This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 19021 times)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #225 on: October 03, 2022, 05:07:11 PM »
JHkim, you're wrong, names can and constantly are trademarked, so a monster name can be trademark WotC if they bothered to register it or if common law covers it after publishing.

There's a reason a game like Warriors of Mars that uses the public domain works of ERB about Mars/Barsoom is safe from lawsuits but if they called it John Carter of Mars they wouldn't be.

It's why you can't make a game called Buck Rogers but you could make one called 25th century that is the same with the serial numbers filed off.



Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #226 on: October 03, 2022, 05:22:08 PM »

Care to quote where I say it's how it currently works?

My god, you argue exactly like a fukken Leftist!
By taking a single phrase out of context and pretending I insinuated something I didn't. You know I won't find a quote of you saying that's how the law currently works because such a quote doesn't exist. But then you'll claim victory for beating down the strawman you erected.

In your quote you appear to be saying I do believe or have said it works like that, but if that wasn't your intention fine, I'll accept your statement.

Quote
In YOUR OPINION it shouldn't work like that, in mine it should work exactly like that.

In my opinion this should be life of the author or, if they die young, a number of years after his death to protect the wife/children from ending destitute.

Okay, so I missed this part apparently. That's my mistake.

What age would be the cutoff for being "young"? How many years after death would the protection last? Is date of publication a factor at all? If someone publishes a book at 60 but then dies, what happens? Was he "too old" so the work immediately becomes public domain and fuck his 56 year old widow? What about a 22 year old that had no family yet?

Your idea for copyright is so convoltuted, if it was a game system it would virtually unplayable with how many exceptions and contingencies would be involved.

Personally I don't think death should be a factor at all since it's entirely arbitrary. A fixed amount of time from date of publication is the fairest method because it means everyone is playing by the same rule. Everyone from the author to the family to the genral public has a clear idea of when that copyright expires, and they can make plans accordingly.

You know what I agree, young is too vague, so, it's life of the author or life of the spouse or until his youngest child reaches adulthood. Now, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pay one to express it in legal terms so I'll ask you to TRY and understand what I'm saying.

Quote
No. I think the best way to handle copyright expiration is current method, with a fixed period of time. Currently the US law is 70 years after author's death or 95 years after publication. We can have a debate as to whether or not that is too long, or whether death of the author should even be a factor, but time limits are the best and most fair metric to use.
Quote
No, I don't agree.

Are you able to articulate why?

Yes I can, in my opinion it should be forever, it's property and it should ALWAYS remain in the hands of the heirs of the author.

But, I'm willing to try and find common ground because I can see the benefit for society as a whole from public domain works.

So, a middle ground would be something that protects the author, the spouse and children but isn't so long as to be useless, and for this to be true Trademark of anything relating to that IP should be extinguished together with copyright.

Corporations shouldn't enjoy as much protection because they have the means to market and profit from the IP way better and faster than a physical person. If you disagree with this but agree with patent law then explain why you agree with patent law.

So, either the protection expires with the creator's life or corporations only have 20 years upon which the rights revert to the creator or to the public domain take your pick.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2022, 05:23:49 PM by GeekyBugle »
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #227 on: October 03, 2022, 05:34:36 PM »
JHkim, you're wrong, names can and constantly are trademarked, so a monster name can be trademark WotC if they bothered to register it or if common law covers it after publishing.

There's a reason a game like Warriors of Mars that uses the public domain works of ERB about Mars/Barsoom is safe from lawsuits but if they called it John Carter of Mars they wouldn't be.

It's why you can't make a game called Buck Rogers but you could make one called 25th century that is the same with the serial numbers filed off.

It seems like we miscommunicated, because I agree with this. Words and images can be trademarked - even something as simple as the name "McDonald's" when that is a common family name. However, that only limits how a game is *marketed*, like what is on the cover. From the U.S. Trademark Office,

Quote
A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. It’s how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors.

The word “trademark” can refer to both trademarks and service marks. A trademark is used for goods, while a service mark is used for services.

A trademark:
  • Identifies the source of your goods or services.
  • Provides legal protection for your brand.
  • Helps you guard against counterfeiting and fraud.

A common misconception is that having a trademark means you legally own a particular word or phrase and can prevent others from using it. However, you don’t have rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services.

For example, let's say you use a logo as a trademark for your small woodworking business to identify and distinguish your goods or services from others in the woodworking field. This doesn't mean you can stop others from using a similar logo for non-woodworking related goods or services.

Another common misconception is believing that choosing a trademark that merely describes your goods or services is effective. Creative and unique trademarks are more effective and easier to protect.
Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark

So yes, I agree, that trademark can limit the title and marketing of a game, but not the content of the game.

