanics of D&D, but it may make it difficult for you to use those mechanics without infringing on WotC's copyrights in certain media.
Which is exactly the point, while game mechanics have never been challeneged in court, you Could theortically boil D20's (3/4 DnD) to 1d20+Modifers vs Target Number. as thats the actual mechanic behind the scenes, and everything else (Str v AC) is flavoring behind that mechanic.
To present it as 'Game Mechanics can't be copyrighted therefor you can change the wording of some things and reproduce the DnD manual' is a very Dangerous thing to present the people.
Not true. You cannot own the laws of physics or mathematics.
Actually, there's a great deal you cannot own which you can create.
Actually you don't create the rules of physics or mathematics, they exist before you, you just figure them out.
Thing is, they're a PROCESS, and you CAN, in fact, patent a process.
Yup, but I think we are more or less in agreement in reality, Patents don't apply to DnD as Gygax and Arenson didn't apply for it when they could. (Though really 3.X was enough of an innovation you Might be able to get it passed too, of course its time frame for filling is behind as well).
Whether or not such terms Can be trademark'd, I am not clear on, but given that when I investigated the manner with a lawyer during 3.X I was told that feat titles and class names would most likely be presumed to be trademarked, the powers to me contain at least the same style of information as feats
A trademark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by a legal entity to identify the source of origin of a product, and to distinguish it from those of other entities.
I strongly question whether Tide of Iron would fall under that sort of protection. Cleave certainly wouldn't, because it is used in that context all the time.
Fundamentally, they don't actually use it as a trademark, as a major means of distinguishing their product from those of other people.
Actually you don't create the rules of physics or mathematics, they exist before you, you just figure them out.
Depending on your point of view, though, we don't really create anything.
Take, for instance, a plant that people chew down in South America. I find out about this, find out they have decreased cancer rates, and discover that this plant contains a chemical which is an anti-carcinogenic agent. What can I patent?
I might add that the patent office also improperly grants a lot of illegal patents.
Yes Cleave is a common term, Yes Cleave that fits what the RPG term denotes, unfortunately, like Orange ISP being in Orange county California, since Orange is not a common term in ISP's it is trademarkable.
Since Cleave is not a common term in RPGs (outside D20 and OGL games which strictly speaking use wizards terms so don't really count for the merits of the trademark), it is on that ground Qualified for trademark status.
that is to say, Cleave for an RPG game is specific (references a type of affect that has an effect (might have those two backwards) on a secondary agent).
Its not a generic term for that (most RPG games lack such terms).
Really? where else is cleaved used to reference in an RPG game attacking more than one person? to my understanding that would be the criteria of the USPTO and the consequently the courts.
Cleaving, in this case, is referring to the action of cutting through one thing and hitting another. This is a generic term, found often in fantasy, movies, ect. so it'd be impossible to trademark for that reason.
I would also tend to argue that it isn't being used as a distinguishing mark/badge of origin by WotC anyway.
Cleaving, in this case, is referring to the action of cutting through one thing and hitting another. This is a generic term, found often in fantasy, movies, ect. so it'd be impossible to trademark for that reason.
I would also tend to argue that it isn't being used as a distinguishing mark/badge of origin by WotC anyway.
Actually no, look at the Cyber-knight trademark Role Playing Games are apparently in the trademark offices considered its own industry, so to compete you have to have a 'cleave' that is referenced often in RPGs, not just fantasy literature.
Though I openly admit Cleave of the powers is the most questionable, most the rest though are a distinguishing badge as they refer to a select way of rules interaction. (which is to say they are as unique as monsters most of which used to carry the unregistered trademark claim (tm)).
But by not further stating that the line between that and the expression of game rules is fuzzy, you are giving an incomplete and misleading picture of the state of the law.
It's actually not that fuzzy except for lawyers who represent clients that wish to make it so. I've posted several links by bonafide IP lawyers that explain where the line lies and it's not that fuzzy.
No, I am not. Once again, your attempt to recharacterize my statements is inaccurate. All I am saying is that the line is unclear, so people should tread carefully. I am not saying it is "worthless".
I strongly question this except in so far that any litegator can make any law seem unclear regardless of how clear the actual wording is.
Look, just stop trying to claim what Steepike7 and I wrote. I still don't think you understood what we were discussing. And when you tell people that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, which is true, do yourself a favor and also warn people that the expression of rules is copyrightable and the law has not clearly defined when one ends and the other begins.
I have repeatedly. I have always said that the EXACT expression of the rules is copyrighted which by extension means that any derivative work that uses something that's recognizably dervived from those exact words is probably in violation. I have stated this and linked to posts that reiterated this over and over. However that leaves a LOT of room for rewording.
Point is emass was in violation of Wotc's trademark. That is a slam dunk. Copyright? Not so much.
-Polaris
Though I openly admit Cleave of the powers is the most questionable, most the rest though are a distinguishing badge as they refer to a select way of rules interaction. (which is to say they are as unique as monsters most of which used to carry the unregistered trademark claim (tm)).
I think your IP lawyer was trying to cover his posterior and yours (which is by no means an unreasonable position to take). However, a trademark has to refer to a specific product or service (see definition of trademarks). Labels for game rules don't quality (but monster names, character names, etc certainly can). Also if the meaning is too close to the public domain meaning (which cleave certainly would be and "strength" definately would be), then you don't have a legit trademark there either.
Again, it's worth repeating to get the advice of an IP attorney that YOU pay.....if you don't pay a lawyer, they don't work for you....
-Polaris
Edit: Cyber-Knight is a character class which is a product within a game. That's trademarkable. The rules that govern the class aren't (so another game could have a class with a different name that is in terms of the rules substantially similiar to the Cyber-Knight). See the difference?
I've posted several links by bonafide IP lawyers that explain where the line lies and it's not that fuzzy.
No, you haven't. And now you're telling a lawyer that you understand both (1) the law and (2) his own words better than he does.
No, you haven't. And now you're telling a lawyer that you understand both (1) the law and (2) his own words better than he does.
No on all counts.
1. I did post several links wrtten by lawyers that did explain the difference. You may not agree with my characterization of those links, but I did post them.
2-3. No, I am questioning wrecan's motives. Really wrecan and I are at an impass here and it's the same impass we reached 10 months ago.
-Polaris
No on all counts.
1. I did post several links wrtten by lawyers that did explain the difference. You may not agree with my characterization of those links, but I did post them.
The links all say the same thing: ideas are not protected by copyright. They also say that a court has to determine what this means in practice. That's the definition of a "fuzzy line". When you "characterize" these sources differently, you do so by only reading the parts that support your preconceptions.
Thing is, they're a PROCESS, and you CAN, in fact, patent a process.
Yes, game mechanics are a "process", but lets look at how patents work, and then discuss if they are a "process" worthy of a patent.
Quotes From USPTO
1. Patents are based on, excluding others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention.
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is a grant of property rights by the U.S. Government through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The patent grant excludes others from making, using, or selling the invention in the United States.
2. The word process "primarily includes industrial or technical processes."
What Can Be Patented
The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.
In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.
3. Patents are not granted for ideas, and require the manufacturing somthing from that idea.
patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. [/b]A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required
Ok, with these three points in mind, look at Aluman's examaple of a game mechanic.
1d20+Modifers vs Target Number. as thats the actual mechanic
1. Patents are based on, excluding others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention.
I ask you, should the game mechanic[process] presented, require the excluding of others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention[process]?
2. The word process "primarily includes industrial or technical processes."
Another question for you, does the game mechanic[process] presented, fit one of these two catagories?
3. Patents are not granted for ideas, and require the manufacturing somthing from that idea.
Last question, would you concider the game mechanic[process] presented, an idea, or somthing manufactured from that idea?
The links all say the same thing: ideas are not protected by copyright. They also say that a court has to determine what this means in practice. That's the definition of a "fuzzy line". When you "characterize" these sources differently, you do so by only reading the parts that support your preconceptions.
Didn't you bother to read the "pac-man" example. It was one of the clearest examples of the distinction between "expression" and "rule" that you are likely to see, and honestly the distinction is clear unless you are representing a client that for some reason wants to make it unclear. [This is how code came to be fully protected by copyright btw in contravention with the written law.....enough litegators conned enough judges to rule that the line between art and instruction in code was too blurry to be useful.]
-Polaris
1. Patents are based on, excluding others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention.
I ask you, should the game mechanic[process] presented, require the excluding of others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention[process]?
That is part of the definition of a Patent. A patent provides the ability to do that by the very nature of the rights granted a patent-holder. It has *nothing* to do with whether or not you think that the patent is deserving of the protection or not.
2. The word process "primarily includes industrial or technical processes."
Another question for you, does the game mechanic[process] presented, fit one of these two catagories?
Note the term "primarily". That is not an exclusive term which indicates that it can only be an industrial or technical process. A new process for playing a game is still a process that may be patented.
3. Patents are not granted for ideas, and require the manufacturing somthing from that idea.
Last question, would you concider the game mechanic[process] presented, an idea, or somthing manufactured from that idea?
A new and improved manner of playing a game is not just an idea.
While I agree with you on many points, with the caveat IANAL, I do believe that Mudbunny is substantially correct. At least I've always understood that instructions/game-rules/game mechanics can indeed be patented if it otherwise withstood scrutiny and was deemed worthy of a patent (i.e. a new invention or a new innovation). Of course for RPGs that's an extreemly high bar and I am skeptical that any reasonable game mechanic for an RPG can meet it at this late date but that's another issue. AFAIK game mechanics in general can be patented. I also contend once again that for DnD it's a dead-letter issue for the above reason (and I note that Wotc has made no attempt to patent any game rule or mechanic with regard to DnD 4E again to the best of my knowledge).
-Polaris
Didn't you bother to read the "pac-man" example. It was one of the clearest examples of the distinction between "expression" and "rule" that you are likely to see, and honestly the distinction is clear unless you are representing a client that for some reason wants to make it unclear. [This is how code came to be fully protected by copyright btw in contravention with the written law.....enough litegators conned enough judges to rule that the line between art and instruction in code was too blurry to be useful.]
-Polaris
A few points about your "Pac-Man" article:
- It's a simple article for laymen, not an authoritative legal document. The author is giving a broad overview. Her final advice (below) is totally unrelated to your point.
- You depict the author as a "well-respected gamer" while omitting to mention that she *only* discusses video games. Not mostly or primarily. Only.
- The article does not say that copyright protection for code in any way contravenes the law. She in fact states that the law protects source code. You are freely mixing your personal beliefs with the words of other authors.
Let's look at specifics from here:
The work must be "original" to be protected but the level of originality required is quite low; the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that even the selection and arrangement of unoriginal elements is protected.
Even an arrangement of unoriginal elements is protected. A work that consists of many things that are not by themselves unique is still protected, according to your source.
That concept [Pac-Man] is unprotectable; that is, anyone is free to develop a game based on the concept of a character that eats graphic elements of the game while avoiding the "bad guy."
Note that she did not say that you can slap a new coat of paint on Pac-Man and distribute it. She said that the idea, in very broad terms, is not protectable. If you want to apply this to RPGs, a game in which you tell stories about fantasy characters and roll dice to determine outcomes is not protectable.
ETA: Almost forget- here's the actual point of the article you linked:
In sum, trademark and copyright afford distinctive protection of video games and confer a competitive advantage you may not want to be without. They are in effect legal monopolies and well worth considering
Anyway, if someone posts, say, power cards or character sheets containing D&D power, class, and feat names verbatim, that someone is no longer in the obvious safe zone of developing a game based on the same concept. A concept and its execution are different things, and using the same concept does not mean naming everything identically. With or without WotC's trademarks and trade dress, this is risky behavior. I'm not even saying it's clearly illegal, but your source is far from calling it legal.
Let's go back to an illuminating passage from Baker v. Selden:
Recurring to the case before us, we observe that Charles Selden, by his books, explained and described a peculiar system of book-keeping, and illustrated his method by means of ruled lines and blank columns, with proper headings on a page, or on successive pages. Now, whilst no one has a right to print or publish his book, or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey instruction in the art, any person may practise and use the art itself which he has described and illustrated therein. The use of the art is a totally different thing from a publication of the book explaining it. The copyright of a book on book-keeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell, and use account-books prepared upon the plan set forth in such book. Whether the art might or might not have been patented, is a question which is not before us. It was not patented, and is open and free to the use of the public. And, of course, in using the art, the ruled lines and headings of accounts must necessarily be used as incident to it.
The opinion rendered emphasizes that *even in the case of a brief manual of rules or instructions* another author cannot reprint a material part of the work. How exactly does that apply to RPGs, since "material part" is likely an arbitrary thing? We don't know, but the law doesn't say what you want it to.
The second emphasized sentence points out that using an idea practically is everyone's right. Exactly how this latter doctrine applies to RPGs is far from clear in any source that I have found or that you have provided. There's even a chance you're right for once, but we may not find out until someone copies a material part of 4e (without also infringing on trademarks or marketing the game as D&D!), gets taken to court, and wins several appeals, possibly even culminating in a Supreme Court case. A part of me wonders if you want someone to read your posts and think that WotC couldn't possibly win such a case.
It's actually not that fuzzy except for lawyers who represent clients that wish to make it so.
I don't have any clients that care about the line between games and game rules. I represent no game companies or game developers. I have no personal stake in the state of the law. In fact, I have repeatedly said I wish it were more clear. But it isn't, and no amount of cherry-picking, half-truths and mischaracterization is going to change that.
I am telling you that when you say the above-quoted sentence you are not only wrong, you are being irresponsible.
I've posted several links by bonafide IP lawyers that explain where the line lies and it's not that fuzzy.
