From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While the Napster issue is more about who gets paid what,
> there are serious movements against the IP laws mounting.
I think you confuse "angry kids who can't get their free music" with
"serious movements against the IP laws". If anything, the last five years
have seen a stengthening of the copyright interest rather than a dilution of
it. The Sonny Bono act which extended copyright for an additional term of
years, and the DMCA which provides whole new protections for the owners of
copyrights in the digital environment are just two highly visible such
issues. The litigation around the DeCSS program is another such indicator.
The Napster lawsuits are strengthening the RIAA, not weakening it. The
courts are essentially creating a new legal platform for the owners of
material that can be translated into a digital format to extend their
control of the right to distribute and make copies of that work.
On the other hand, you have the Open/Free software movement which accepts as
its operating philosphy the legitimacy of copyright and copyright licenses,
using them to its own purposes but in the same action simply strengthening
the grip copyright law has over software development. In order to be
effective, the GPL >must< stand on a foundation of rights that can be
secured through litigation - otherwise it's useless.
> 1) the average person seems to be beginning to doubt the value of IP laws
> [The OGL, as many have pointed out, is more useful to commercial
> interests than non and therefore this limits the spread of its use
The OGL is more valuable to non-commercial interests than commercial
interests because it doesn't have any associated fees or royalties. A
commercial publisher could pay for a license with associated costs, and if
the only way the D&D system could be used was in a for-pay system, creation
and distribution of compatible materials would be restricted to those
commercial interests willing to pay for the privilige.
The situation that exists today where Wizards and other publishers
essentially turn a blind eye to the flagrant infringments of their
copyrights and the misuse of their trademarks on the internet is an anamoly.
It does not represent either the historical practice, or the reasonable
future policies of the hobby gaming publishers. When the OGL becomes more
firmly established and most of the D&D system is available for use under
that license, I expect Wizards will change its stance regarding unlicensed
and infringing works.
The current policy is unethical (because it does not require each
contributor to pass the same rights they received forward to anyone who
receives the derivative material they create), illegal (because it infringes
on copyrights and constitutes a mis-use and dilution of trademarks), and
confusing (because it isn't effectively documented anywhere, has no stance
on who owns derivative works, can be revoked at will and without cause, and
isn't based on contract law - meaning it might not be enforceable in the
first place.)
If anything, the OGL is the brightest light yet to shine down on people who
want to do non-commercial distribution of hobby gaming products because it
shields them from the threats of litigation that TSR used to great effect
during it's internet purge of the early 90's. If TSR taught us nothing else
from that debacle, they taught us that a company can in fact use its
copyright and trademark rights to affect content widely distributed on the
internet with nothing more than a few letters and phone calls to service
providers. Under the DMCA, such an action is even easier to implement,
because all a copyright holder needs to do is notify a service provider that
the provider is allowing infringing material to be distributed from their
network, and if the provider takes no action the provider becomes party to a
contributory infringment action. In practice, this means that service
providers waste no time terminating service to content identified as
infringing and let the courts sort out who has what rights.
Noncommercial publishers need do nothing other than provide a simple license
text to insulate themselves from this problem - a zero cost, low impact
solution that benefits everyone.
> 2) companies are finding that litigating these issues is not necessarily
> resulting in clear cut benefits (especially regarding costs).
If you don't think that the RIAA didn't get a "clear benefit" by shutting
down Napster, you're not paying attention to the >TWO BILLION DOLLARS<
Napster offered in capitulation to continue to operate the service. Since
the RIAA turned Napster down on that offer, they clearly think the exclusive
right to make digital copies of music available to the public is worth more
than TWO BILLION DOLLARS.
I assure you that the RIAA hasn't spent two billion dollars on litigation.
> Even though it is supposed to reduce the likelihood
> of litigation and enable more sharing of resources we have seen
> recommendations that people stick to creating all new material as opposed
to
> reusing some.
I don't consider the angry squawks of people on the fringe who have no
personal stake in the matter to be all that compelling.
People are already using and re-using Open Game Content all over the
internet and in commercial paper products as well. As I mentioned in
another thread, this theory that re-use won't happen has been tested, and
found false already. It's a non-issue.
> What do you all think the trends in IP are? While there are clear cut
cases
> where the OGL is useful, does it have the strength and usefulness to
survive
> and serve if IP laws are diminshed?
I think the clear cut trend is to reinforce the rights of copyright holders
vs. the rights of the public. The original intent of the copyright and
patent laws was to give creative people a limited right to exploit their
creations before the public gained full access to those creations in order
to stimulate innovation. Over the last 225 years, the law has become less
and less interested in >ever< returning those rights to the public and has
become a tool to perpetuate the exclusive rights conveyed essentially
forever. My opinion is that every time "Steamboat Willie" comes close to
copyright expiration, the Congress will extend the deadline again, ad
nauseum, forever.
Furthermore, I think that the courts are allowing broader and broader
coverage of those rights. Today, copyright includes all sorts of ephermal,
poorly defined concepts that have little to do with words or notes on a page
or images on canvas (surely the two forms of expression that the Framers
intended to protect with the copyright.)
> Aside from immediate profit potential, how do you all feel about the long
> term prospects of basing a company on the OGL?
I would never base a company on the OGL. I'd base a company on the
consistent ability to bring to market products that consumers want to buy.
The OGL is just a tool, not a business strategy.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
