[Open_Gaming] More Why OGL? madness :)

[Githianki]

Gee Ryan you were supposed to let others explain why you should or should not be allowed to take over the gaming universe ;).  It is really their opinions that make or break this. As for this: >Because the people who spend the money and the time to design those RPG >systems are provided under our laws with a certain set of rights designed to >allow them to extract value from their efforts and assert ownership and >control over their creations >WITHOUT GIVING YOU THE SAME >CONSIDERATION<. >You can't make things that work with an RPG system without special >permission for the same reason that you can't show up and sleep on my couch >without special permission, and you can't drive my car without special >permission, and you can't run your ad on my radio station without special >permission.� Because the law gives me ownership over certain parts of my >property (even if that property is intangible), and my ownership gives me >the right to exclude you if I wish. Hmph.  What I create is within my right to distribute and just because I created it with tools provided by someone else doesn't lessen my ownership of the result.  I can buy,sell, trade a paint by the numbers system painting, even though it was created according to rules laid down by the manufacturer.   I can do whatever I want with music composed according to someone's book on music theory, even if that theory extends down to designating rules for sequences of notes to play the blues. This isn't about civil libertarians claiming ownership of something that is not theirs, it is about anyone claiming ownership over what they have in turn created using ideas and rules postulated by others.  People get up in arms not over copyright or trademark issues but because they honestly believe that defining their own creations interms of someone else's rules doesn't mean they don't have complete ownership over their own creation. Protections on the extraction of value from a property don't extend to ownership of what another person creates using (in this case) a legitimately purchased instance of the property unless that was a condition of the sale (hence the EULAs in software and royalty free clip art).  That condition is clearly not the case here, especially since the used portion of the property was a rules system and ideas. I do not imply here that anything created can circumvent copyright laws either.   I am not saying people have the right to exploit trademarks or brands or copyrightable content but federal law does grant anyone permission to use them in a predefined manner and following certain guidelines WITHOUT consent.  It follows therefore that products can be made and sold that stem from a set of rules and ideas and which could make legal mention of other assets, which nothing could be done about except to threaten legal action (whether upheld or not). Of course these threats are what keep these products from being made. You did mention that publishers in general take one stand on this and (apparently) there is an other side.  Who is this?  The people who want to make money are publishers too, and potentially ANYONE who wishes to sell his or her creations is a publisher.  This isn't a debate between libertarian gamer non-publishers and normal publishers, it is a debate between two groups of publishers who have a different view of what is legal (with some agitators thrown in for good measure :) ). Your examples for why we need an alternative to regular copyrights and trademark, were weak though.   From the perspective of the publishers, Copyrights and Trademarks provide an   inpentertrable wall around their games that excludes any 3rd party publisher   who does not negotiate a very specific, and very expensive license.� Thus,   you have 100 game systems from 100 companies that fragment the market and   degrade the value of the player network. Fisrt, not all publishers need to grant specific or expensive licenses (D&D certainly does). They could set whatever rules they wish as Wizards is doing.  Nor does it follow that the market is fragmented because of this, that is totally irrational. Many games exist because at some point the market demanded it. Second, the implication that the OGL, as an alternative to this, will unify the market (it really has nothing to do with that as I am sure you are aware) is farfetched by itself. d20 might unify it.  Even the value of a unified player network is highly debatable.  Players who enjoy other systems might find less value in a unified network or in a reduced set of offered games. Since people will create, play and buy what they like, the existence of so many systems indicates that there are markets which are served no matter how small.  The fact that some systems make no money or lose it is simply the free market at work.  Simply saying that a unified market is more efficient ignores the fact that people's personal preferences are the driving force in this case. The fact that shelves would be filled with twenty products under one system instead of twenty products under twenty systems doesn't mean anything, but reduced choice in systems. The costs to a producer are the same except for the largest perhaps.  Competition would still exist with all the penalties as well as benefits. You also say products which trample copyright and trademark law are rare and generally failures.  How does this support the use of the OGL, especially since you characterize such publishers as having little regard for copyright and trademark law?  Why will they suddenly convert to law respecting citizens if the OGL is adopted? Of course you also provide- You can publish a commercial product without the reasonable concern that you will face litigation as a result, meaning that you can raise capital to finance your operations, and distributors and retailers can stock your product without fearing a recall or court-ordered destruction at their expense. � Carefully following existing laws get you the same result, but some companies would have you believe that you should have reasonable concern of litigation regardless. Finally we have the "bully" problem. This is not a "if WotC would only stop being a bully" problem - the concern that you will be sued stems from the >collective< beliefs and practices of the game publishing industry, not from any one company.� You can tilt at this windmill all day long complaining about how it's wrong, illegal, immoral and unfair, and that won't make the problem go away. WotC isn't being a bully, but the concern that people have that they will be sued stems from the actions of one former company in general (TSR- do they still exist as an entity?) and persist because companies, WotC included, continue to imply that no one is safe from legal action.  Most of the discussion in essence on this list seems to be about exposure to lawsuits. And while it is true that Wizards has been very generous so far,  the fact that they are trying to get the OGL fully in use has some bearing for anyone with common sense. I don't tilt at this I simply point out the facts. The OGL whatever benefits it provides also increases the exposure to potential lawsuits.  If people fear being sued then anything that increases exposure (even if it increases some protections) is going to make them nervous. Simply saying that things are going great and look no one has been sued yet isn't reassuring.   If what you are saying is the OGL isn't going to make lawsuits go away, just the threats, then why should anyone agree to give up rights in exchange for no threats, when WotC and the rest of the industry should be giving up implying that we will be sued if we simply follow regular copyright and trademark laws?   ANYWAY, I am just probing this and I hope you don't take it a personal attack or anything. -Alex Silva PS>Is today a record number of list postings?  My inbox is steamin!