And now I must recommend that everybody read the links that Polaris posts and not take Polaris' characterization of those links at face value. As with his inaccurate characterizations of my statements, and of Steerpike7's statements, he is giving an incomplete, inaccurate presentation of what is written in those links.
I strongly question this
I don't think you're questioning at all. Actually. I think you're denying it. Questioning would indicate a level of self-examination that you don't appear to be willing to conduct.
Again, I ask you to stop characterizing my position. I ask you to stop characterizing Steerpike7's position. I ask you to stop trying to characterize the state of copyright law as it applies to games.
Possible trademarks can be divided into five categories.
"Fanciful" means a word you made up. This receives the best protection, because no one else has a good reason to use it for their product because its not even a real word.
"Arbitrary" means a word that has no particular connection to the thing its labeling, so that in context, it clearly means your good or service since in context it has no other reason to be used.
"Suggestive" suggests a trait without describing it. This one's a little hard to understand, since it is different than "descriptive," but to give you an example, suppose you run a service that races robots. Roadrunner Robot Racing suggests that your robot racing product involves fast robots by making a connection with roadrunners, which are popularly thought of as fast. Rapid Robot Racing just describes the robots, making it...
"Descriptive." This does what it says. It attaches a description to the good or service. Rapid Robot Racing. What kind of robot racing? The rapid kind.
"Generic" terms are just terms that label the good or service as what it really is. Robot Racing. What is it? Its the racing or robots. Pure description.
Ok, here's the way it works. Fanciful, Arbitrary, and Suggestive are considered inherently distinctive, and are really easy to make into trademarks. Fanciful and Arbitrary are the easiest, Suggestive is a little harder. Descriptive is a lot harder, and often doesn't work. Generic never works. Since its come up earlier in the thread, genericization is when a trademarkable word, typically a fanciful word, becomes popularly used to mean a generic type of good. This can cause a loss of trademark protection because it converts a fanciful mark (the strongest) into a generic mark (not even a real mark). It almost never happens, though.
"Orange" as a name for an ISP is arbitrary. Its a word that has no particular relationship with ISPs except the relationship that you created when you named your company Orange. So, yes, you could trademark Orange ISPs as the name of your good or service. It would be a pretty good trademark, too.
2. That being said, the fact that something is trademarkable doesn't mean that its a trademark. You'd have to actually use it to label your good or service or identify the origin of your product or something. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "cleave" doesn't count.
3. And trademarking something doesn't mean you own the words in the trademark. It means you own the right to use them to refer to a good or service that a customer might confuse with your own. The bar for whether confusion might occur is pretty low. But there has to be use refering to the source of a good or service. I don't infringe on your trademark if I say, "here, have an orange," and give you an orange colored spherical fruit. I might not infringe on your trademark if I have a company called Orange Meat Packing, since meat packing and ISPs are very far apart. I might not infringe on your trademark if your company operates solely in New York, and my Orange company operates solely in California (the internet is making that one tougher). But I'd probably infringe if I create Orange Computer Support, operating in a similar region as you. A consumer might be confused about whether the two Orange companies, both offering computer services in their region, were in some way related. There'd be a danger of me receiving your technical support calls, and other crossed wires. You'd probably have a claim.
4. The line between rules text and copyright isn't as clear as some people think. As I've repeatedly said, don't go around trying to walk it, you'll probably slip up and set foot on the wrong side. Remember, copyright can apply on the macro level even where it doesn't apply at the micro level, and D&D powers include more than just mechanical details. They include creative content, sometimes only in the name of the power, and sometimes in the text. You'd have to chop all of that out. Remember, your goal isn't just to be legaly in the clear, your goal is to be so obviously in the clear that no one can even file a lawsuit against you. The standard for filing is basically reasonableness, which doesn't mean victory. It means a chance. You have to deny your opponent even a hypothetical chance at winning. Good luck.
5. The line between rules text and copyright is ripe for revision. In my humble opinion, its remained as it is instead of getting edited like the rules for computer text simply because there isn't enough money involved for any truly great legal disputes to occur. If courts were getting bombarded with game text cases and copycat products, the rules should shift to become more clear, and to facilitate business. Facilitating business probably means making it more obvious that someone can create a game and publish it without having to spend more than the total profit of the game on a patent, and without having a copycat rip it off. Given that games create an aesthetic experience and that the rules, the processes of the game, exist to create an aesthetic experience, there are some obvious hooks by which copyright could get applied in unexpected ways. After all, we don't analyze the copyrightability of a movie by arguing about the procedure of shining a bright light through transparent celophane paper with images imprinted upon it. We talk about the experience of watching the movie. Rules written in this manner due to an onset of litigation wouldn't be perfect, and they probably wouldn't even be theoretically coherent (heaven knows other IP rules aren't), but in my view the courts and the legislature are more interested in making everyone get along well enough to get through another business day than they are in theoretical abstractions. Not that I think this is coming anytime soon- everyone's getting along right now, by the government's standards (no major lawsuits or bankrupt companies), so no one with the power to change the rules cares to bother.
6. You out there, trying to claim that you can't patent ideas unless they're related to manufacture. You are totally wrong. I don't know what else to say. You've even quoted materials demonstrating that you are wrong, but you haven't seemed to notice. A process can be lots of things, including a series of physical actions. In this case, the process was the use of a card and a physical action to store information by means of the orientation of the card.
That is part of the definition of a Patent. A patent provides the ability to do that by the very nature of the rights granted a patent-holder. It has *nothing* to do with whether or not you think that the patent is deserving of the protection or not.
Mudbunny, your reply has nothing to do with the facts presented.
I'm asking, how do you stop others from "making" your patented game mechanic(1d20+mod. vs. T#)? Honestly, I can't figure out what sort of material is used for "making" an invention like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
My opinion is that a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) is an idea, it is not somthing that you, or others can make into a product. A game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) can be presented in a product (like cards, a board, a book, or software program).
Also, some of those products (which present new game mechanics), can still be new and inventive, if the "products"(not ideas) are inventive enough (like MtG, Monopoly, Pop-up books etc); But just including an idea[process] like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) in those products, absolutly will not make those products a new invention.
Now, the second term I mentioned, "using" which refers to, stopping others from using the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
Agian, a problem, how do you stop others from using the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#)?
Because, I cant imagine how anyone could even play your game without "using" your game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#), so that part of a patent seems to even contradict the purpose for getting one on game mechanics(1d20+mod vs. T#).
Then we have the word "selling", this is so others cant sell your invention/game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
And (agian) how do you "sell" an idea[process] like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#)?
I guess you can put the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) into a physical object, like books, or cards, etc., but then your selling a common object and not a new invention.
Note the term "primarily". That is not an exclusive term which indicates that it can only be an industrial or technical process. A new process for playing a game is still a process that may be patented.
Ok, so as I just pointed out, the patent stops people from using your process. Now why would you want a patent that stops people from "using"/or "playing" with, your inventive game mechanic (1d20+mod vs. T#).
Do you understand that the patent stops people (including players) from "using" your inventive patented process?
A new and improved manner of playing a game is not just an idea.
What is manufactured by the idea[process] of the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#)?
Mudbunny, your reply has nothing to do with the facts presented.
I'm asking, how do you stop others from "making" your patented game mechanic(1d20+mod. vs. T#)? Honestly, I can't figure out what sort of material is used for "making" an invention like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
Not to be flip, but the law prevents someone from doing so. If, hypothetically speaking, WotC designs a radically new mechanic for playing an RPG that is determined to be patentable. According to the law(s) that cover patents, people are not permitted to use the invention (in this case, the new mechanic) without first acquiring a licence from WotC.
My opinion is that a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) is an idea, it is not somthing that you, or others can make into a product. A game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) can be presented in a product (like cards, a board, a book, or software program).
That is why it would be *incredibly* difficult to get a patent for something related to RPGs. The basic mechanics are all so similar that any new innovation tends to be modifications of the basic (roll dice, add modifiers, compare against target number) mechanic in pretty much all RPGs.
Also, some of those products (which present new game mechanics), can still be new and inventive, if the "products"(not ideas) are inventive enough (like MtG, Monopoly, Pop-up books etc); But just including an idea[process] like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) in those products, absolutly will not make those products a new invention.
Based on the way that patents work, an old product that has been modified to include a new mechanic that is deemed to be inventive *may* be inventive.
Now, the second term I mentioned, "using" which refers to, stopping others from using the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
Agian, a problem, how do you stop others from using the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#)?
Because, I cant imagine how anyone could even play your game without "using" your game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#), so that part of a patent seems to even contradict the purpose for getting one on game mechanics(1d20+mod vs. T#).
I want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying. You are implying that if someone has a patent on a (using the same example) a game mechanic, that people who purchase the game would not be able to use it?? Patents don't work that way at all. Patents prevent others from manufacturing or selling a product that includes that mechanic. End-users are automatically given a license to use (use in the "play" sense, not the "make and sell" sense) the mechanic when they purchase the product.
I have said it before, and I will repeat it again. Patents, both in how they are described, as well as the law surrounding it uses very specific language that has very specific meanings that are often dramatically different from what the common, every day language means.
Then we have the word "selling", this is so others cant sell your invention/game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#).
And (agian) how do you "sell" an idea[process] like a game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#)?
I guess you can put the game mechanic(1d20+mod vs. T#) into a physical object, like books, or cards, etc., but then your selling a common object and not a new invention.
The law says otherwise.
Ok, so as I just pointed out, the patent stops people from using your process. Now why would you want a patent that stops people from "using"/or "playing" with, your inventive game mechanic (1d20+mod vs. T#).
Do you understand that the patent stops people (including players) from "using" your inventive patented process?
As I pointed out above, you are not using the word "using" in the proper manner.
Patents don't work that way at all. Patents prevent others from manufacturing or selling a product that includes that mechanic. End-users are automatically given a license to use (use in the "play" sense, not the "make and sell" sense) the mechanic when they purchase the product.
Your suggesting, I meant that people could not "use" the product. When I was actually pointing out people could not "use" the process.
Its a fact that you can get a patent on a new "process", but the purpose of the patent is to stop others from "using" that process.
The USPTO clearly states a patent "excludes others from making, using, or selling the invention".
So the when a "process"(not a "product") is invented (or discovered), and then patented, no one else can "use" that "process".
Do you understand how a patent stops people from using a process?
Your suggesting, I meant that people could not "use" the product. When I was actually pointing out people could not "use" the process.
Its a fact that you can get a patent on a new "process", but the purpose of the patent is to stop others from "using" that process.
The USPTO clearly states a patent "excludes others from making, using, or selling the invention".
So the when a "process"(not a "product") is invented (or discovered), and then patented, no one else can "use" that "process".
Do you understand how a patent stops people from using a process?
Let me try this again from the top:
- Company XYZ invents an amazing new RPG mechanic (Mechanic X) and decides to get it patented.
- They patent it, the USPTO decides that it is an invention and issues a patent for Mechanic X.
- Company XYZ publishes an RPG with Mechanic X.
- People who buy the RPG are permitted to, in the process of playing the RPG, use mechanic X.
- Competitors to Company XYZ are not permitted to use Mechanic X in any RPGs that they produce for as long as the patent is in force unless they obtain a licence from Company XYZ.
Let me try this again from the top:
- Company XYZ invents an amazing new RPG mechanic (Mechanic X) and decides to get it patented.
- They patent it, the USPTO decides that it is an invention and issues a patent for Mechanic X.
- Company XYZ publishes an RPG with Mechanic X.
- People who buy the RPG are permitted to, in the process of playing the RPG, use mechanic X.
- Competitors to Company XYZ are not permitted to use Mechanic X in any RPGs that they produce for as long as the patent is in force unless they obtain a licence from Company XYZ.
Ok, I have called the USPTO 1-800# and talked to a patent specialist.
He told me that publications, are only covered by copyright law, and absolutly not covered by patent law.
I was also told that, yes you can publish your process/method game mechanic, but the book you publish (w/ the process) is absolutly not covered by the patent, and would be covered by copyright protection instead.
So, when it comes to publishing RPG books with game mechanics, you are only protected by copyright law.
And, even though we have already discussed the whole rules vs expression thing quite abit, I really wouldnt mind a little more clarification on those "grey areas".
And, perhaps my next call will be to the USPTO copyright specialist.Ok, I have called the USPTO 1-800# and talked to a patent specialist.
He told me that publications, are only covered by copyright law, and absolutly not covered by patent law.
I was also told that, yes you can publish your process/method game mechanic, but the book you publish (w/ the process) is absolutly not covered by the patent, and would be covered by copyright protection instead.
I have never said anything different.
So, when it comes to publishing RPG books with game mechanics, you are only protected by copyright law.
The books would be covered by copyright. The mechanic in the book that is patented would be covered by patent law.
The books would be covered by copyright. The mechanic in the book that is patented would be covered by patent law.
Yes, and according to copyright law anyone can restate your process in their own words and publish it. So what is the point of the patent?
Yes, and according to copyright law anyone can restate your process in their own words and publish it. So what is the point of the patent?
Patents aren't covered by Copyright Law, they are covered by Patent Law and Patent Law does not permit others to use your invention without your permission for as long as the patent is valid.
A few points about your "Pac-Man" article:
- It's a simple article for laymen, not an authoritative legal document. The author is giving a broad overview. Her final advice (below) is totally unrelated to your point.
- You depict the author as a "well-respected gamer" while omitting to mention that she *only* discusses video games. Not mostly or primarily. Only.
- The article does not say that copyright protection for code in any way contravenes the law. She in fact states that the law protects source code. You are freely mixing your personal beliefs with the words of other authors.
Let's take this one at a time.