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
  • theofascist
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #228 on: October 03, 2022, 05:43:13 PM »
My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

But I don't write the laws.



GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #229 on: October 03, 2022, 05:46:59 PM »
My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

But I don't write the laws.

I can live with that.

But define work-for-hire, I write a novel, I hire an artist to do the interior art, does that count?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
  • theofascist
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #230 on: October 03, 2022, 06:07:58 PM »
My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

But I don't write the laws.

I can live with that.

But define work-for-hire, I write a novel, I hire an artist to do the interior art, does that count?

1) A work-for-hire is that created by an employee within the scope of their employment.
or
2) A commissioned work where the author gives up copyright explicitly in a written agreement.

An artist might be an employee hired for that purpose or be commissioned and have an agreement where they give up copyright.
Absent an agreement or employment contract they retain copyright.  This is how it works currently.  In other countries I think it's called "corporate authorship"



GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #231 on: October 03, 2022, 06:11:47 PM »
My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

But I don't write the laws.

I can live with that.

But define work-for-hire, I write a novel, I hire an artist to do the interior art, does that count?

1) A work-for-hire is that created by an employee within the scope of their employment.
or
2) A commissioned work where the author gives up copyright explicitly in a written agreement.

An artist might be an employee hired for that purpose or be commissioned and have an agreement where they give up copyright.
Absent an agreement or employment contract they retain copyright.  This is how it works currently.  In other countries I think it's called "corporate authorship"

Okay, now expand this: "2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date."

Because I can see a scenario where, without being a corporation, my copyright expires in 28 years because it includes "multiple authors" due to the art and other stuff like logos and stuff.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #232 on: October 03, 2022, 06:12:37 PM »
]
In your quote you appear to be saying I do believe or have said it works like that, but if that wasn't your intention fine, I'll accept your statement.

I'm sorry.
I'm a bit of a hothead and I came at you unfairly. I can see now how my statement could have been misunderstood. I don't want to make any enemies here, and I'm sorry for accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I should have handled this with a cooler head.

Quote
You know what I agree, young is too vague, so, it's life of the author or life of the spouse or until his youngest child reaches adulthood. Now, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pay one to express it in legal terms so I'll ask you to TRY and understand what I'm saying.

Fair enough. I deserve that jab. :)

Quote
No. I think the best way to handle copyright expiration is current method, with a fixed period of time. Currently the US law is 70 years after author's death or 95 years after publication. We can have a debate as to whether or not that is too long, or whether death of the author should even be a factor, but time limits are the best and most fair metric to use.
Quote
No, I don't agree.

Are you able to articulate why?

Yes I can, in my opinion it should be forever, it's property and it should ALWAYS remain in the hands of the heirs of the author.

But, I'm willing to try and find common ground because I can see the benefit for society as a whole from public domain works.

So, a middle ground would be something that protects the author, the spouse and children but isn't so long as to be useless, and for this to be true Trademark of anything relating to that IP should be extinguished together with copyright.

Corporations shouldn't enjoy as much protection because they have the means to market and profit from the IP way better and faster than a physical person. If you disagree with this but agree with patent law then explain why you agree with patent law.

So, either the protection expires with the creator's life or corporations only have 20 years upon which the rights revert to the creator or to the public domain take your pick.
[/quote]

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that individual copyrights/trademarks would maintain a "legacy" with the family as long as someone from that family is still alive, but corporate owned copyrights/trademarks should be limited to 20 years. Let me know if I'm incorrect here.

Assuming I understood correctly, though, I don't know why a distinction needs to be made between "individuals" and "corporations." It's not given that a corporation can more easily market a product. I have friends who own LLCs and effective marketing is difficult for them, often being one of the largest line items on their balance sheet. It sounds like what you are really advocating for is a legal distinction based on capital.

The issues here is that it would disincentivize anyone from divesting their personal holdings from their corporate holdings. Why wouldn't they just register everything under their personal name so they can hold it indefinitely? Secondly, it disincentivize anyone from growing their company to a point where these different laws would now affect them.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #233 on: October 03, 2022, 06:24:15 PM »

Quote
Are you able to articulate why?
Quote
Yes I can, in my opinion it should be forever, it's property and it should ALWAYS remain in the hands of the heirs of the author.

But, I'm willing to try and find common ground because I can see the benefit for society as a whole from public domain works.

So, a middle ground would be something that protects the author, the spouse and children but isn't so long as to be useless, and for this to be true Trademark of anything relating to that IP should be extinguished together with copyright.

Corporations shouldn't enjoy as much protection because they have the means to market and profit from the IP way better and faster than a physical person. If you disagree with this but agree with patent law then explain why you agree with patent law.

