Quote from: Warthur;740686Who the hell is LPJ anyway? I looked them up but didn't recognise the name of any of his games. Is this just some small press guy churning out forgettable stuff who's gained infamy through personal beefs or what?

Basically. He was one of the big D20 publishers in the early days of RPGnow/DTRPG, at the height of the d20 boom. He was rather infamous for blatant plagiarism, swiping up smaller or lone-wolf products that were under the OGL, and then just re-releasing them under his own branding, word for word.

He rarely did anything illegal, and his targets were almost always smaller fry, so it went unnoticed for a long time until he did it to some early Adamant products and caught GMS' ire for it. The feud between the two went on for some time.

Quote from: J Arcane;740773Basically. He was one of the big D20 publishers in the early days of RPGnow/DTRPG, at the height of the d20 boom. He was rather infamous for blatant plagiarism, swiping up smaller or lone-wolf products that were under the OGL, and then just re-releasing them under his own branding, word for word.

He rarely did anything illegal, and his targets were almost always smaller fry, so it went unnoticed for a long time until he did it to some early Adamant products and caught GMS' ire for it. The feud between the two went on for some time.

Isn't that sort of the point of the OGL, though? The OGL bits are fair game, even just a copy and paste without changing anything.

And realistically, how much of D&D comes from people who were probably not compensated (or compensated well) for their additions to the game?

Joe Fischer, who came up with the D&D ranger. Did he get any money from the Drizzt books? Or the guy who came up with the Beholder, TSR milked that quite a bit.

Quote from: JeremyR;740795Isn't that sort of the point of the OGL, though? The OGL bits are fair game, even just a copy and paste without changing anything.

And realistically, how much of D&D comes from people who were probably not compensated (or compensated well) for their additions to the game?

Joe Fischer, who came up with the D&D ranger. Did he get any money from the Drizzt books? Or the guy who came up with the Beholder, TSR milked that quite a bit.

Legally?

Sure, you've got a point.

Ethically?

Come on, dude, it's a pretty big dick move.

Quote from: J Arcane;740801Legally?

Sure, you've got a point.

Ethically?

Come on, dude, it's a pretty big dick move.

If it was just mechanics then its legal and part of the OGL Id assume.

If it was the actual unique setting text copied whole cloth. Then No. He was actually breaking copyright laws as the "fluff" text is protected.

Sounds like he was stealing the non-mechanics part?

Quote from: Omega;740804If it was just mechanics then its legal and part of the OGL Id assume.

If it was the actual unique setting text copied whole cloth. Then No. He was actually breaking copyright laws as the "fluff" text is protected.

Sounds like he was stealing the non-mechanics part?

Depends on how the specific works' OGL defines product identity.

In the early days, when it was still new, a lot more people were releasing stuff in full, not always intentionally either.

Though there were IIRC some cases where it seemed he was just assuming OGL=free and taking shit whether it was PI or not, which is how he ran into GMS' ire.

Mongoose just used to collect stuff from other sources and release it under the 'Ultimate' range of books.

That's shady enough.

So to summarise the history to date:

- Wizards were there at "ground zero" of the retro-clone movement (OSRIC) and made initial contact which looked an awful lot like an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle diplomatically before resorting to the lawyers.

- With OSRIC showing no sign of returning to the bottle, and Wizards told that they may as well escalate this to their legal team, their legal team has proceeded to take no action visible to the public or to anyone involved in the prior conversation.

- OSRIC is celebrating its 8th birthday this year.

It looks an awful lot to me like Wizards decided it wasn't worth pursuing unless and until a retroclone became successful enough to make it worth the legal costs.

Quote from: Warthur;740848It looks an awful lot to me like Wizards decided it wasn't worth pursuing unless and until a retroclone became successful enough to make it worth the legal costs.

Based on what it would take to be considered "successful" to Hasbro, I don't think that will ever happen. If 4E sales (which were GREAT for a tabletop rpg) were considered a failure then I don't know of any clone that would raise an eyebrow.

Which is just fine by me. Tabletop rpgs are a niche hobby and most attempts to profit from it on a huge scale end up not working out so well.

Quote from: Warthur;740848It looks an awful lot to me like Wizards decided it wasn't worth pursuing unless and until a retroclone became successful enough to make it worth the legal costs.

Except by delaying they cripple their chances of recovering damages. While inaction will never cause a creator to lose his copyright (that a trademark issue) it will limit his remedies to the point where the worse that can happen is the infringing work must cease being distributed.

Quote from: estar;740862Except by delaying they cripple their chances of recovering damages. While inaction will never cause a creator to lose his copyright (that a trademark issue) it will limit his remedies to the point where the worse that can happen is the infringing work must cease being distributed.

Which could be all they want; a lot of the time an injunction to stop a work that's sapping your profits being distributed is worth more in the long run than getting damages in the first place.

Quote from: Warthur;740022For that matter, have they ever slapped down a publisher for failure to abide by the OGL, D20 licence, or the GSL? I know they didn't come after 4E Kingdoms of Kalamar, despite it not coming under the GSL, though given that Dave Kenzer is an IP attorney in his day job he probably did a decent enough job of skirting the line to make any case tenuous, and I'm pretty sure not every publisher had the benefit of having their own in-house lawyer.