1. I've never said that it was a legal document. I said it very well explained the differerence between what is a rule and what is an expression, and it does.
2. If you go back to my original post, I pointed out that the article linked discussed video games. She does NOT only discuss video games as a quick google search will confirm.
3. I never said that she made that claim. I was making the same point that Cadfan does above by saying that code is fundamentally instructions but precedence and ultimately the law got modified so that code is totally protected anyway.
Let's look at specifics from here:
Even an arrangement of unoriginal elements is protected. A work that consists of many things that are not by themselves unique is still protected, according to your source.
I never said otherwise for RPGs or any other game. You just think I have in your imagination.
Note that she did not say that you can slap a new coat of paint on Pac-Man and distribute it. She said that the idea, in very broad terms, is not protectable. If you want to apply this to RPGs, a game in which you tell stories about fantasy characters and roll dice to determine outcomes is not protectable.
Again you trot out your tired old strawman. I never said you could just just slap on a new coat of paint on a game and market it as your own. I challenge you to find where I have said otherwise ANYWHERE!
ETA: Almost forget- here's the actual point of the article you linked:
Anyway, if someone posts, say, power cards or character sheets containing D&D power, class, and feat names verbatim, that someone is no longer in the obvious safe zone of developing a game based on the same concept. A concept and its execution are different things, and using the same concept does not mean naming everything identically. With or without WotC's trademarks and trade dress, this is risky behavior. I'm not even saying it's clearly illegal, but your source is far from calling it legal.
It does not constitute naming all things identially nor did I say that it did. In the case of DnD, however, I strongly suspect you're wrong. As long as the format were distinict and you avoided trademarks you should be AOK (but do consult a lawyer). "Fighter" is not trademarkable in this instance. Nor are many feat names, etc. Others have already explained why. Also I never said my source called it legal. In this case even if it were illegal the problem would almost certainly be trademark rather than copyright just as I said.
Let's go back to an illuminating passage from Baker v. Selden:
The opinion rendered emphasizes that *even in the case of a brief manual of rules or instructions* another author cannot reprint a material part of the work. How exactly does that apply to RPGs, since "material part" is likely an arbitrary thing? We don't know, but the law doesn't say what you want it to.
Again you trot out your strawman. I NEVER SAID you could reprint copyrighted material.
[u] NEVER [/u]
The second emphasized sentence points out that using an idea practically is everyone's right. Exactly how this latter doctrine applies to RPGs is far from clear in any source that I have found or that you have provided. There's even a chance you're right for once, but we may not find out until someone copies a material part of 4e (without also infringing on trademarks or marketing the game as D&D!), gets taken to court, and wins several appeals, possibly even culminating in a Supreme Court case. A part of me wonders if you want someone to read your posts and think that WotC couldn't possibly win such a case.
Kenzer seems to think it's clear enough.
-Polaris
Patents aren't covered by Copyright Law, they are covered by Patent Law and Patent Law does not permit others to use your invention without your permission for as long as the patent is valid.
Correct, but a book is not an invention.
But Mechanic X *is* an invention, thus Company ABC couldn't simply put it in a book without the permission of Company XYZ.
Sure they can, because you published the process in a book, anyone can legally restate your method in thier own words and publish a new book.
You have some *serious* misconceptions, wrong ideas and lack of knowedge about Patents, how they work, what they do and what they prevent *others* from doing that I fear makes explaining why you are wrong an impossible task.
No they can't. Patents don't work that way. Just putting Mechanic X in a book doesn't automatically make it no longer a Patent. It is still a Patent, and Patent Law still applies to it. In order to write an RPG containing Mechanic X, Company ABC would have to strike a licensing deal with Company XYZ for permission to use Mechanic X.
You have some *serious* misconceptions, wrong ideas and lack of knowedge about Patents, how they work, what they do and what they prevent *others* from doing that I fear makes explaining why you are wrong an impossible task.
Ill try agian.
People are not creating/or selling your mechanic X, they are creating another book about the mechanic X and selling the book (not your invention/method). And according to copyright law doing that is perfectly legal.
Do you understand that people are not selling your game mechanic(idea/process) they are selling a book(product)?
And there is no patent that could stop someone from creating and selling their own book.
I think "tapping" makes a good example. WotC has a patent on the mechanic of "tapping" a card in a card game. They can most certainly describe that mechanic in the rules for the game, and players of the game most certainly can tap a card while playing. Another company, though, cannot come along and include tapping in their game - even though WotC published how to tap a card in the instruction manual for Magic: the Gathering.
Ill try agian.
People are not creating/or selling your mechanic X, they are creating another book about the mechanic X and selling the book (not your invention/method). And according to copyright law doing that is perfectly legal.
Do you understand that people are not selling your game mechanic(idea/process) they are selling a book(product)?
And there is no patent that could stop someone from creating and selling their own book.
Let me try one last time with a different example before I stop pounding my head against a brick wall.
You invent a hardware dongle that allows for DSL transmission speeds over phone lines and patent it.
You package it in a nice case and sell it.
The people that buy it are allowed to use it.
Competitors, on the other hand, are not allowed to use your invention, without your permission, in their products unless they have signed a license with you.
Mechanic X is treated the same way.
Company XYZ can develop an RPG containing Mechanic X.
People can purchase and play with the RPG containing Mechanic X.
Company ABC can publish a book discussing how Mechanic X has revolutionized and made all other RPGs obsolete.
Company RPG cannot publish their own RPG containing Mechanic X.
would a only patent only apply restrictions when Mechanic X is would be sold by another Company?
What if Company ABC distributes open-source software that uses Mechanic X?
Would it make a difference if it was a was a individual rather than a Company?
I guess my real question is,
Does the patent matter if no money is being made?
Let me try one last time with a different example before I stop pounding my head against a brick wall.
You invent a hardware dongle that allows for DSL transmission speeds over phone lines and patent it.
You package it in a nice case and sell it.
The people that buy it are allowed to use it.
Competitors, on the other hand, are not allowed to use your invention, without your permission, in their products unless they have signed a license with you.
Mechanic X is treated the same way.
Company XYZ can develop an RPG containing Mechanic X.
People can purchase and play with the RPG containing Mechanic X.
Company ABC can publish a book discussing how Mechanic X has revolutionized and made all other RPGs obsolete.
Company RPG cannot publish their own RPG containing Mechanic X.
You can stop if you want. Ive already proven that anyone can publish a book about anything they want(including game mechanic X); and no patent can stop them.
If you can show me a patent that can stop someone from publishing a book about any process (mechanic X), I will believe it truly can be done. But until then I have to believe its just not possible. (no offense)
Ofcourse you can still say it is possible all you want to, but you just cant prove it.
It has nothing to do with printing the game mechanics either or about charging or not charging. Near as I can tell, the real issue is trademark protection and Ema did violate (again near as I can tell) Wotc's trademark...
3. I think this sets a real bad and unfortunately precedent. I would be taking the other side of this had Ema not violated Wotc's trademark, but it looks to me like they did...and Wotc IMHO took advantage to extend that to control over things they don't have control over (Game Mechanics and Instructions) which is a very unfortunate predent, but the one to blame here is Ema for not crossing his legal 'T's' and dotting his legal 'I's' first.
You repeat the same key point many times later on as well. Notice the emphasis? You claim that the only actionable thing here is the trademark issue. You say that posting powers, feats, classes, skills, etc isn't a problem as long as you don't call it D&D.
But that's false, as you've presented it. What you may be able to claim is that you can get away with this if you rename everything. Rolling dice against target numbers to deal damage, move the enemy, and inflict conditions is a concept that is certainly unprotected. Levels, experience points, powers (as a concept), feats (again, as a concept), and so on are unprotected. If that is really all you are thinking, it certainly doesn't seem that way from what you posted.
As I posted above from *your article*, an arrangement of unoriginal elements (Tide of Iron, Reaping Strike, Eladrin, Paragon Tier, Hammer Rhythm, and so on) may be protected. Glossing over that point is really irresponsible, because someone could get himself in trouble for believing you. When you post this stuff, you need to make it abundantly clear that hundreds of identically-named game elements may constitute a "material portion" of a work. That's copyright infringement, even if you don't call your work D&D.
Let's take this one at a time.
1. I've never said that it was a legal document. I said it very well explained the differerence between what is a rule and what is an expression, and it does.
No. The article discusses video games. It does not clearly define rule versus expression for RPGs. If it does and I missed it, post a quote that does what you say it does. Don't just say to reread the Pac-Man example, because it doesn't say what you think it says.
2. If you go back to my original post, I pointed out that the article linked discussed video games. She does NOT only discuss video games as a quick google search will confirm.
Find something in that article that discusses RPGs. If you have other supports for your point, link them rather than telling us that we should research your sources.
3. I never said that she made that claim. I was making the same point that Cadfan does above by saying that code is fundamentally instructions but precedence and ultimately the law got modified so that code is totally protected anyway.
I strongly doubt that Cadfan is saying any of that, but I'll let him correct you. Nice try though.
Again you trot out your tired old strawman. I never said you could just just slap on a new coat of paint on a game and market it as your own. I challenge you to find where I have said otherwise ANYWHERE!
Heh, I didn't have to wait so long for you to do it, again:
It does not constitute naming all things identially nor did I say that it did. In the case of DnD, however, I strongly suspect you're wrong. As long as the format were distinict and you avoided trademarks you should be AOK (but do consult a lawyer). "Fighter" is not trademarkable in this instance. Nor are many feat names, etc. Others have already explained why. Also I never said my source called it legal. In this case even if it were illegal the problem would almost certainly be trademark rather than copyright just as I said.
Again, you claim that because individual elements are unoriginal, the law does not protect them. It doesn't matter how common Fighter or Cleave or Weapon Focus may be. An arrangement of unoriginal elements is protected, according to your source. Publishing or posting the same arrangement is not something a person can clearly get away with.
It may be possible to post some elements of D&D without getting in trouble. For example, if I make an original game that has some identically-named elements, I doubt WotC can do anything. If I post nothing but identically-named elements of D&D books (even with rules text paraphrased and shortened), that is quite different.
Please stop saying that others are supporting you. If someone else disagrees with me, that person can tell me. If you can find a quote that elegantly dispels my falsehoods, by all means post it. Otherwise you are just making an appeal to popularity.
Finally, what exactly is Kenzer doing that is relevant here? I've heard some things about them making books that reference 4e concepts, but I haven't heard that they are publishing anything like what Ema or the power-card guy did. Their new Kingdoms of Kalamar product is clearly for use with 4e, but it does not reprint the contents of any other books.
I have a question mudbunny,
would a only patent only apply restrictions when Mechanic X is would be sold by another Company?
What if Company ABC distributes open-source software that uses Mechanic X?
Would it make a difference if it was a was a individual rather than a Company?
I guess my real question is,
Does the patent matter if no money is being made?
As far as I understand, patents restrict all use of the patented process/design/etc. by anyone, anywhere, at any time, unless the user has a license to use the patented thing. If you, at home, created a light bulb using a patented design, and the patent owner caught wind of it, AFAIK they can tell you to cease production and/or sue you, etc.
Actually no, look at the Cyber-knight trademark Role Playing Games are apparently in the trademark offices considered its own industry, so to compete you have to have a 'cleave' that is referenced often in RPGs, not just fantasy literature.
You don't understand, I'm afraid.
A word has a meaning. If you are using a word to mean its meaning, you cannot trademark it.
So in short, I cannot trademark the use of the name of a genus of some obscure species which no one talks about online if what I'm referring to is that genus. So in short, if I was selling some obscure species of creature, and I named my company after that creature, I'd not be able to own a trademark on it because I'm referring to that creature.
I ask you, should the game mechanic[process] presented, require the excluding of others from "makeing" "using" and "selling" the invention[process]?
Yes... if it was novel. If it was the first time anyone had ever done that, it would be patentable.
Problem is, its not novel, and therefore not patentable.
Another question for you, does the game mechanic[process] presented, fit one of these two catagories?
Read the sentence again, as clearly you failed to do so the first time. It doesn't have to be an industrial or technical process to be patentable. "Primarily" doesn't mean "Only".
Note that they have a patent on tapping, which is not an industrial or technical process.
Last question, would you concider the game mechanic[process] presented, an idea, or somthing manufactured from that idea?
Yes, the gameplay is fashioned out of the mechanic.
3. And trademarking something doesn't mean you own the words in the trademark. It means you own the right to use them to refer to a good or service that a customer might confuse with your own. The bar for whether confusion might occur is pretty low. But there has to be use refering to the source of a good or service. I don't infringe on your trademark if I say, "here, have an orange," and give you an orange colored spherical fruit. I might not infringe on your trademark if I have a company called Orange Meat Packing, since meat packing and ISPs are very far apart. I might not infringe on your trademark if your company operates solely in New York, and my Orange company operates solely in California (the internet is making that one tougher). But I'd probably infringe if I create Orange Computer Support, operating in a similar region as you. A consumer might be confused about whether the two Orange companies, both offering computer services in their region, were in some way related. There'd be a danger of me receiving your technical support calls, and other crossed wires. You'd probably have a claim.
Perhaps ironically, there is, in fact, an Orange ISP, and an Orange hardware support company.
He told me that publications, are only covered by copyright law, and absolutly not covered by patent law.
You don't understand at all I'm afraid.
You don't patent the publication. You patent the process. A publication which describes the process would be protected by copyright, but the process itself is protected by a patent.
In short, what I've patented is not the written steps for producing my novel cancer cure, but the process by which I produce my novel cancer cure.
You understand not even the most basic aspects of what you're asking about.
The reason people cannot copy your process is because you own a patent on it.
