|
King of Solomon posted:You probably saw his channel because youtube has been pushing videos with smaller view counts right now. My frontpage is full of videos with sub-100 views. sometimes the algorithm shudders and vomits at you. i got like 10 suggestions for wildly racist facebook groups today out of nowhere
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Homullus, I'm at a loss as to what you don't like about the situation. You're coming across as unhappy about either a)two consenting adults/corporations/combo thereof are entering freely into an agreement they find mutually beneficial, or b)consumers in that industry are pleased about actions that indicate future additional development of products their interested in. Yeah I'm lost too. People were unhappy very justifiably, because a mutually beneficial arrangement (which had, to be clear, been far more beneficial to WotC in the long run) was being disrupted because someone at WotC felt they simply weren't making enough money, and the knock-on effect of this stood to massively disrupt the livelihoods of a bunch of people who had made livings or at least side-gigs out of this arrangement. Nobody at WotC is obliged to allow them to do so but them not doing so is a massive lovely rear end in a top hat move that they rightly deserve to get raked over the coals for. They created their own little ecosystem and part of how that came to be was them telling people "you can do this, it's cool, don't worry" and then all at once they decided to do a thing to gently caress everyone over. It is not "entitlement" to feel pissed by that and demand change, particularly when the symbiotic relationship wasn't a thing that emerged by random happenstance but a deliberate effort on WotC's part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 06:51
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Homullus, I'm at a loss as to what you don't like about the situation. You're coming across as unhappy about either a)two consenting adults/corporations/combo thereof are entering freely into an agreement they find mutually beneficial, or b)consumers in that industry are pleased about actions that indicate future additional development of products their interested in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
"Violence" is definitely a word choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
homullus posted:I don't like the violence of the reaction to the leaked D&D OGL and I don't understand it. Oh give me a loving break dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 08:59
|
|
|
homullus posted:A game-agnostic open source RPG license with guidance for how to use it (as they do in the draft with "product identity") is great. That "the community" deserves to be able to make money from other designers' hard work is something I don't get at all. You're right, Paizo should give Pathfinder away for free given how much of it is derivative of other designers' hard work
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
I mean the other part of the reaction to the OGL thing is people kinda pointing to the idea that game rules and mechanics have been found to be non-copyrightable and really the OGL was less a grand giveaway and more a promise not to sue (not because WotC would necessarily *win* said lawsuit but because they could easily outspend most of the people who would be targets.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 09:55
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:"Violence" is definitely a word choice. Kai Tave posted:Oh give me a loving break dude. Maxwell Lord posted:I mean the other part of the reaction to the OGL thing is people kinda pointing to the idea that game rules and mechanics have been found to be non-copyrightable and really the OGL was less a grand giveaway and more a promise not to sue (not because WotC would necessarily *win* said lawsuit but because they could easily outspend most of the people who would be targets.) Kai Tave posted:the knock-on effect of this stood to massively disrupt the livelihoods of a bunch of people who had made livings or at least side-gigs out of this arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 12:00
|
|
|
homullus posted:Are there that many people closing in on $750,000(!!) in OGL product revenue? As I recall the leaked draft would have given WotC the right to change that threshold with... two weeks notice I think? So at any time they could have decided that they don't like that $750,000 figure, let's change that to $750. Unlikely that they ever would do something that drastic, of course, but it's still a pretty raw deal. And that's only one part of what pissed people off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 12:40
|
|
|
Are we seriously relitigating this? This was a controversy so sudden and unforced with a response so vicious and resoundingly negative for WotC, it immediately outshined the substantial contemporaneous controversy of MTG30 $1000 boosters. It was especially notable because while the management typically remains "intragnizent" in the face of controversy, in this case Wizards eventually fully capitulated. Yes, it was after one feigned retreat, but they did eventually surrender. Regardless of any legal reality or potential overstatement of harm or WotC haters fanning the flames, the apparent truth was that decision was determined by Wizards to be the wrong movie, either because it was too unpopular amongst their customers or maybe just the bad press itself was the reason, or whatever altogether alien reason a corporation ever does anything. In any case, they reversed it, and it's over until they pick that scab again. The nitty gritty here isn't especially interesting to me, particularly when this particular grit is just the bouncing rubble of WotC's reputation pulverized by the massive bombing raid that they themselves called in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
Fans and "the community" claiming ownership is one terrible universal truth of nerd hobbies. I suspect it's a consequence of folks integrating fandoms as identity. WotC leaned into it with OGL and it paid off, then bizarrely doubled-down over backlash about it going away. It sucks, and the dissolving boundaries between consumer and seller aren't healthy for anyone. The parasocial relationships between viewers and content creators are an anthropomorphic mirror of the relationship between customers and brands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