So, either the protection expires with the creator's life or corporations only have 20 years upon which the rights revert to the creator or to the public domain take your pick.
Quote
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that individual copyrights/trademarks would maintain a "legacy" with the family as long as someone from that family is still alive, but corporate owned copyrights/trademarks should be limited to 20 years. Let me know if I'm incorrect here.

No, you're conflating what I believe should be (perpetuity) which has no reason not to include corporations with the compromise I'm willing to reach because I see the benefit to society from public domain.

Quote
Assuming I understood correctly, though, I don't know why a distinction needs to be made between "individuals" and "corporations." It's not given that a corporation can more easily market a product. I have friends who own LLCs and effective marketing is difficult for them, often being one of the largest line items on their balance sheet. It sounds like what you are really advocating for is a legal distinction based on capital.

The issues here is that it would disincentivize anyone from divesting their personal holdings from their corporate holdings. Why wouldn't they just register everything under their personal name so they can hold it indefinitely? Secondly, it disincentivize anyone from growing their company to a point where these different laws would now affect them.

Okay, let me quote someone who said what I proposse almost to a T and made it much clearer:

My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

But I don't write the laws.

It's not exactly what I propossed but close enough as to make no difference.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2022, 06:27:16 PM by GeekyBugle »
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #234 on: October 03, 2022, 06:26:18 PM »
My opinion on how this should work for literary works, which would include most TTRPGs and probably board games:

1) Copyright should expire 14 years after the authors death, and be renewable for an additional 14 years by their heirs.
2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date.
3) All trademarks to names originating from a literary work expire when copyright expires.

I can live with that.

But define work-for-hire, I write a novel, I hire an artist to do the interior art, does that count?

I don't think trying to limit corporate ownership will be effective. Large corporations can and do convince creators to sign their rights away for money, all the time. If the law changes to make corporate-owned copyright lesser than creator-owned, then the corporation will just leave the copyright with the creator, but pay the creator to sign a contract. Such contracts will specify that - in return for money - the creator will rubber-stamp whatever the corporation asks. If the creator breaks the contract, then they lose the money.

The lifetime clause would also mean that corporations will hire out farms of fresh college graduates to do their writing, and older writers would have an even tougher time finding work.

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
  • theofascist
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #235 on: October 03, 2022, 06:26:52 PM »
Okay, now expand this: "2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date."

Because I can see a scenario where, without being a corporation, my copyright expires in 28 years because it includes "multiple authors" due to the art and other stuff like logos and stuff.

Current US law also already defines this clearly. 
A work that is jointly authored expiration time starts when all the authors are dead.
Works that are collections each story/article expires separately for each author.

My 3 statements were a proposal to modify current US copyright law for literary works... not to rewrite everything that already exists.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2022, 06:28:45 PM by DocJones »

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #236 on: October 03, 2022, 06:29:46 PM »
Okay, now expand this: "2) Copyrighted works published by a corporation or other entity containing work-for-hire from multiple authors should expire in 28 years from the publication date."

Because I can see a scenario where, without being a corporation, my copyright expires in 28 years because it includes "multiple authors" due to the art and other stuff like logos and stuff.

Current US law also already defines this clearly. 
A work that is jointly authored expires as above (14/28 years) when all the authors are dead.
Works that are collections each story/article expires separately for each author.

My 3 statements were a proposal to modify current US copyright law for literary works... not to rewrite everything that already exists.

And I'm asking if, in your proposed modification, hiring artists/designers would make my novel's copyright expire in 28 years and not 14 years after I die.

Are the artists/designers considered authors or not?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
  • theofascist
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #237 on: October 03, 2022, 07:35:12 PM »
And I'm asking if, in your proposed modification, hiring artists/designers would make my novel's copyright expire in 28 years and not 14 years after I die.

Are the artists/designers considered authors or not?

Artwork is considered a separate asset in regard to literary works, like collections.
So no, it does affect the copyright term of your novel.   

If you mean designers or editors as in someone who works as a publisher or is hired to edit/format your novel, then no it doesn't affect your copyright terms.
That is as long as you are a real person rather than a legal entity that is not a person.

Copyright law regarding art is quite complex as there are portfolio rights, physical possession rights, prints, etc.
I don't pretend to know anything more about it.

Again my only proposal was changing the length of copyright terms nothing else... other than the trademark proposal which is novel.
In other words going back to the early 19th century US law regarding length of terms.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2022, 07:40:50 PM by DocJones »

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #238 on: October 03, 2022, 07:52:27 PM »
Effete, a collection of game mechanics can be *copyrighted*, but they are not generally trademarked. Trademark applies only to distinct text or images that are used in marketing - so for RPGs, trademark is only distinctive content that is on the cover of the book, not in the interior. The Open Game License is a *copyright* license, not a trademark license. It is explicitly *not* a trademark license, as specified in item #7 of the OGL.