People are not creating/or selling your mechanic X, they are creating another book about the mechanic X and selling the book (not your invention/method). And according to copyright law doing that is perfectly legal.
You should read this again. And again. And again. And again. See the problem?
That's right, it doesn't matter what copyright law says. Just because it is legal under copyright law does not mean it is legal in general.
What you're saying is the exact same thing as saying "Copyright law doesn't make it illegal to kill someone. Therefore, murder is legal."
Its a completely nonsensical statement. What is preventing you from publishing that isn't copyright law, but patent law.
Its just that simple.
I have a question mudbunny,
would a only patent only apply restrictions when Mechanic X is would be sold by another Company?
What if Company ABC distributes open-source software that uses Mechanic X?
Would it make a difference if it was a was a individual rather than a Company?
I guess my real question is,
Does the patent matter if no money is being made?
Whether the patent is being used by another company for profit or not, it doesn't matter. Company XYZ has complete control [1] over whether or not to allow other people to use the invention.
[1]There are some situations in which a company can be forced by the government (at least under Canadian Law) to license their invention out to other companies, but those are fairly few and far in between.
You don't patent the publication. You patent the process. A publication which describes the process would be protected by copyright, but the process itself is protected by a patent.
Well agian, how does the patent stop others from describing that method in a book and selling it? I mean, really the publisher never even needs to use the process (game mechanicX) when writting about it, publishing it, or profiting from their own book about it.
I am sorry to tell you this, but your free to call the USPTO and they will explain, that patents dont cover publications or whats written in them, and that a process/method described in a publication are explicitly covered by copyright law.
And I'll say it agian, show me a patent on a process/method, that stops someone from creating a book, and describing that process/method in their own words then selling that book, and then I will believe you. Until then I can't believe you (no matter how much I want to), because its never been done, and never will be.
Well agian, how does the patent stop others from describing that method in a book and selling it? I mean, really the publisher never even needs to use the process (game mechanicX) when writting about it, publishing it, or profiting from their own book about it.
Nothing is preventing anyone from describing the process. The patent does not prevent someone from doing that. Indeed, the process is public record.
The catch is you aren't allowed to use the process without the permission of the patent holder. So you couldn't use the patented process in your game.
I can describe the patent for load-screen minigames. I cannot, however, make a load-screen minigame without the permission of the patent holder (or a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the patent on load-screen minigames). Same thing applies here. You could describe the patent, but you couldn't use it.
However, the LAWS surrounding copyrights, patents and trademarks are what stop people from simply copying it.
You say that you are a game designer. If you publish something, what is to prevent people from simply re-typing it and selling it as their own? Copyright law.
The same is for a patent holder. Patent law, and the rights given to patent holders prevents others from using the patent the way that they want.
The catch is you aren't allowed to use the process without the permission of the patent holder. So you couldn't use the patented process in your game.
As I stated, the publisher doesnt even need to use the process/method, to write about it. The process/method can easily be discribed with new wording and then published without breaking any laws.
And BTW, the people using the patented process/method in thier "game" are the people actually playing a game with it, they are not the ones writing about it.
As I stated, the publisher doesnt even need to use the process/method, to write about it. The process/method can easily be discribed with new wording and then published without breaking any laws.
Patent laws don't work that way.
And BTW, the people using the patented process/method in thier "game" are the people actually playing a game with it, they are not the ones writing about it.
You really have absolutely no idea how patents work.
TD explained it to you above, I explained it to you above, yet you continue to hold to your mistaken idea of how patents work despite that. I am not sure if you are being stubborn in your belief that, despite several people telling you that you are wrong and giving detailed explanations, you are right, or if you are deliberately misunderstanding to stir things up.
Patent laws don't work that way.
You really have absolutely no idea how patents work.
TD explained it to you above, I explained it to you above, yet you continue to hold to your mistaken idea of how patents work despite that. I am not sure if you are being stubborn in your belief that, despite several people telling you that you are wrong and giving detailed explanations, you are right, or if you are deliberately misunderstanding to stir things up.
Mudbunny, you still havnt proven that a patented process/method, can not be reworded into a new published product. If you can not find an example of a patent that does so, I will not believe its possible.
Its really that simple.
As I stated, the publisher doesnt even need to use the process/method, to write about it. The process/method can easily be discribed with new wording and then published without breaking any laws.
The process/method can be described using the language in the US patent database, too.
The problem is that you're not catching the issue. You keep glitching out.
Patent law is not copyright law, and copyright law is not patent law.
Mudbunny, you still havnt proven that a patented process/method, can not be reworded into a new published product. If you can not find an example of a patent that does so, I will not believe its possible.
Wording is completely irrelevant. Patents do not protect words. What they protect is usage. Words may be used to describe what is patented, but what is patented is not words, but rather what is described by those words.
Words can never, ever be patented.
If you use a patented process, you violate my patent. It doesn't matter what words you use. Words are completely irrelevant.
What matters is that you used my patented process. That is the violation. It dosen't matter how you change verbage. What matters is whether or not you use the patented process.
If I produce a product which incorporates your patented product, for me to sell that product I must have your approval. If I do not have your approval, then I cannot sell that product.
You have this bizzare notion that patent law protects verbage. It does nothing of the sort.
And yes, you did, in fact, use my process in the production of your game, because your game is built using my process. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, because patents don't care about "dress". So long as you use my patented process, you are violating my IP rights.
Patents are completely different from copyrights and trademarks. You seem to think they protect words, but they don't.
Not being able to simply reword Mechanic X into something else to get around the law preventing you from using the patent is part of the basic nature of a patent!!
Patents are not copyright, except for the basic idea that they both are methods of protection of intellectual property. The idea that you appear to have gotten from copyright (whether it is true or not I don't know) that you can simply rewrite it in your own words to get around copyright has no comparable equivalent in Patents.
The barrier to entry for copyright vs that for a patent (hint - A patent is much, much harder to get), combined with the fact that it would be almost impossible to get a patent for anything covering an RPG means that most RPG stuff will be covered by TM, Copyright or a combination of the two.
You say that you are a game designer. If you publish something, what is to prevent people from simply re-typing it and selling it as their own? Copyright law.
My own game designs are derived from, or conceived as public domain, so most dont qualify for copyright. Also, they are not designed to be commercially published products.
The games I design are supposed to be shared, not owned. Some examples of games I use mechanics from might include, sports(baseball, tennis, boxing, olympics), gambling (roulette, bingo, craps), or childrens games (hide'n seek, tic-tac-toe, cops and robbers, etc.).
Here is your original post, shortened for emphasis:
You repeat the same key point many times later on as well. Notice the emphasis? You claim that the only actionable thing here is the trademark issue. You say that posting powers, feats, classes, skills, etc isn't a problem as long as you don't call it D&D.
What part of "as far as I know" did you miss emwasick. You are continually presenting a strawman as my position and I am asking you, nicely, once to stop it. I am NOT SAYING and I have NEVER said that you can blatently copy someone else's work....and the post you quote doesn't say that either. I invite the rest of you to read my original post. I never say that you can copy a game and get away with it and say the opposite many times.
But that's false, as you've presented it. What you may be able to claim is that you can get away with this if you rename everything. Rolling dice against target numbers to deal damage, move the enemy, and inflict conditions is a concept that is certainly unprotected. Levels, experience points, powers (as a concept), feats (again, as a concept), and so on are unprotected. If that is really all you are thinking, it certainly doesn't seem that way from what you posted.
No it's not false the way I've presented it. It might be false the way you misrepresent it. The fact is that most feat names are not trademarkable. Read the rest of this thread. Basically a descriptive trademark that uses a common-use term is not a valid trademark. In any event, I did say that Wotc has ema dead to rights on trademark anyway. However, rewording and resculpting powers is probably OK. In addition character sheets (unless they use the exact form) are seem to fall prety plainly in the realm of instructions and thus aren't protected. Now, if ema DID use the exact same words that Wotc did, then maybe, but it was my understanding that this wasn't the case. Again, I was very careful to note all of this was to the best of my personal knowledge.
As I posted above from *your article*, an arrangement of unoriginal elements (Tide of Iron, Reaping Strike, Eladrin, Paragon Tier, Hammer Rhythm, and so on) may be protected. Glossing over that point is really irresponsible, because someone could get himself in trouble for believing you. When you post this stuff, you need to make it abundantly clear that hundreds of identically-named game elements may constitute a "material portion" of a work. That's copyright infringement, even if you don't call your work D&D.
I never said that is wasn't. The claim that was made was that "cleave" was trademarked and frankly it probably isn't (neither is strength). I have also said that you should invest in an IP lawyer not once but multiple times. Again, you not only mispresent my position but you then get into arms about what you think I say rather than what I do. Nice.
No. The article discusses video games. It does not clearly define rule versus expression for RPGs. If it does and I missed it, post a quote that does what you say it does. Don't just say to reread the Pac-Man example, because it doesn't say what you think it says.
The basic laws for games are the same for video games, RPGs, and boardgames with the exception that code is considered fully protected by copyright. If you do a simple google under her name, you will find other articleds.
Find something in that article that discusses RPGs. If you have other supports for your point, link them rather than telling us that we should research your sources.
"G" in RPG stands for Game. Think about it.
I strongly doubt that Cadfan is saying any of that, but I'll let him correct you. Nice try though.
Read his posts about trademarks. He explains the difference in types of trademarks quite well.
Heh, I didn't have to wait so long for you to do it, again:
Again, you claim that because individual elements are unoriginal, the law does not protect them. It doesn't matter how common Fighter or Cleave or Weapon Focus may be. An arrangement of unoriginal elements is protected, according to your source. Publishing or posting the same arrangement is not something a person can clearly get away with.
Read Cadfan's past posts on trademarks. "Fighter" when used to describe something that has the same or very similiar meaning in common use can not be used as a descriptive trademark anymore than "Racing Car" can be used as a trademark for a new model car. My article quite clearly states this.
It may be possible to post some elements of D&D without getting in trouble. For example, if I make an original game that has some identically-named elements, I doubt WotC can do anything. If I post nothing but identically-named elements of D&D books (even with rules text paraphrased and shortened), that is quite different.
That depends. In any event I am NOT suggesting NOR condoning people making DnD clones. What I AM saying is that as long as you stick with the bare-bones rules and derive your own expression froim them, current IP law gives you a lot of leeway. More than you seem to want to admit.
Please stop saying that others are supporting you. If someone else disagrees with me, that person can tell me. If you can find a quote that elegantly dispels my falsehoods, by all means post it. Otherwise you are just making an appeal to popularity.
I am asking you to read what others post. I don't care how popular my position is. I happen to know that I am correct. I also know that being correct isn't always enough to keep you out of court so again I say that before anyone does anything remotely questionable, get the advice of an IP attorney that YOU pay for (a lawyer you don't pay doesn't work for you).
Finally, what exactly is Kenzer doing that is relevant here? I've heard some things about them making books that reference 4e concepts, but I haven't heard that they are publishing anything like what Ema or the power-card guy did. Their new Kingdoms of Kalamar product is clearly for use with 4e, but it does not reprint the contents of any other books.
What Kenzer is doing is extremely relevant. Kenzer is making 4E compatible materials using 4E rules without any licensing agreement whatsoever using the very legal principles I have been stating all along. The fact this is possible indicates that GSL needs to be a lot more lenient than it is (because IP law for games permits so much more than other forms of creative expression). Again you trot out your strawman. I have NEVER SAID that you can reprint the content of other books. Quite the reverse. I do say that the game mechanical content of those books isn't in of itself protected, though.
-Polaris
My own game designs are derived from, or conceived as public domain, so most dont qualify for copyright. Also, they are not designed to be commercially published products.
Protip: Something derived from public domain is not public domain.
Cinderella is public domain. Disney's Cinderella is not.
That depends. In any event I am NOT suggesting NOR condoning people making DnD clones. What I AM saying is that as long as you stick with the bare-bones rules and derive your own expression froim them, current IP law gives you a lot of leeway. More than you seem to want to admit.
What you're saying is wrong, though. That's the point.
I don't think you can divest the rules of D&D enough from the copyrighted material to publish a written book using its mechanics without violating copyright. It might be possible to translate it into another medium without violating their copyrights, assuming you didn't use their text.
This is not to say you couldn't build a game using some of the same concepts as D&D.
The fact this is possible indicates that GSL needs to be a lot more lenient than it is (because IP law for games permits so much more than other forms of creative expression).
The GSL allows you to do some things that Kenzer is not allowed to do.
What you're saying is wrong, though. That's the point.
I am not wrong and that is the point. If you can divest your game of all the expression in DnD and keep the rules, then you are good to go. This IS correct as you de-facto admit below. I am not encouraging people to try. Merely indicating that it is hypothetically possible....and because of that, there is a lot more lattitude for game supplemental material w/o a license than some (IMHO) Wotc shills want to admit.
I don't think you can divest the rules of D&D enough from the copyrighted material to publish a written book using its mechanics without violating copyright. It might be possible to translate it into another medium without violating their copyrights, assuming you didn't use their text.
That's nice, but by saying it this way, you aren't saying I am wrong. In fact you are saying the opposite. You question whether or not it's possible. Frankly it doesn't matter BECAUSE (going by your second sentence), if I can derive a supplement only from the actual mechanical rule then I should be OK (but of course you'd want to check with a lawyer to be sure).
This is not to say you couldn't build a game using some of the same concepts as D&D.
...and by extension you can build entire lines of 4E campatible game supplements without a license as well.
The GSL allows you to do some things that Kenzer is not allowed to do.
Very little when you get right down to it. The big advantage is that the GSL allows you to use Wotc's trademarked label and I question how big an advantage that really is.
