At 07:40 PM 7/1/2003 -0500, woodelf wrote:While your reading seems reasonable, i disagree with this part of it: IMHO, since it can't be copyrighted, despite clause 1e of the WotC OGL, it can't be considered PI. IMHO, those things in the PI definition that cannot be protected outside of the WotC OGL are likewise not protectable with it, and should it ever be challenged will require reformation of the license.
Woodelf, I've never seen you so far off the mark.
Why would PI be limited to what copyright allows? You can agree to anything in a contract. Nowhere in the OGL does it state the PI follows the rules of copyright law. Any court that even considered PI similar to copyright would be acting outside the contract.
OK, first, i should clarify, because what you quoted [of mine] above is very sloppily worded: the above is my interpretation of how it *should* be, not necessarily how a court would rule on the matter. I *hope* a court would rule as i've stated--that, contract or no, the granting party simply doesn't have the control to grant or limit access to that material--but i've seen what's been happening, and i doubt it would occur.
You can't agree to "anything" in a contract. If you entered into a contract to buy the Empire State Building from some guy on the street, the fact that the contract is valid doesn't help the fact that he didn't have the power to sell the Empire State Buildng. My belief is that, similarly, if it ever gets to court, it will be ruled that the licensor simply doesn't have any control over some of the things that PI is allowed to be, so can neither restrict nor grant access to them, regardless of the contract. That is certainly how a contract involving physical property would be ruled; i'm not sure the same principles would be held true WRT IP.
As far as i'm concerned, PI just extends the protections of copyright into OGC
No, no, no. Don't compare PI to copyright and/or trademark. It is only what the OGL says it is. Just because it has analogous behavior to trademarks or copyright does not mean that the laws of those things makes an iota of difference. Unless the OGL said : treat PI as copyright, there's no reason for a court to make that leap of logic.
I hadn't thougt of it like that. Obviously, this is a contract. I guess it just seemed reasonable that, since the license is built on top of copyright, it gains its authority from copyright (and, to a far lesser extent, trademark). But that's a good point--maybe, as a contract, it's actual authority comes from other legal sources, and copyright only comes into play WRT OGC and violations. Nonetheless, it seems a bit bizarre to me to say that PI has an existence that is wholly distinct from existing IP laws--aren't those what a court would call upon to help resolve a dispute involving an IP license?
, and PI that is not also OGC is meaningless (based on Alex's reasoning here on the list--until i hear an actual lawyer knock a hole in it).
More accurately, PI outside of content designated OGC in an OGL covered work does not exist.
Which is what has worried me from day one: that the license's definition of PI might be ruled valid /in toto/, and used as the basis to extend the breadth of IP in detrimental ways.
I don't think a contract law case could be used as precedent in a copyright law case. No matter how many rulings are ever made on the OGL, they should have zero impact on normal copyright. Likewise, I doubt Congress will look to the OGL for ideas the next time they decide to screw up copyright law. They made the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Act all without the benefit of the OGL.
Oh, i know that our IP laws get screwed up "all by themselves"--but it's precisely corporate muscle, IMHO, that is the driving force behind them, and Hasbro is a noticeable player in that department, should it choose to care. Anyway, don't you think it plausible (even if not reasonable) to use a copyleft as justification for extensions of IP? I'm suspecting that, sooner or later, copyleft is going to have to be explicitly addressed by our IP laws, rather than just resting on the threats of copyright. And, given the corporate power over Congress, using a copyleft license that simultaneously has precedent for extending IP in other ways seems at least as plausible as starting with a "pure" copyleft like the GPL.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The Laws of Anime <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>: #21 Law of Tactical Unreliability Tactical geniuses aren't.... _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