I'm coming to this discussion late, and I'm mostly a lurker, but as I was the guy who spearheaded the 4E Kingdoms of Kalamar PDF, I thought I'd chime in. So here are my thoughts off the top of my head (forgive me for repeating things most everyone already knows; just getting some stuff off my chest).

As I recall, neither I nor most of my colleagues at the time ever understood Wizards' rationale for creating all the open licensing. It was obvious to us even then that WotC (a nickname some of their staff really disliked at the time) were shooting themselves in the foot by opening the door wide and inviting competition.

So as you know, the open licenses are good for the fans and small publishers because it's clearly stated what is and isn't allowed. No IP lawyers required, and no fear of Wizards' lawyers coming after you as long as you follow the rules. Those are great for everyone but Wizards who (I believe) just wanted to shove off the less profitable products (i.e., adventures) onto other hands. I don't think they ever considered significant competition in sourcebooks, 'pocket' rules editions, variant systems (like Pathfinder, eventually) and so on.

(Wizards: "A license means other companies will create adventures for us, and their fans will buy all our core products!"

Me: "But the fans are going to buy your core books anyway...")

But if you follow the KoK 4E model, all you really have to do is attribute copyright and trademark properly, create new material instead of copying, and clearly say "Compatible with D&D..." (roughly speaking - I am not a copyright lawyer).

I believe Dave explained it to me once using the 'oil filter' model. You go to the auto parts store and there are plenty of oil filters (and other products) that state 'compatible with [insert car make/model here]'. Ford doesn't offer a special license for oil filter manufacturers...

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;740892But if you follow the KoK 4E model, all you really have to do is attribute copyright and trademark properly, create new material instead of copying, and clearly say "Compatible with D&D..." (roughly speaking - I am not a copyright lawyer).

Going this route (i.e., not using the OGL) can be viable, but it's most viable with a rules and stat light product.  A setting book is an excellent candidate for such an approach, but I think it's harder with something like a splat book or module.

Using the "no OGL" approach, I wouldn't say you need to attribute (someone else's) copyright, you just need to avoid infringing on anyone else's copyright.  You do, however, need to attribute someone else's trademark, but it's legal to claim compatibility with someone else's trademark.  You just need to do so in a manner that makes it clear the mark is owned by someone else, and you want to avoid any language or trade dress that could create confusion in the consumer.

The reason it's riskier to go "no OGL" with a more rules-heavy book isn't really about trademark, it's mostly about copyright.  While you can't copyright the actual rules of a game, you can copyright a unique presentation of those rules mechanisms.  One could definitely argue that you don't need the OGL at all, but if you do so you could enter some legal "gray areas" where everything isn't cut and dried and obvious.

Say you're going to publish a module compatible with AD&D.  You include some new monsters with descriptions and stat blocks.  If you use the same terminology and the same order and format as the monsters in the Monster Manual, are you infringing on WotC's copyright?  It's not certain.  (Some publishers in the old days created their own terms for the same concepts, like "hits to kill" instead of "hit points," and stuff like that.)

One thing the OGL does is remove that uncertainty, and give the licensee permission to use the familiar "open content" terms.  By agreeing to and using the OGL, you give up some rights you'd normally have (like being able to claim compatibility with WotC's trademarks), but the benefits can be compelling, depending on what you want to publish.  It's not so much that you couldn't publish without it, it's that it removes some of the legal uncertainty that might come about with crunchier products.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;740892Those are great for everyone but Wizards who (I believe) just wanted to shove off the less profitable products (i.e., adventures) onto other hands. I don't think they ever considered significant competition in sourcebooks, 'pocket' rules editions, variant systems (like Pathfinder, eventually) and so on.

WotC was fully aware that giving away the mechanics of D&D3 carried the risk of a third party Players Handbook.

I mentioned it several times (here in this forum) that during a Retailer Seminar at Gen Con, where Ryan Dancey explained the roll-out of 3e (and the importance of the OGL/d20 license in that scheme) to a room full of retailers, he was asked: "What happens when someone publishes a rulebook to rival the PHB?"

Dancey answered to the effect of "Let them try! We have the better artwork, layout, price (thanks to economy of scale)."
Remember, the three core books had the insane price point of 19.95$, for 280+pp, full color hardcovers.

What they didn't expect was the revolution in printing, self publishing, PoD, and the risk of someone using the OGL to clone older editions. (Or they just didn't fear the latter because they thought 3e was the superior product.)
And what they also didn't expect was someone giving away gorgeously illustrated and layouted rival PHBs (or full systems) in PDF format, for free or at-cost PoD.

I still question the assumption that it was the OGL (or, more appropriately, that it was ONLY the OGL) that ever bit WotC in the ass or hurt them in any way.

Quite frankly, I don't think any of those things did threaten them until they abandoned their own system and existing customer base. On their own, either the OGL or 4E weren't catastrophic. Together? That's a different story, and the effects of that stupidity are still playing out.