-Polaris
That's nice, but by saying it this way, you aren't saying I am wrong. In fact you are saying the opposite. You question whether or not it's possible. Frankly it doesn't matter BECAUSE (going by your second sentence), if I can derive a supplement only from the actual mechanical rule then I should be OK (but of course you'd want to check with a lawyer to be sure).
I'm saying you're wrong because you couldn't republish a 4th edition book. Creating supplemental rules is a different bag of chips altogether.
...and by extension you can build entire lines of 4E campatible game supplements without a license as well.
Possibly. You have to be careful not to violate their copyrights or trademarks (the latter being a bigger danger, I think), and hope the law doesn't change, a ruling doesn't put you in a suable position, and that some suit at Hasbro doesn't look at your operation and say "Hm, are they violating my IP? Maybe I should have our lawyers find out."
Very little when you get right down to it. The big advantage is that the GSL allows you to use Wotc's trademarked label and I question how big an advantage that really is.
Well, if I have the choice between (company I and no one else has ever heard of) and (company I have bought stuff from, and enjoyed sufficiently to purchase more stuff to go with what I bought from them), which am I, Joe Schmoe, going to choose?
And you do have other advantages as well, including but not limited to the fact that you know that WotC won't sue you, and that you don't have to be quite as careful about referencing their IP.
I'm saying you're wrong because you couldn't republish a 4th edition book. Creating supplemental rules is a different bag of chips altogether.
I never said you could. In fact I've said the opposite. It was Emwasick that was selling that strawman. However on this thread I was talking about game supplemental material made by emass.
Possibly. You have to be careful not to violate their copyrights or trademarks (the latter being a bigger danger, I think), and hope the law doesn't change, a ruling doesn't put you in a suable position, and that some suit at Hasbro doesn't look at your operation and say "Hm, are they violating my IP? Maybe I should have our lawyers find out."
Frankly there isn't enough money in RPGs for the law to change at this point. It's a sad but sorry to say accurate assessment of the hobby as it stands in 2009.
Well, if I have the choice between (company I and no one else has ever heard of) and (company I have bought stuff from, and enjoyed sufficiently to purchase more stuff to go with what I bought from them), which am I, Joe Schmoe, going to choose?
You might be suprised. From the annecdotal evidence I am hearing (and it's annecdotal because all companies view sales data as proprietary and understandably so), there doesn't seem to be much brand-name loyalty for "Wotc Approved" or any other 4E supplemental material (per Chris Pramas). In any event the GSL prevents you from putting Wotc's logo in a place where a casual shopper is most likely to see it (the spine of the book).
Either way, the logo advantage doesn't seem to be all that great.
And you do have other advantages as well, including but not limited to the fact that you know that WotC won't sue you, and that you don't have to be quite as careful about referencing their IP.
You don't really know any such thing. The GSL is revise at-will and burn-at-will and the only way you get a 6 mo selloff is if YOU chose to opt out. If Wotc changes the GSL and then say you are in violation, then you are responsible for knowing in advance and you are up a brown smelly creek without a paddle. That didn't change so I don't see a huge advantage to the GSL. Corporations (any coporation) are not known for management stability.
-Polaris
I never said you could. In fact I've said the opposite. It was Emwasick that was selling that strawman. However on this thread I was talking about game supplemental material made by emass.
Okay.
Frankly there isn't enough money in RPGs for the law to change at this point. It's a sad but sorry to say accurate assessment of the hobby as it stands in 2009.
Oh right, you think the industry is in trouble.
Ahahaha. I'd forgotten about that. Its doing no worse than it ever was.
Anyway, no. In many ways it actually makes it easier, because there's no one to oppose them. WotC owns the market, and if they felt they were threatened, they could probably fairly easily get it through because there's no one to counter them.
You might be suprised. From the annecdotal evidence I am hearing (and it's annecdotal because all companies view sales data as proprietary and understandably so), there doesn't seem to be much brand-name loyalty for "Wotc Approved" or any other 4E supplemental material (per Chris Pramas). In any event the GSL prevents you from putting Wotc's logo in a place where a casual shopper is most likely to see it (the spine of the book).
There's a lot of brand loyalty for WotC, really, given that third party materials is actually banned by many, many, many groups.
And uh, the spine of the book is the place where the casual shopper is MOST likely to see the logo, at least at the places -I- purchase such books. I typically see them put spine-side-out, especially random books produced by people who aren't Wizards of the Coast. As such, anyplace -other- that the spine would make it less likely to be noticed. The spine is often the first and last thing you see when grabbing a book at many bookstores and hobby shops.
If I'm just casually shopping, and I see a bunch of books with WotC logos on them, and I've never heard of them, I'm far more likely to pick them up, thinking "Hm, I've not seen this book before." Now, most people will probably quickly realize it isn't made by WotC, but some people might decide to buy it anyway because they at least looked at it, whereas the random other book in the shelf is probably for some other game they don't play anyway.
You don't really know any such thing. The GSL is revise at-will and burn-at-will and the only way you get a 6 mo selloff is if YOU chose to opt out. If Wotc changes the GSL and then say you are in violation, then you are responsible for knowing in advance and you are up a brown smelly creek without a paddle. That didn't change so I don't see a huge advantage to the GSL. Corporations (any coporation) are not known for management stability.
Which makes it far better to sign the GSL. After all, if you don't, who knows what the new management might do to you, a guy who is producing a product for their game without a license!
Oh right, you think the industry is in trouble.
Ahahaha. I'd forgotten about that. Its doing no worse than it ever was.
That's totally false. We've been through the numbers publically available before. The fact is that MMOs are tearing a great big hole in the RPG gaming community. WOTC clearly believes this and is acting on it even if you aren't.
For that matter Wotc isn't wrong either. You clearly didn't experience the high water mark of RPGs during the mid 1980s.
Anyway, no. In many ways it actually makes it easier, because there's no one to oppose them. WotC owns the market, and if they felt they were threatened, they could probably fairly easily get it through because there's no one to counter them.
Not really. That's because Wotc would still have to find enough cases and file enough lawsuits to change precedence and that takes money and if the money isn't there, then why bother. It seems to me that Wotc is trying to move DnD more and more (and eventually entirely) into a purely on-line environment where the rules are written by code which IS protected rather than dead-trees where there are significant holes. I also think Wotc is doing this because the online subscription model is more likely to make better profit with less overhead and because MMO subscribers are used to the model. Again this is just my opinion, but it's based on what I've observed to date.
There's a lot of brand loyalty for WotC, really, given that third party materials is actually banned by many, many, many groups.
Yes, loyalty to WOTC but not to products carrying the GSL logo. There is a difference. A company that is using Wotc's logo as allowed by the GSL is still a 3pp and as such their stuff (by your own admission) is still likely not welcome at the table, GSL or no. Thus for a 3PP the GSL logo seems to be an iffy investment at best.
And uh, the spine of the book is the place where the casual shopper is MOST likely to see the logo, at least at the places -I- purchase such books. I typically see them put spine-side-out, especially random books produced by people who aren't Wizards of the Coast. As such, anyplace -other- that the spine would make it less likely to be noticed. The spine is often the first and last thing you see when grabbing a book at many bookstores and hobby shops.
Yes and the SPINE is one place the GSL DOESN'T let you put the logo. that was my point.
If I'm just casually shopping, and I see a bunch of books with WotC logos on them, and I've never heard of them, I'm far more likely to pick them up, thinking "Hm, I've not seen this book before." Now, most people will probably quickly realize it isn't made by WotC, but some people might decide to buy it anyway because they at least looked at it, whereas the random other book in the shelf is probably for some other game they don't play anyway.
Except it's not. See above. 3PP 4E compatible products don't seem to benefit from the logo near as I can tell.
Which makes it far better to sign the GSL. After all, if you don't, who knows what the new management might do to you, a guy who is producing a product for their game without a license!
Nope. Copyright law is what it is (at least until changed or revised which takes a MAJOR effort). Corporate policy can change in five minutes. I know what I'd view as more reliable.....and it's not corporate policy (or the GSL). That was why the OGL was written the way it was....to keep future corporate policy from mucking it up. I guarantee that Wotc would rescind the OGL if they could.
-Polaris
That's totally false. We've been through the numbers publically available before. The fact is that MMOs are tearing a great big hole in the RPG gaming community. WOTC clearly believes this and is acting on it even if you aren't.
Yes, we have, and they... showed you wrong.
For that matter Wotc isn't wrong either. You clearly didn't experience the high water mark of RPGs during the mid 1980s.
I clearly haven't had my recollection of the 1980s tainted by nostalgia. Golden age syndrome FTL.
That's because Wotc would still have to find enough cases and file enough lawsuits to change precedence and that takes money and if the money isn't there, then why bother.
Uh, I don't think you really understood what I was saying. I wasn't saying for them to change precendence. I was saying for them to lobby congress. Congresspeople do, in fact, listen to their constituents. Many people do not believe this, but they really do care what the voters think.
If they felt that there was a problem, that'd be the correct course of action, I think. No reliance on the courts that way, and much cheaper.
It seems to me that Wotc is trying to move DnD more and more (and eventually entirely) into a purely on-line environment where the rules are written by code which IS protected rather than dead-trees where there are significant holes.
Paranoia strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep~
Let's see... signs this has happened?
Um, none?
People like their dead trees, and with good reason.
Yes and the SPINE is one place the GSL DOESN'T let you put the logo. that was my point.
I totally misread your statement. Apologies.
Except it's not. See above. 3PP 4E compatible products don't seem to benefit from the logo near as I can tell.
That's pretty much impossible to determine.
Nope. Copyright law is what it is (at least until changed or revised which takes a MAJOR effort). Corporate policy can change in five minutes. I know what I'd view as more reliable.....and it's not corporate policy (or the GSL). That was why the OGL was written the way it was....to keep future corporate policy from mucking it up. I guarantee that Wotc would rescind the OGL if they could.
Not really, no. People don't agree on your interpretation of it.
People are lawsuit happy, which is why, I think, they're unlikely to randomly revoke the GSL - fear of lawsuits. Conversely, some random unlicensed company is far more likely to get in the crosshairs of some random suit who wants to polish his rep and a lawyer who thinks he can win.
And yes, obviously they would rescind the OGL if they could. The OGL was a bad idea.
Yes, we have, and they... showed you wrong.
On the contrary, it showed that after a brief d20 boomlet in the early 2000s, the gaming market has been on an increasing decline. Far from being the joke they used to be, MMOs now completely dwarf the tabletop rpg market (to the point now that a person on the street is just as likely to call an MMO an "RPG" as an actual tabletop RPG).
I clearly haven't had my recollection of the 1980s tainted by nostalgia. Golden age syndrome FTL.
Approximate RPG market in the 1980s was about 30 million dollars give or take (that was EGG's best estimate...and TSR's). By recent years it had gone down to (by best estimates by Chris Pramas and others) down to about 10 million and that's with a total gaming market considerably larger (an order of magnitude larger AT LEAST if you include MMO gaming....and that's a conservative estimate). So yes both absolutely and relatively, RPGs have been in decline and have been so for a long time....but recent years have been particularly bad.*
*Edit: This isn't even taking inflation into account. Do that, and the picture is even grimmer.
Uh, I don't think you really understood what I was saying. I wasn't saying for them to change precendence. I was saying for them to lobby congress. Congresspeople do, in fact, listen to their constituents. Many people do not believe this, but they really do care what the voters think.
Which right now wouldn't likely make it on the top 1000 things to do by congress and those congress critters most likely to back Wotc are those that are out of power.
If they felt that there was a problem, that'd be the correct course of action, I think. No reliance on the courts that way, and much cheaper.
We are talking about the same US Congress, right? Cheap, fast, and easy are not three things I'd ascribe to this congress or any other.
Paranoia strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep~
Let's see... signs this has happened?
Um, none?
People like their dead trees, and with good reason.
DND Insider and the Developers logs and others. Pay attention.
That's pretty much impossible to determine.
I did say annecdotally, but I am not seeing a huge rush by 3PPs to milk the 4E cow. That's quite different from 3E/OGL/d20.
Not really, no. People don't agree on your interpretation of it.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
People are lawsuit happy, which is why, I think, they're unlikely to randomly revoke the GSL - fear of lawsuits. Conversely, some random unlicensed company is far more likely to get in the crosshairs of some random suit who wants to polish his rep and a lawyer who thinks he can win.
And yes, obviously they would rescind the OGL if they could. The OGL was a bad idea.
OGL was a bad idea? Green Ronin, Mongoose, Midnight (Fantasy Flight Games), Mutants and Masterminds, etc were all bad ideas? I remember a time not too long ago where Wotc was very happy with these products and others because it helped their own system.
As for why Wotc changed, I can only guess that Hasbro put people in charge of certain offices in Wotc that aren't gamers and aren't gamer friendly. There did seem to be a strong movement within Hasbro/Wotc for NO GSL license at all.
-Polaris
On the contrary, it showed that after a brief d20 boomlet in the early 2000s, the gaming market has been on an increasing decline.
It shows no such thing, I'm afraid. This is what is known as you reading what you want to read into the numbers, rather than analyzing them.
What it shows is that sales in hobby stores have declined since the release of 3e, but were low pre-3e as well. So rather than a decline, what we actually see, most strongly, is a strong correlation between the release of a new edition of D&D, and a sales spike. Sales were low with an "old edition", they spiked with 3e out, then they dropped off, hitting a nadir after 4e was announced.
Another very plausible explanation is "people buy more books online now", which is demonstrably true, and also neatly fits with the data - online book sellers increasingly grabbed market share over the same time period, so it is very difficult to draw much of a conclusion at all as far as the sales even really declining all that much.
