On 28 Nov 01, The scribbled a note about [Ogf-l] (Rant 3) - PI, OGC, and (es:
Oh boy! I have just got to comment on this post..... > Let me start with a couple of quick-hit responses... > > >>but the voice of the frustrated fan > > > >If you are just a fan why do you care. Play the games and don't worry > >about it. The only people this applies to are publishers. > > That sounded rather elitist, but that's okay - I don't expect a lot of > people to be looking ahead. Just remember, that if you are a publisher, > your boss *IS* the fan - we buy your books so you can pay your bills. If > you don't listen to us, well, we'll "fire" you. ;-) While it *is* true > that the people that this currently directly applies to are publishers, it > applies to the fan in a very real (and scary) sense. > > If I want to create a fansite based on your material, you may be flattered - > until I start posting stuff that is, by your perception, "derivative work" > that you should be making money off of - or worse, I put up stuff that isn't > OGC that is infringing on your copyright and sue me for lost income and > punitive damages. > Excuse me, but if you create a fan site "based on a publisher's material", then everything on that site IS, by law, derivative. Yes, what you post may also include some entirely new work mixed in, but that doesn't make it any less derivative. This is already established Copyright law. > The OGL is a "safe harbor" for the fans, too - it tells us PRECISELY what > you can't sue us for if we put it on our website (with an appropriate link > to the OGL). With the Web everywhere today, we are ALL publishers, whether > you like it or not. > Correction. Not a link to "the OGL". You would have to create a link to your own copy of the OGL, with an updated Section 15. > Granted, while I doubt you would ever take an interest in my fan site, you > MIGHT and DO have legal recourse available to shut it down. As a fan, I > want as much protection as the "big boys" enjoy - and the OGL guarantees > that I am on equal standing with you. > So from this, I gather that your real problem lies mostly in the fact that you cannot use just anything you want? I am sorry to tell you thins, but this has always been the case. Back in the early days of the Internet, TSR did something extremely unpopular in regards to the fansites on the web. They shut down a lot of sites, and allowed only one or two sites to post fan material. And while unpopular, this was entirely legal because of copyright laws. The OGL was NOT written with fan-based web sites in mind. It was written with "those who publish for profit" as the focal point. Building a fansite is a completely different animal, and I am sorry to tell you, that it in no way puts you on any sort of equal footing as those who publish for profit in regards to "being a publisher". The OGL is written for those who do publish for profit, and that is why it is written the way it is. (I now think I understand why you are saying some of the OGC material already published is "crippled", and you appear to be very mistaken about what the purpose of the OGL is.). > >There must be an *UNLIMITED* amount of PI a publisher may include in their > >works, they need enough to cover the original work in the book. > > Again, not true. In reality, PI doesn't do a lot more than does copyright > to protect your book. If you didn't designate it as OGC, it is by default > "copyrighted material" and NOT OGC. In other words, you enjoy the same > protection from somebody copying your stuff as you would if you published > the material as a book, without the OGL or anything else - you have > copyright protection. > Correction. Even the OGC material is protected by copyright. The designation of PI is there solely to allow the mixing of material that the publisher wants to open and that which he does not want to open. The OGL is layered on top of normal copyright law (and both limits some things, while opening other things up for other to use), super- ceding it in a number of instances. For the specifics of how they interact, consult a lawyer. > My point is: Save the PI designation for the REALLY important stuff. Don't > dilute its value by frivolously designating everything as PI. > While you may think it is frivolous, I doubt that the publishers think so. > ========== > > And now to the BIG portion of my rant... > > >No I didn't misunderstand. > > > >I have had this discussion too many times but for the new people, here it > >is. It is unfair to expect designers and publishers who have put blood, > >sweat, tears and in many cases lots of money into the creation of a unique > >and interesting world, to open those up for all time. Once material is > >open it stays open. So to say "open the whole spell" is to say "give up > >ownership of the thing you have created." > > And I say, "you never really had ownership of it to begin with." > Just want to make a point, after I say that that LONG treatise was quite enjoyable to read. They do have ownership of the "thing" they created, in a sense. You missed one important distinction (and the law is filled with subtle distinctions). An idea, in and of itself, is not copyrightable. Certain other things are not copyrightable as well. But, and here is the important part, how an individual (or company, etc..) expresses that idea IS protected by law, under copyright. For example, take the basic concept behind the Scarred Lands: A fantasy world recovering from a war between the gods That idea is not copyrightable, but how it is expressed is protected because that expression did take work, and is unique in its own ways. >From what you are saying, it sounds like it boils down to you wanting every book containing OGC to be entirely open. And that you are totally opposed to the idea of anybody making money off their own work. While you may think that his is a fine and noble idea, and I will not argue the point, the fact is that it isn't true, nor is likely to change any time soon. Thus, instead ofcomplaining about what you have no control over, try to think of ways you can influence other things in your favor. Claiming that companies are declaring things PI frivolously does little more than to anger others. Make suggestions, explain why you think item A should not be PI, or why item B shouldn't. Making non-specific claims and accusations does nothing to further your goal. You may find out, that once it is explained why somethign was done a certain way, that you actually agree that they did it the best way FOR THEM. Just some food for thought.... ************************* ********TANSTAAFL******** ************************* Rasyr (Tim Dugger) E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