homullus posted:Ok, but how? Anyone generating content could keep doing so under the new license, even the tiny number of "books already at the printers!!!!!" people. They just ... keep doing what they're doing. Nearly all of them would make exactly the same amount of money. What is the massive disruption? To pick a few examples of the disruption, the 1.1 draft that people like Linda Codega saw included placing an onus on the producers of any OGL work to report any income on that work that exceeded $50,000. They would also have to prominently badge their content. They would also only be allowed to produce "printed media and static electronic file formats", meaning that the new agreement would not authorise VTT versions of modules. They would have to list exactly what parts of their produced work was drawn from exactly what parts of the open content. They would also have to register every work available for sale with WOTC, regardless of how much money it had made or might make. And the license, rather than being perpetual, could be terminated or modified with 30 days notice. It's fair to say that this would be disruptive for small presses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 13:24
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:You're right, Paizo should give Pathfinder away for free given how much of it is derivative of other designers' hard work Paizo do give the Pathfinder system away for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:controversy of MTG30 $1000 boosters. Please, the boosters weren’t $1,000… they were only $250 each, and sold in sets of four.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:You're right, Paizo should give Pathfinder away for free given how much of it is derivative of other designers' hard work Yeah, literally everything Paizo offers with Pathfinder is free besides like the adventure text of the adventure paths. But even the items and spells in them are given away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Please, the boosters weren’t $1,000… they were only $250 each, and sold in sets of four. I realize no one but speculators bought them, but i just want to imagine someone paying 250 for a booster and the rare is like, loving animate wall or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Please, the boosters weren’t $1,000… they were only $250 each, and sold in sets of four. But also unusable in any official game capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Yeah, literally everything Paizo offers with Pathfinder is free besides like the adventure text of the adventure paths. I did not know that they had all the items and monsters online for free, fair play to them
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:I did not know that they had all the items and monsters online for free, fair play to them Archives of Nethys is a magical place. https://2e.aonprd.com/ note that in general you don't get the art though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
moths posted:Fans and "the community" claiming ownership is one terrible universal truth of nerd hobbies. I suspect it's a consequence of folks integrating fandoms as identity. I don't really see the WotC/OGL thing as a mirror of parasocial relationships, at least not in the typical sense. A parasocial relationship is a largely one-sided thing that happens regardless, and often without, the other party's interest. Critical Role, for example, obviously wants people to feel engaged with The Brand so to speak, but Matt Mercer isn't out there going "you're absolutely right, we are best friends, you and me personally." The OGL by contrast is a thing WotC deliberately set out to do. Like, Ryan Dancey is on record as going "we made the OGL to do this exact thing, including letting other people sell stuff using our branding," and they actually pulled it off...it might have taken them 2.5 editions to get the bubble to stop bursting and stop shooting themselves in the foot with the GSL or whatever, but fair play to him, Dancey's master plan worked in the long run. If I was going to compare it to anything I'd compare it to how Kickstarter began talking about wanting to get into crypto/blockchain poo poo which caused a bunch of people who were (and are) vehemently opposed to that stuff to suddenly and unpleasantly have to reevaluate their relationship with a thing that had become a cornerstone of how they make a living in our can't-opt-out-of-capitalism world, in a scenario where "well just don't use Kickstarter" means "well just slash all your income by a significant amount." To put it another way, what WotC did via the OGL whether they framed it this way or not is that they turned themselves into a platform as well as a publisher, and the recent OGL poo poo is (imo) extremely understandable from the perspective of "the platform you have been comfortably using for many, many years has come under new management that's decided to gently caress everything up regardless of collateral damage." Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I mean the other part of the reaction to the OGL thing is people kinda pointing to the idea that game rules and mechanics have been found to be non-copyrightable and really the OGL was less a grand giveaway and more a promise not to sue (not because WotC would necessarily *win* said lawsuit but because they could easily outspend most of the people who would be targets.) And to the general point, having the kind of loose legal agreement people have been assuming the OGL would always be is just nice for letting mid-size RPG publishers show what they are and aren't fine with people working with. Thus, why Paizo got a coalition of them together to make a rough legal framework that works the way people thought the OGL worked, which can then be managed by a neutral third party and not the biggest company in the business. Like, I just want to emphasize that the ORC is just a bunch of people realizing the old system had some potential weird legal problems and setting up a new version that doesn't have them. Having this much negativity about it is just kind of excessive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Staltran posted:As I recall the leaked draft would have given WotC the right to change that threshold with... two weeks notice I think? So at any time they could have decided that they don't like that $750,000 figure, let's change that to $750. Unlikely that they ever would do something that drastic, of course, but it's still a pretty raw deal. And that's only one part of what pissed people off. I mean, obviously the old OGL gave WotC the right to make changes like that as well, with no particular notice requirements. I think Homullus