Far from being the joke they used to be, MMOs now completely dwarf the tabletop rpg market (to the point now that a person on the street is just as likely to call an MMO an "RPG" as an actual tabletop RPG).
The problem is, there's no evidence that MMOs hurt the RPG industry, and according to our only source of data about RPG gamers, their numbers have increased rather than decreased since the late 1990s.
Of course, you deny this with every fiber of your being because you hate to be wrong. But you are, and have been ever since you started down this path.
By recent years it had gone down to (by best estimates by Chris Pramas and others) down to about 10 million and that's with a total gaming market considerably larger (an order of magnitude larger AT LEAST if you include MMO gaming....and that's a conservative estimate). So yes both absolutely and relatively, RPGs have been in decline and have been so for a long time....but recent years have been particularly bad.*
*Edit: This isn't even taking inflation into account. Do that, and the picture is even grimmer.
Except for the part where they're pretty much entirely imaginary numbers.
Which right now wouldn't likely make it on the top 1000 things to do by congress and those congress critters most likely to back Wotc are those that are out of power.
Not really, no. Democrats are just as likely to support that sort of thing.
We are talking about the same US Congress, right? Cheap, fast, and easy are not three things I'd ascribe to this congress or any other.
You just stick it on a bill in horse trading.
DND Insider and the Developers logs and others. Pay attention.
Exactly! Apart from the fact that they've explicitly denied the fact that they're getting rid of dead tree format, there's also this little detail called "D&D Insider still doesn't have the programs it needs, there isn't even an ETA on them, and Gleemax died a dog's death."
I did say annecdotally, but I am not seeing a huge rush by 3PPs to milk the 4E cow. That's quite different from 3E/OGL/d20.
Shocking. Its almost like WotC didn't just give away the game this time.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
No, but it doesn't mean you're making a sensible argument, given your argument is based on people sharing your views on copyright laws.
OGL was a bad idea?
Absolutely. It was a terrible idea, and pretty much everyone who is a competent businessperson will tell you so. Why was it a terrible idea?
Because, quite simply put, it did nothing for WotC.
As for why Wotc changed, I can only guess that Hasbro put people in charge of certain offices in Wotc that aren't gamers and aren't gamer friendly. There did seem to be a strong movement within Hasbro/Wotc for NO GSL license at all.
Ah yes, the conspiracy theory of the GSL, which was disproven by the existance of the GSL.
Your predictive accuracy approaches 0%, so I'm not really sure why you think people are going to believe you have a crystal ball.
Let me try one last time with a different example before I stop pounding my head against a brick wall.
You invent a hardware dongle that allows for DSL transmission speeds over phone lines and patent it.
You package it in a nice case and sell it.
The people that buy it are allowed to use it.
Competitors, on the other hand, are not allowed to use your invention, without your permission, in their products unless they have signed a license with you.
Mechanic X is treated the same way.
Company XYZ can develop an RPG containing Mechanic X.
People can purchase and play with the RPG containing Mechanic X.
Company ABC can publish a book discussing how Mechanic X has revolutionized and made all other RPGs obsolete.
Company RPG cannot publish their own RPG containing Mechanic X.
You know, its probably a code of conduct violation to say this, and I probably shouldn't say it to a senion volunteer community leader, but I definitely don't agree with the code of conduct on this issue and I'm going to say it anyways.
I'm about 99.996% certain that you can't convince him because he's really just winding you up for fun.
I totally haven't followed your conversation. But I did a search for my name, and saw your referring to it, and read that part.
Yes, I am saying that computer code is fundamentally just a series of procedural instructions, but its copyrightable anyways under some rather tenuous theories of law that, in my opinion, came about because the patent system was ill equipped to serve the needs of the computer programming industry, while the copyright system works reasonably well.
This opinion is not that rare amongst people who study intellectual property. I didn't make it up, I got it from a text book. Its not universally held, but its definitely not an unusual point of view. Its easy to see why, if you look at the history of intellectual property law and programming. There was a lot of confusion for a while, with no one being quite sure how to define a computer program, until congress stepped in and made everything official.
No it's not false the way I've presented it. It might be false the way you misrepresent it. The fact is that most feat names are not trademarkable. Read the rest of this thread. Basically a descriptive trademark that uses a common-use term is not a valid trademark. In any event, I did say that Wotc has ema dead to rights on trademark anyway. However, rewording and resculpting powers is probably OK. In addition character sheets (unless they use the exact form) are seem to fall prety plainly in the realm of instructions and thus aren't protected. Now, if ema DID use the exact same words that Wotc did, then maybe, but it was my understanding that this wasn't the case. Again, I was very careful to note all of this was to the best of my personal knowledge.
It's been said a few times that Ema used the exact names of things, which was my whole point from the start. That's why I thought you were wrong for saying initially that trademark was the only issue. I'm a little skeptical that you didn't know this, since it was posted multiple times on the first page of the thread, sometimes even by folks who dislike 4e:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17798967&postcount=9
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17799321&postcount=12
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17807349&postcount=26
These are not the only examples. Anyway, I assumed everyone knew this by page 10. No one posted that he wasn't using the names of powers. He may have paraphrased some text, but that isn't much help when you use all the names. He apparently did the same thing with 3.5 material, posting the contents of splatbooks not in the SRD.
I never said that is wasn't. The claim that was made was that "cleave" was trademarked and frankly it probably isn't (neither is strength). I have also said that you should invest in an IP lawyer not once but multiple times.
Yeah, I don't know why that guy said that stuff about trademarks. Anyway, my issue with what you're saying here is the emphasis you put on things. This business of, "I'M RIGHT because laws and lawyers say so! But you should check with an attorney, who will tell you I'm RIGHT and you are AOK to do stuff like ema did," puts a lot of emphasis in the wrong place.
As someone advising caution in this matter, I can say that I think what Ema did will always get you a C&D and that you should probably talk to a lawyer. I'm not telling anyone to stick his neck out. You are telling people to stick their necks out, and you apparently didn't even read the first page of the thread well enough to find out what you are endorsing. If my best guess is wrong, the misplaced confidence I have won't prompt anyone to screw himself over. If your best guess is wrong, the misplaced confidence you have will.
The basic laws for games are the same for video games, RPGs, and boardgames with the exception that code is considered fully protected by copyright. If you do a simple google under her name, you will find other articleds.
She doesn't say that the laws are the same and she doesn't say anything about Pac-Man that has a clear analogue to RPG publishing. And for the last time, please stop telling people to prove your point. That's not how this goes.
Read his posts about trademarks. He explains the difference in types of trademarks quite well.
He doesn't say anywhere I can see that anyone was "conned" into a "contravention" of the law. He simple says what the law is, just like your article does. That was the point I disagreed with and that you claimed backing on. Cadfan, if I misunderstood you, please tell me.
Read Cadfan's past posts on trademarks. "Fighter" when used to describe something that has the same or very similiar meaning in common use can not be used as a descriptive trademark anymore than "Racing Car" can be used as a trademark for a new model car. My article quite clearly states this.
You are evading my point. I haven't said a word about trademarks, nor have I said that "Fighter" is original or protectable. I have said that the hundreds of unoriginal elements in 4e together probably create a distinctive work in the eyes of the law. Writing a game with fighters is not the issue. "Writing" a game with every character creation rule in the 4e PH is.
That depends. In any event I am NOT suggesting NOR condoning people making DnD clones. What I AM saying is that as long as you stick with the bare-bones rules and derive your own expression froim them, current IP law gives you a lot of leeway. More than you seem to want to admit.
I've said repeatedly that anyone can make a game and base it on the same concept. Since Ema didn't do anything remotely like that, he got a C&D.
What Kenzer is doing is extremely relevant. Kenzer is making 4E compatible materials using 4E rules without any licensing agreement whatsoever using the very legal principles I have been stating all along. The fact this is possible indicates that GSL needs to be a lot more lenient than it is (because IP law for games permits so much more than other forms of creative expression). Again you trot out your strawman. I have NEVER SAID that you can reprint the content of other books. Quite the reverse. I do say that the game mechanical content of those books isn't in of itself protected, though.
Kenzer is making a 4e supplement outside the GSL, yes. Kenzer is marketing original content as a 4e-compatible product that requires purchase of the 4e rules. Kenzer's books not only do not replace the 4e books, they require them.
Ema made a web-page that gave you all the needed info for character creation, if his past customers are to be believed. Using his product makes purchase of 4e materials unnecessary for some people.
Can you see that these aren't the same at all? Neither uses the GSL, true. But Kenzer is writing supplements its own way, while Ema was putting the contents of existing works on the web. Kenzer is *referring to* the content of 4e books, while Ema was simply *selling* a portion of that content.
It's been said a few times that Ema used the exact names of things, which was my whole point from the start. That's why I thought you were wrong for saying initially that trademark was the only issue. I'm a little skeptical that you didn't know this, since it was posted multiple times on the first page of the thread, sometimes even by folks who dislike 4e:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17798967&postcount=9
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17799321&postcount=12
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17807349&postcount=26
Actually the posts you quote don't support the claim that Emass used the exact (or nearly exact) description or names of things. At best (for you) the last one claims that emass probably went too far. I invite everyone else to read the posts for their own.
Thus what I said was true. To the best of my knowledge the issue was trademark rather than copyright per se.
These are not the only examples. Anyway, I assumed everyone knew this by page 10. No one posted that he wasn't using the names of powers. He may have paraphrased some text, but that isn't much help when you use all the names. He apparently did the same thing with 3.5 material, posting the contents of splatbooks not in the SRD.
You might be able to use the names, however. We've been through that. As for paraphrasing, there are only so many ways to describe the same mechanical rule. I am not going to say whether Emass did or did not step over the line, but really it's irrelevant because I've already said that Wotc has Emass dead to rights on trademark law. Also if what you say is true about the SRD/3.5 then the natural question arises of why Wotc didn't react before this? I think it bodes ill for 3pp and fan support.
Again, your quotes don't prove what you think they do.
Yeah, I don't know why that guy said that stuff about trademarks. Anyway, my issue with what you're saying here is the emphasis you put on things. This business of, "I'M RIGHT because laws and lawyers say so! But you should check with an attorney, who will tell you I'm RIGHT and you are AOK to do stuff like ema did," puts a lot of emphasis in the wrong place.
Tough bannanas. You are deliberately misreprententing my position and I am asking you to stop.
As someone advising caution in this matter, I can say that I think what Ema did will always get you a C&D and that you should probably talk to a lawyer. I'm not telling anyone to stick his neck out. You are telling people to stick their necks out, and you apparently didn't even read the first page of the thread well enough to find out what you are endorsing. If my best guess is wrong, the misplaced confidence I have won't prompt anyone to screw himself over. If your best guess is wrong, the misplaced confidence you have will.
Stop misrepresenting my position. I have never told anyone to stick their neck out. I challenge you to find any post where I say that. (You can not.). As for always getting a C+D, clearly not. After all if I am to believe you, Emass was in violation for years and never drew a C+D until just now....so clearly you aren't correct here.
She doesn't say that the laws are the same and she doesn't say anything about Pac-Man that has a clear analogue to RPG publishing. And for the last time, please stop telling people to prove your point. That's not how this goes.
Role-Playing GAME. The IP laws for games are the same be they board games, computer games, or RPGs (except that code is fully protected by copyright).
He doesn't say anywhere I can see that anyone was "conned" into a "contravention" of the law. He simple says what the law is, just like your article does. That was the point I disagreed with and that you claimed backing on. Cadfan, if I misunderstood you, please tell me.
Cadfan affirmed what I said which was that IP precedent (and MUCH latter actual law) on code got changed using some very novel legal theories. See the post above yours.
You are evading my point. I haven't said a word about trademarks, nor have I said that "Fighter" is original or protectable. I have said that the hundreds of unoriginal elements in 4e together probably create a distinctive work in the eyes of the law. Writing a game with fighters is not the issue. "Writing" a game with every character creation rule in the 4e PH is.
I have never said that DnD 4E wasn't protectable. There you go with your strawman argument again. I am saying the RULES for DnD 4E aren't protectable NOR are the mechanics....and they aren't. That has huge implications for game support material.
I've said repeatedly that anyone can make a game and base it on the same concept. Since Ema didn't do anything remotely like that, he got a C&D.
More to it, however. You can create support material using only copyright and Ema does (try) to do that. This is why Kenzer is relevant.
Kenzer is making a 4e supplement outside the GSL, yes. Kenzer is marketing original content as a 4e-compatible product that requires purchase of the 4e rules. Kenzer's books not only do not replace the 4e books, they require them.
Ema made a web-page that gave you all the needed info for character creation, if his past customers are to be believed. Using his product makes purchase of 4e materials unnecessary for some people.
Using someone else's book or character builder on DDI also makes the purchase of a book unnecessary for some people. Tough beans. That's the way it's always been in the RPG industry. Ema making character sheets and such is clearly game support material just as Kenzer's stuff is clearly game support material. In principle (per Kenzer) you can use staight IP law if you take the appropriate cautionary steps (which Ema did not do with regard to trademark at the very least).
Can you see that these aren't the same at all? Neither uses the GSL, true. But Kenzer is writing supplements its own way, while Ema was putting the contents of existing works on the web. Kenzer is *referring to* the content of 4e books, while Ema was simply *selling* a portion of that content.
Game supplements both. I am not seeing the difference.
-Polaris
Actually the posts you quote don't support the claim that Emass used the exact (or nearly exact) description or names of things. At best (for you) the last one claims that emass probably went too far. I invite everyone else to read the posts for their own.
Thus what I said was true. To the best of my knowledge the issue was trademark rather than copyright per se.
I used the site and it was definitely a violation of copyright and possibly trademark as well. He used nearly the exact wording from the books.