No. The specific collection of game mechanics constitutes a "design" that identifies a particular system with a particular brand. That falls under trademark protection. Copyright protects the specific phrasing of such a design. To use your own words, from your website (emphasis mine):
"A board or role-playing game relies heavily upon ideas. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted -- only specific text which explains the idea. The same game rule, expressed through totally different text, is not an infringement."
Why would the OGL need to grant "copyright permission" if the law already recognizes that simple rephrasing does not constitute a violation? Because copyright is not the issue; trademark is.

I will grant that there is some minor overlap. The SRD is considered "open content" and can be reproduced verbatim (under the terms of the OGL) without copyright infringement, but the OGL does not grant license to reproduce anything not expressly allowed in the SRD. Item #7 of the the OGL is referring to Product Identity, which is a term used in the licensure, not the law. Product Identity lists the trademarks which are excluded from the license. A creator can include demons and devils in a product, but they cannot use "Tanar'ri" or "Baatezu." A creator can write an adventure called 'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder' just as long as "beholder" is not a reference to the monster in any way shape or form. "Beholder" is a protected trademark; the literal written description and statblock of a beholder is protected by copyright.

Quote
First of all, mechanics are copyrighted, not trademarked as I said.

And your understanding of the distinction is flawed.

(In theory, a mechanic could be patented, like WotC's patent on collectible card game "tapping" mechanic - but as far as I know, no tabletop RPGs has ever had a patent.) I would invite you to look into the lawsuit between TSR and GDW over publishing of Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys. Dangerous Journeys wasn't even close to a retroclone of D&D, but it had some similar mechanics - and especially the ones which took some text gave pretext for the lawsuit.

Quote
1) I am advocating that the law should be different, such that copying a 40-year-old RPG should be considered the same as copying a 90-year-old H.P. Lovecraft story. I believe that the current terms of copyright law are excessive to the point of inhibiting creative expression rather than enhancing it. Authors benefit from being able to freely use public domain works like Homer and Shakespeare. Authors like A.C. Doyle and H.P. Lovecraft and others of their era should be free to use from.

This is a complex topic that probably deserves it's own separate post, if not a dedicated thread. I'm not going to get into it here.

Quote
2) The *only* retroclone that is legalized under the OGL is a retroclone of 3rd edition D&D that doesn't include the experience table. It does not, for example, allow a retroclone of 1st edition AD&D, which has a lot of text and mechanics that are unique and were never made into open game content.

I spent a good deal of time trying to find the relevant information off the Wizards website, but couldn't. For what it's worth, this was taken from wikipedia:
"Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones are fantasy role-playing games that emulate earlier editions of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) no longer supported by Wizards of the Coast. They are made possible by the release of later editions' rules in a System Reference Document under the terms of the Open Game License, which allow the use of much of the proprietary terminology of D&D that might otherwise collectively constitute copyright infringement. However, as per the license, these games lack the brand names Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, and all the other trademarks associated with those brands.

Quote
3) You reference the OGL in relation to Star Frontiers, but nothing in the original Star Frontiers was ever released under the OGL, so the OGL is irrelevant to releasing Star Frontiers.
The OGL was drafted by WotC when they acquired all those old properties, and according to wikipedia, those properties use the OGL for open gaming. This would explain why OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, ACKS, et al include the OGL in their products. The OGL is the license needed to use Wizards' properties.
Quote
Also, Star Frontiers is not in any sense "D&D in Space" like Spelljammer. It has mechanics and background entirely unrelated to D&D.
Fine... "roleplaying in space", since you want to be pedantic.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #239 on: October 03, 2022, 08:13:02 PM »
And I'm asking if, in your proposed modification, hiring artists/designers would make my novel's copyright expire in 28 years and not 14 years after I die.

Are the artists/designers considered authors or not?

Artwork is considered a separate asset in regard to literary works, like collections.
So no, it does affect the copyright term of your novel.   

If you mean designers or editors as in someone who works as a publisher or is hired to edit/format your novel, then no it doesn't affect your copyright terms.
That is as long as you are a real person rather than a legal entity that is not a person.

Copyright law regarding art is quite complex as there are portfolio rights, physical possession rights, prints, etc.
I don't pretend to know anything more about it.

Again my only proposal was changing the length of copyright terms nothing else... other than the trademark proposal which is novel.
In other words going back to the early 19th century US law regarding length of terms.

Understood, so I ratify my agreement with your proposal, it might need finessing to protect the spouse but that can wait for when the changes to the law are being propossed (meaning likely never).
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell