| Thought you might find this interesting.
There are at least two cases (one case each regarding copyright and patent law) that are wending their way through the courts right now that could have tremendous impacts on IP. The idea that IP laws might be strengthened in the RPG industry anytime soon or even of the course of several years is in serious doubt. While the Napster issue is more about who gets paid what, there are serious movements against the IP laws mounting. Some are good and some are bad, but I don't think that any clear cut answers for RPGs are going to come out of them. Ryan has indicated that the "practice" of copyright laws in the RPG industry might clarify things over time thanks to the OGL. This would be a good thing, but I wonder if the OGL will really take hold given a few trends that seem to be forming. 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, just by the fact that commercial interests are a narrower segment of the industry than the gamers at large. The OGL might just become a tool used by companies. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing though it would still be useful. On the other hand, a mass disrespect for the concepts of IP might eventually undermine even this.] 2) companies are finding that litigating these issues is not necessarily resulting in clear cut benefits (especially regarding costs). [Not only is litigation expensive but the benefits aren't really clear. Increasingly companies are being pitted against consumer interest. In the end, consumers will win one hopes. Assuming that the OGL decreases the likelihood of litigation presumes that this is a problem and therefore using the OGL is a wise decision. If IP laws are weakened though, the threat of litigation decreases. Furthermore, if litigation will not necessarily be of benefit the threat is further decreased. These point towards a reduced commercial need for the OGL. ] I some way we can see a bit of the litigation entanglement working against the OGL already. 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. This defeats the benefits of sharing work. Anybody could make new stuff OGL regardless. I don't want to get into the whys and wherefores of the OGL vis-a-vis "now we can share WotC's system, etc." because that is off the point. The issue here is whether in practice the OGL ends up being widely adopted. If the need for it is reduced (reuse and reduced threat of litigation being two needs) this will slow the spread of it. Although the OGL might make massive inroads in commercially oriented use, there is the possibilty that it will not serve a major purpose by enabling more access to each others' resources. 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? These are just some thoughts, but I just thought I'd point out that while the OGL is eminently useful now, there is no guarantee or even likelihood that it will wind up being as widespread as say the GPL is. In fact, I would hazard the guess that in 10 years the idea that anything but a well formed setting and characters will be protectable as IP. I think the OGL and SRD are great tools and I mean no slight on the work it has taken to get this far (praise to Ryan for that); but I think it is obvious that there are many who wonder not only about the foundation of IP therory and practice that spawned the creation of the OGL, but also many who think that the whole thing might come crashing down some time in the next decade. Most of this will be decided by those outside the RPG industry. Aside from immediate profit potential, how do you all feel about the long term prospects of basing a company on the OGL? -Alex Silva |
- RE: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Githianki
- RE: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Lynn Fredricks
- Re: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Ryan S. Dancey
- Re: Re: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases AndyHughey
- Re: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Andrew Crossett
- Re: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Ryan S. Dancey
- Re: [Ogf-l] Copyright and Patent cases Doug Meerschaert