You might be able to use the names, however. We've been through that. As for paraphrasing, there are only so many ways to describe the same mechanical rule. I am not going to say whether Emass did or did not step over the line, but really it's irrelevant because I've already said that Wotc has Emass dead to rights on trademark law. Also if what you say is true about the SRD/3.5 then the natural question arises of why Wotc didn't react before this? I think it bodes ill for 3pp and fan support.
What Ema did was use WotC's rules and descriptions without their permission. It really doesn't matter if WotC felt it was a violation of copyright (which it was) or stepping on their trademark (which is may have been). There is nothing wrong with WotC asking him to take down the offending material. There is nothing that 3pp or fans need to worry about. There are ways for everyone to create supplemental material for their favorite game(s). Ema went about it the wrong way.
Tough bannanas. You are deliberately misreprententing my position and I am asking you to stop.
Why should he? It seems to be fair game from you. Of course we can go back and see what Wrecan asked of you. He asked the same thing and you refused.
Stop misrepresenting my position. I have never told anyone to stick their neck out. I challenge you to find any post where I say that. (You can not.). As for always getting a C+D, clearly not. After all if I am to believe you, Emass was in violation for years and never drew a C+D until just now....so clearly you aren't correct here.
You have said this many times. You also seem to have a penchant for doing exactly what you ask others to stop doing. Kinda sucks when it happens to you doesn't it?
More to it, however. You can create support material using only copyright and Ema does (try) to do that. This is why Kenzer is relevant.
Ema didn't try to do that. Ema simply released WotC's rules in his own format without permission. Kenzer is creating new rules for use with the old rules. There is a significant difference.
Game supplements both. I am not seeing the difference.
Because you refuse to. Honestly there is a huge difference. For someone who likes to nip pick, I can't see how you don't see the differences.
Other than that, thanks.
The barrier to entry for copyright vs that for a patent (hint - A patent is much, much harder to get), combined with the fact that it would be almost impossible to get a patent for anything covering an RPG means that most RPG stuff will be covered by TM, Copyright or a combination of the two.
I agree.
Hey Bob, I can't tell if you were merely saying so for rhetorical purposes, but do you think I am misrepresenting Polaris' position here? I realize there are some epistemological issues with this question. But if someone else actually thinks I'm beating up a strawman, I'll gladly stop. I'm not even disagreeing with him wholeheartedly so much as I'm trying to point out that he's projecting way too much certainty with way too little evidence/expertise.
Other than that, thanks.
I don't think you are completely misrepresenting his position. I do think that there are some points that he makes and they get lost in the discussion. A couple points he has said several times, such as not advocating publishing WotC's material without permission and seeking the advice of an attorney, seem to get lost in the other points that he tries to make.
I do think that this whole thread has gone on way to far and is now just nit picking. What Ema did was illegal in at least one way and possibly more. WotC asked him to remove the offending material. His ISP decided to remove all the material. That's really all the information we have. Everything else is purely speculation.
The tangents about inventions, trademarks, etc are not really significant contributions. I'm sure that someone can come up with a new idea for a game mechanic and get it patented. I'm also sure that someone can come up with a way to express that mechanic and get it trademarked. I'm also sure that someone can put it in writing to secure a copyright. It may not be easy but I doubt that it can't be done at all.
My point to Polaris was that he is taking offense at exactly the same thing he was doing to wrecan. Whether or not you were misrepresenting his position is not really relevant. I was just pointing out his hypocrisy in this instance.
I actually have learned quite a bit from wrecan and mudbunny and would like them to continue. I know that it is difficult sometimes for a variety of reasons. I just liked their input.
Let me just add my two cents (to keep the ball rolling):
Just because you (WotC) are well within your right to act like a prick (sending a C&D to Ema) doesn't mean you have to. Neither does it help in making new friends. A lot of people like you less after this, and the rest are "neutral" at best, and refer to your "right to be pricks", so I'd say you end up on the negatvie side here.
That's all.
/wolf
Wow... long thread. I read some of it (the first couple of pages where it still made sense).
Let me just add my two cents (to keep the ball rolling):
Just because you (WotC) are well within your right to act like a prick (sending a C&D to Ema) doesn't mean you have to. Neither does it help in making new friends. A lot of people like you less after this, and the rest are "neutral" at best, and refer to your "right to be pricks", so I'd say you end up on the negatvie side here.
That's all.
/wolf
So asking someone to stop distributing your material without permission is being a prick? Honestly, you would fail as a businessman. It is very important for a business to protect it's IP. They simply asked Ema to take down the offending material. Not all the material, only the offending material.
One related comment, however-
So asking someone to stop distributing your material without permission is being a prick? Honestly, you would fail as a businessman. It is very important for a business to protect it's IP. They simply asked Ema to take down the offending material. Not all the material, only the offending material.
Didn't they "ask" with a C&D? Asking someone to take down the offending material by contacting them directly is different than sending a C&D to an OSP. Under U.S. law, OSPs are legally required to take certain courses of action once they receive a C&D that meets statutory requirements. The international nature of this complaint makes things just that much more complex. There's a polite way to ask, and there's a hammer.
Sending a C&D is likely easier and probably makes "business sense" to the legal branch, and removing all of the material rather than taking the time to remove specific materials probably makes "business sense" to the service provider- but good business does not excuse behavior, in my opinion.
Didn't they "ask" with a C&D? Asking someone to take down the offending material by contacting them directly is different than sending a C&D to an OSP. Under U.S. law, OSPs are legally required to take certain courses of action once they receive a C&D that meets statutory requirements. The international nature of this complaint makes things just that much more complex. There's a polite way to ask, and there's a hammer.
Actually a CnD holds no legal obligations at all, to an ISP or otherwise, there are consequences for not following it, but a CnD is mostly to establish a legal proof of an attempt at compliance and a paper trail.
Sending a C&D is likely easier and probably makes "business sense" to the legal branch, and removing all of the material rather than taking the time to remove specific materials probably makes "business sense" to the service provider- but good business does not excuse behavior, in my opinion.
Actually, their behavior was perfectly fine. Ema himself has said so (Its lost now like way about on page 5 or so), its the entitlement that rabid fans of the industry have thats out of line.
Actually a CnD holds no legal obligations at all, to an ISP or otherwise, there are consequences for not following it, but a CnD is mostly to establish a legal proof of an attempt at compliance and a paper trail.
Actually, their behavior was perfectly fine. Ema himself has said so (Its lost now like way about on page 5 or so), its the entitlement that rabid fans of the industry have thats out of line.
Under U.S. law, Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides OSPs (online service providers) a safe harbor from infringement due to actions taken by their users/customers if the OSPs comply with certain conditions. One such condition is a response to remove allegedly infringing materials when given valid notice (as from a cease and desist that meets requirements provided in 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)). Failure to comply with the provision results in a loss of the safe harbor.
I think that "entitlement that rabid fans of the industry" paints those concerned with a bit too broad of a brush. I believe there are some legitimate concerns with industry behavior that can't be excused by profit-motive. I also feel that this isn't a problem unique to this industry.
Regarding WotC, I'm not putting the group in copyright hall of shame for this particular action just yet; their concern was appropriate given the known circumstances. I just think they could have gone about it better, and I believe that their communication and behaviors could improve.
I'm staying out of the legal argument- at some point sharing perspectives about copyright and related issues becomes moot. Attorneys who specialize in copyright will disagree on particular interpretations.
Fair enough. Copyright law is full of gray.
One related comment, however-
Didn't they "ask" with a C&D? Asking someone to take down the offending material by contacting them directly is different than sending a C&D to an OSP. Under U.S. law, OSPs are legally required to take certain courses of action once they receive a C&D that meets statutory requirements. The international nature of this complaint makes things just that much more complex. There's a polite way to ask, and there's a hammer.
Sending a C&D is likely easier and probably makes "business sense" to the legal branch, and removing all of the material rather than taking the time to remove specific materials probably makes "business sense" to the service provider- but good business does not excuse behavior, in my opinion.
Ema hasn't shown us the exact C&D so we don't know how it was worded but in general the C&D is the polite way of handling the situation. WotC could have just had some attorneys give him a subpoena and deal with it that way. By asking first, they are able to explain their position and ask that the offender change. The hammer would have been a subpoena.
As for the ISP taking the whole site down, I think that was a bit heavy handed. I don't even think it was good business sense. Ema's site wasn't a secret and had been referenced here on the boards for many years just for his character sheets. WotC obviously didn't have a problem with everything he did. The ISP over reacted.
Fair enough. Copyright law is full of gray.
Ema hasn't shown us the exact C&D so we don't know how it was worded but in general the C&D is the polite way of handling the situation. WotC could have just had some attorneys give him a subpoena and deal with it that way. By asking first, they are able to explain their position and ask that the offender change. The hammer would have been a subpoena.
As for the ISP taking the whole site down, I think that was a bit heavy handed. I don't even think it was good business sense. Ema's site wasn't a secret and had been referenced here on the boards for many years just for his character sheets. WotC obviously didn't have a problem with everything he did. The ISP over reacted.
Heh. I'd say there's a range of actions that I'm too tired to come up with the appropriate tool analogies (power drills? sledge hammers?). The cease and desist isn't the most harsh, that's true. Beyond the subpoena, they could have simply sued for infringement. Less than the cease and desist, they could have contacted Ema prior to taking any kind of legal action. But fair enough.
I'm really going to be interested in how they deal with fan sites in the future, to provide some context here.
I'm really going to be interested in how they deal with fan sites in the future, to provide some context here.
I would like to see this as well. Knowing where the line is would be nice. There are some things that are going to be easy (generic character sheets, maps, etc) but as people write adventures or create more tools we may see some problems pop up.
Its the way out that makes it feel manipulative, though. If you get a C&D, you're likely to interpret it this way: "We believe you are infringing. We have the right to sue you. And we will. And it will really, really suck for you. If you don't want us to sue you, stop infringing. Now. Failure to comply will result in us suing you. Failure to comply to our standards will result in us suing you. So comply."
But if you're the one sending the C&D, you might mean it more like this: "We have the right to sue you. And we will if we have to. But if you stop infringing we won't. That's only fair, you don't infringe, we don't sue, and we let bygones be bygones."
Its particularly terrifying if you, the recipient, has no idea whether you're infringing or not, or to what extent you're infringing. That can make you feel like you should take down the whole site rather than risk it.
And of course the C&D will never specify exactly what you should remove, for fear of missing something and wrecking their chances if it comes to a lawsuit, or accidentally requesting that valid material be removed and incurring legal consequences for threatening a lawsuit over non infringing material. So the C&D will phrase things more generally. "You have material that infringes on our intellectual property. Take it down."
All in all, the use of a C&D is almost always the least-bad option available. The informal phone call is just legal suicide because it puts you at risk of saying the wrong thing, or worse, being falsely accused of having said the wrong thing. Any letter that boils down to "stop infringing on our stuff" is going to be functionally a C&D, and therefore should be done properly under the law.
However, I do disagree with you on one point. The C&C probably did contain detailed information on what was infringing. That way Ema would know exactly what was infringing. Otherwise, you get into differences of opinion, which leads to confusion, which you don't want to have in a court case.
Yup. Part of the deal with a patent is that, for the life of the patent, the patent holder holds the exclusive right to determine how the invention is used (if it is used at all). However, once the patent has expired, it becomes public domain, free for anyone to use.
Walt Disney is changing law in this respect for Copyright and Trademarks. I should say that their lawyers are pushing legislation in Congress (and got some passed) that have change the limits. It used to be a much shorter time but now is for longer than most of our lifetimes. Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse in protected status instead of it reverting to public use.
Not to say Walt Disney is the sole lobbyer for this, but it is a part of why the law is becoming more and more restrictive and constraining. Movies can't have a Coke (TM) bottle in the scene without permission, nor have music playing on the radio in the background without paying royalties. Sad.
Ok, I want to add to this discussion. What does copyright/patent/trademark law say about Plagiarism?
I don't understand the question.
Ok, I want to add to this discussion. What does copyright/patent/trademark law say about Plagiarism?
Again the caution: IANAL
As I understand it Plagiarism is an academic term (and violation) and not a legal one in of itself. Plagiarism of course is the crediting of yourself for someone else's research or work. In many cases, this will violate IP law (most likely copyright or patent), but copyright doesn't protect ideas so I don't think that US IP laws protect against or address Plagiarism specifically.
I am quite prepared to be proven wrong on this point, that that's basically what I learned when I was writing papers in grad school and beyond.
-Polaris
[indent]Plagiarism
[indent]The act of copying any portion of another's work and representing it as your own, regardless of whether or not the work is copyrighted or in the public domain. It is unethical to do so, and if a copyrighted work is involved it can also be an infringement of property rights. There are many style guides available that provide instructions for properly crediting and referencing other's works when incorporated into your own. A word of caution -- simply reworking the text when the concept is clearly lifted from another's work can still be plagiarism. [/indent][/indent]
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office:
[indent]Plagiarism
[indent]The act of copying any portion of another's work and representing it as your own, regardless of whether or not the work is copyrighted or in the public domain. It is unethical to do so, and if a copyrighted work is involved it can also be an infringement of property rights. There are many style guides available that provide instructions for properly crediting and referencing other's works when incorporated into your own. A word of caution -- simply reworking the text when the concept is clearly lifted from another's work can still be plagiarism. [/indent][/indent]
*ding*
So the use of the rules by "unlicensed" electronic programs, such as Character Generators or Web Page Character Sheets, is, to Wizards, considered Plagiarism. The only 4th edition Character Generator (called a "builder") is the one on DDi.
I don't see where the confusion is on this issue.
*ding*
So the use of the rules by "unlicensed" electronic programs, such as Character Generators or Web Page Character Sheets, is, to Wizards, considered Plagiarism. The only 4th edition Character Generator (called a "builder") is the one on DDi.
I don't see where the confusion is on this issue.
Um, did you read the part you quoted. Essentially wrecan posted a link that confirmed what I suspected. Plagiarism in of itself is not forbidden by IP law (although I certainly agree it's unethical). Unethical ==/== illegal.
In many cases, plagiarism will also involve the violation of copyright (notice the verb MAY in that link) and/or patent rights, but it may not (and still be plagiarism).
At least that's my take.
-Polaris
It is unethical, to be sure, and the balded part makes it cross lines beyond a legal use of the work that was copied. The real question is if this would be the same if the text was used in a character generator (or in this case, a web character sheet). I wonder if the framework can be provided for the home user to fill in the powers and rules themselves. This is what is expected to be done with RPG Forge and Hero Lab.
Again the bolded part doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say that an act of plagiarism absolutely is in violation of copyright or other IP laws in the US. It warns you (the reader) that if you plagiarize a copyrighted work, you might be in violation. Whether you are or not is a rather complicated issue and it depends on exactly how you plagiarized.
I am not condoning it of course. Legal or not, it definately is unethical.
-Polaris
The problem is in copyright law to begin with. It, among many other human policy systems, are even more broken than 3.5...which is saying something.
Now, as things currently stand, I dunno who's in the wrong, but I think it's unfortunate that Ema has been shut down for it. I'm building my own system entirely, so I have little sympathy for WotC, as what happens to them is irelevant to me. The same is true of Ema from my perspective. Neither matters at all.
Do one favor to everyone though...leave ethics out of it. Ethics and morals are pure subjectivity with no basis in a real world. They're a purely human affectation intended solely to make the insignificant seem important...for some completely unknown and incomprehensibly stupid reason of some sort. Ethics and morals are as much a fantasy as dragons and magic. They're make-believe. Leave them out of any genuinely rational discussion.
My reason for bringing up Plagiarism is that it may be one of the central reasons Wizards has to prevent Character Generators from being made for this new edition. The confusing law concerning Patents/Copyright/Trademarks is something that has been added to over the years, but it didn't start out that way. One of the reason is that everyone wants to own ideas as inventions and clueless legislation is offered in congress to complicate the laws.
(The following is personal opinion.) I tend to believe that WOTC is cracking down so hard on non-Wotc computer support and computer accessory support because ultimately I think Wotc wants to bundle the entire IP up into a tight little package that can be sold for big profit to another company (likely a computer gaming company). It's my assessement that a critical mass in Wotc/Hasbro management no longer understand nor want to understand what it takes to put out and run a tabletop RPG (and part of that is tolerating very narrow profit margins coupled with low volume when comparied with other sorts of hobby gaming).
Anything that threatens Wotc's IP monopoly in on the computer side makes it harder to package the DnD franchise and thus makes it harder to market to other would-be buyers. That IMHO is the real reason why Wotc has gotten a lot harsher about their DnD IP.
-Polaris
Edit> Which having check Infrogames, is also unlikely, as they are losing money like a sieve.
Edit2> 2017 I was off by 3 year Linky
Just as a note Polaris, WotC/Hasbro don't have the license for DnD computer Games until it comes back from Atari (IIRC 2020 or so I would have to do some digging), so right now I don't think they are bundling up the IP to sell to a computer game company as a CGC would be looking to produce DnD computer games, and wouldn't be allowed to for a extensive period (unless they sold it to Atari I guess).
Well,
1. Whose to say they aren't considering selling it to Atari?
2. I was under the impression that the Atari License ran out quite a bit sooner than 2020. It's it's 2012 (for example...I don't know if that's true), then a mid to long range plan of the sort I am suggesting becomes quite possible.
However, you do bring up a very interesting point and I'd like to hear from our resident legal eagles about this:
At what point does DnD become interactive enough to violate Wotc's agreement with Atari? At what point does enough computer support for DnD become too much making DnD a computer game and thus in violation?
I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts/analysis on that because I am sure that consideration is also driving Wotc's current decision making.
-Polaris
Edit: 2017? That's assuming that Infogrames/Atari (which is losing money) doesn't sell the computer game back to Wotc sooner. Even if they don't, 2008 to 2017 would be about the lifetime of an edition of DnD which means that even if Atari doesn't sell it back, what I am speculating on remains very possible.
Again the bolded part doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say that an act of plagiarism absolutely is in violation of copyright or other IP laws in the US. It warns you (the reader) that if you plagiarize a copyrighted work, you might be in violation. Whether you are or not is a rather complicated issue and it depends on exactly how you plagiarized.
I am not condoning it of course. Legal or not, it definately is unethical.
-Polaris
What you want here Polaris cant be found, there isn't any place in the law where its says your limited to such and such amount of "borrowing" and any more than that amount constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is vague legal term ( not a precise one) and its alot like "obscenity" the Judges will know it when they see it (meaning they use "common" sense inquiry and comparison of the the works to determine whether not a disputed work cross over into being plagiarism and then constitutes enough of violation to be considered copyright infringement).
The courts generally frown upon obviously copying someone else work in its entirety though and your extremely unlikely to get away with it.
It all really boils down to how "blatant" and "unoriginal" the plagiarism is. The more your work resembles someone else's work the more likely the court will find against you.
Plagiarism, though is an ethical term, and all ethical problems are Gray at best.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18242436&postcount=11
Bob isn't the bad guy, but soon he may be supporting other RPG's that are more forgiving about how to make a character.
And any user that is having problems with their data can join our ListFileHelp group to make their data better or just plain work.
Just to make a couple of corrections to Thax's post, PCGen has for the past couple of unstable releases supported 4e. There's even a very generic gamemode and dataset. The problem lies in that the users will have to enter their own information for all the classes, races, equipment etc. because of both the GSL and our own policy of following publisher's wishes.
And any user that is having problems with their data can join our ListFileHelp group to make their data better or just plain work.
Thank you, I will look into using the new version.
Thank you, I will look into using the new version.
BTW I just found out that the 4e starter set isn't in the releases. It's hosted on SF in the SVN repo at http://pcgen.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pcgen/Trunk/content/notfordistribution/wizardsofthecoast/4e_starter_set/.
[indent]Plagiarism
[indent]The act of copying any portion of another's work and representing it as your own, regardless of whether or not the work is copyrighted or in the public domain. It is unethical to do so, and if a copyrighted work is involved it can also be an infringement of property rights. There are many style guides available that provide instructions for properly crediting and referencing other's works when incorporated into your own. A word of caution -- simply reworking the text when the concept is clearly lifted from another's work can still be plagiarism. [/indent][/indent]
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office:
[indent]Plagiarism
[indent]The act of copying any portion of another's work and representing it as your own, regardless of whether or not the work is copyrighted or in the public domain. It is unethical to do so, and if a copyrighted work is involved it can also be an infringement of property rights. There are many style guides available that provide instructions for properly crediting and referencing other's works when incorporated into your own. A word of caution -- simply reworking the text when the concept is clearly lifted from another's work can still be plagiarism. [/indent][/indent]
*ding*
So the use of the rules by "unlicensed" electronic programs, such as Character Generators or Web Page Character Sheets, is, to Wizards, considered Plagiarism. The only 4th edition Character Generator (called a "builder") is the one on DDi.
I don't see where the confusion is on this issue.
*ding*
So the use of the rules by "unlicensed" electronic programs, such as Character Generators or Web Page Character Sheets, is, to Wizards, considered Plagiarism. The only 4th edition Character Generator (called a "builder") is the one on DDi.
I don't see where the confusion is on this issue.
Um, did you read the part you quoted. Essentially wrecan posted a link that confirmed what I suspected. Plagiarism in of itself is not forbidden by IP law (although I certainly agree it's unethical). Unethical ==/== illegal.
In many cases, plagiarism will also involve the violation of copyright (notice the verb MAY in that link) and/or patent rights, but it may not (and still be plagiarism).
At least that's my take.
-Polaris
It is unethical, to be sure, and the balded part makes it cross lines beyond a legal use of the work that was copied. The real question is if this would be the same if the text was used in a character generator (or in this case, a web character sheet). I wonder if the framework can be provided for the home user to fill in the powers and rules themselves. This is what is expected to be done with RPG Forge and Hero Lab.
Again the bolded part doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say that an act of plagiarism absolutely is in violation of copyright or other IP laws in the US. It warns you (the reader) that if you plagiarize a copyrighted work, you might be in violation. Whether you are or not is a rather complicated issue and it depends on exactly how you plagiarized.
I am not condoning it of course. Legal or not, it definately is unethical.
-Polaris
The problem is in copyright law to begin with. It, among many other human policy systems, are even more broken than 3.5...which is saying something.
Now, as things currently stand, I dunno who's in the wrong, but I think it's unfortunate that Ema has been shut down for it. I'm building my own system entirely, so I have little sympathy for WotC, as what happens to them is irelevant to me. The same is true of Ema from my perspective. Neither matters at all.
Do one favor to everyone though...leave ethics out of it. Ethics and morals are pure subjectivity with no basis in a real world. They're a purely human affectation intended solely to make the insignificant seem important...for some completely unknown and incomprehensibly stupid reason of some sort. Ethics and morals are as much a fantasy as dragons and magic. They're make-believe. Leave them out of any genuinely rational discussion.
My reason for bringing up Plagiarism is that it may be one of the central reasons Wizards has to prevent Character Generators from being made for this new edition. The confusing law concerning Patents/Copyright/Trademarks is something that has been added to over the years, but it didn't start out that way. One of the reason is that everyone wants to own ideas as inventions and clueless legislation is offered in congress to complicate the laws.
(The following is personal opinion.) I tend to believe that WOTC is cracking down so hard on non-Wotc computer support and computer accessory support because ultimately I think Wotc wants to bundle the entire IP up into a tight little package that can be sold for big profit to another company (likely a computer gaming company). It's my assessement that a critical mass in Wotc/Hasbro management no longer understand nor want to understand what it takes to put out and run a tabletop RPG (and part of that is tolerating very narrow profit margins coupled with low volume when comparied with other sorts of hobby gaming).
Anything that threatens Wotc's IP monopoly in on the computer side makes it harder to package the DnD franchise and thus makes it harder to market to other would-be buyers. That IMHO is the real reason why Wotc has gotten a lot harsher about their DnD IP.
-Polaris
Edit> Which having check Infrogames, is also unlikely, as they are losing money like a sieve.
Edit2> 2017 I was off by 3 year Linky
Just as a note Polaris, WotC/Hasbro don't have the license for DnD computer Games until it comes back from Atari (IIRC 2020 or so I would have to do some digging), so right now I don't think they are bundling up the IP to sell to a computer game company as a CGC would be looking to produce DnD computer games, and wouldn't be allowed to for a extensive period (unless they sold it to Atari I guess).
Well,
1. Whose to say they aren't considering selling it to Atari?
2. I was under the impression that the Atari License ran out quite a bit sooner than 2020. It's it's 2012 (for example...I don't know if that's true), then a mid to long range plan of the sort I am suggesting becomes quite possible.
However, you do bring up a very interesting point and I'd like to hear from our resident legal eagles about this:
At what point does DnD become interactive enough to violate Wotc's agreement with Atari? At what point does enough computer support for DnD become too much making DnD a computer game and thus in violation?
I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts/analysis on that because I am sure that consideration is also driving Wotc's current decision making.
-Polaris
Edit: 2017? That's assuming that Infogrames/Atari (which is losing money) doesn't sell the computer game back to Wotc sooner. Even if they don't, 2008 to 2017 would be about the lifetime of an edition of DnD which means that even if Atari doesn't sell it back, what I am speculating on remains very possible.
Again the bolded part doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say that an act of plagiarism absolutely is in violation of copyright or other IP laws in the US. It warns you (the reader) that if you plagiarize a copyrighted work, you might be in violation. Whether you are or not is a rather complicated issue and it depends on exactly how you plagiarized.
I am not condoning it of course. Legal or not, it definately is unethical.
-Polaris
What you want here Polaris cant be found, there isn't any place in the law where its says your limited to such and such amount of "borrowing" and any more than that amount constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is vague legal term ( not a precise one) and its alot like "obscenity" the Judges will know it when they see it (meaning they use "common" sense inquiry and comparison of the the works to determine whether not a disputed work cross over into being plagiarism and then constitutes enough of violation to be considered copyright infringement).
The courts generally frown upon obviously copying someone else work in its entirety though and your extremely unlikely to get away with it.
It all really boils down to how "blatant" and "unoriginal" the plagiarism is. The more your work resembles someone else's work the more likely the court will find against you.
Plagiarism, though is an ethical term, and all ethical problems are Gray at best.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18242436&postcount=11
Bob isn't the bad guy, but soon he may be supporting other RPG's that are more forgiving about how to make a character.
And any user that is having problems with their data can join our ListFileHelp group to make their data better or just plain work.
Just to make a couple of corrections to Thax's post, PCGen has for the past couple of unstable releases supported 4e. There's even a very generic gamemode and dataset. The problem lies in that the users will have to enter their own information for all the classes, races, equipment etc. because of both the GSL and our own policy of following publisher's wishes.
And any user that is having problems with their data can join our ListFileHelp group to make their data better or just plain work.
Thank you, I will look into using the new version.
Thank you, I will look into using the new version.
BTW I just found out that the 4e starter set isn't in the releases. It's hosted on SF in the SVN repo at http://pcgen.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pcgen/Trunk/content/notfordistribution/wizardsofthecoast/4e_starter_set/.