is looking at this from the point of view of someone who understands contracts and licenses and law stuff. From that perspective, if you are a small creator, your situation did not change with the revision (except maybe you needed to report to them your income?). It does have other things people don't like. For instance, involving VTTs, but that's the entitlement Homullus is talking about : if I want to make a VTT that includes Moana and Mickey, I can't. I don't have that right, unless I make a deal with Disney to get that right. WotC is trying to make that the same with them. Is that lovely of them? Maybe. Depends on your stance on IP law. Are artists being lovely when they don't want people to use their art to train AIs? Again, depends on your stance on IP law. The big response I've seen on Twitter on those 2 issues seems inconsistent from a legal perspective. Should people have the right to use someone else's art/design work in their AI training data or in their VTT? Why one and not the other? Of course, there is consistency: people are favoring whatever benefits small artists and not big companies. So yeah, gently caress WotC and gently caress AI entrepreneurs, woo for poor artists and indie designers. People aren't coming at it from a legal philosophical perspective. They have plenty of reasons to already be upset at WotC and at silicon valley techbros - those companies don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The big response I've seen on Twitter on those 2 issues seems inconsistent from a legal perspective. Should people have the right to use someone else's art/design work in their AI training data or in their VTT? Why one and not the other? Of course, there is consistency: people are favoring whatever benefits small artists and not big companies. So yeah, gently caress WotC and gently caress AI entrepreneurs, woo for poor artists and indie designers. People aren't coming at it from a legal philosophical perspective. They have plenty of reasons to already be upset at WotC and at silicon valley techbros - those companies don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. To sort of springboard off this to reiterate one of my points, the inconsistency issue is also very cleanly cut through by noting that WotC themselves very specifically wanted the whole D&D third party cottage industry to exist. It wasn't a thing that people independently came up with that WotC just went "well okay I guess we'll put up with it because we're nice that way," people weren't being sneaky and taking advantage of anything that wasn't happily being offered to them. When you make a big deal about how people can use your Greatest RPG In The World Product Brand Tradedentity to sell compatible products with your game, you have now put yourself in a position where your decisions will impact more than just fans griping on a forum over damage-on-a-miss. And at that point, the legality or contractuality of the matter is not going to save you from being dragged if you decide to suddenly yank the football away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
This is why Kevin Crawford just does his own thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
homullus posted:Yeah. The thing the ORC does explicitly is let you identify which potentially-copyrighted things you want to keep as "yours," and which potentially-copyrighted things you really want people downstream to use. You'd still have copyright to your work as a whole. The OGL left so much of D&D's 50 years in a big grey question mark. Wasn't a part of the OGL about "poduct identity protection" type rules, cause I'm pretty sure it had those, you clown Improbable Lobster fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Yeah, there was nothing vague about what was open and what was protected Product Identity in the OGL for D&D. The idea of "so much of it" being somehow a question mark is silly. They listed specific sections on specific pages in some books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Are artists being lovely when they don't want people to use their art to train AIs? Again, depends on your stance on IP law. Companies using licensing and copyright to protect their profits from existing works is a significantly different issue than creatives not wanting to be plagiarized and it's pretty loving laughable to compare them, even briefly Improbable Lobster fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
disposablewords posted:Yeah, there was nothing vague about what was open and what was protected Product Identity in the OGL for D&D. The idea of "so much of it" being somehow a question mark is silly. They listed specific sections on specific pages in some books. Weird. I think it's pretty tricky to use monster information beyond what's in the SRD, since they're all copyrighted while many are simultaneously public domain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
homullus posted:Weird. I think it's pretty tricky to use monster information beyond what's in the SRD, since they're all copyrighted while many are simultaneously public domain. i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you in good faith despite whatever the gently caress your posts have been, but it's important to know that for monsters in particular, many of D&D's classic monsters (for example, the flumph) are released as open gaming content without being in the SRD. wizards of the coast licensed necromancer/frog god games to release them under the OGL as the tome of horrors series back in the 2000s, and they have unique to that series copyright notices that have to be added to the standard OGL notice in a product using them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
homullus posted:Weird. I think it's pretty tricky to use monster information beyond what's in the SRD, since they're all copyrighted while many are simultaneously public domain. You clearly do not know what you are talking about
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:Weird. I think it's pretty tricky to use monster information beyond what's in the SRD, since they're all copyrighted while many are simultaneously public domain. And yet, somehow, the frankly massive d20 market managed to get by without your very specific weird hangups. Nah, it must be everyone else who was entirely wrong about what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:You clearly do not know what you are talking about disposablewords posted:And yet, somehow, the frankly massive d20 market managed to get by without your very specific weird hangups. Nah, it must be everyone else who was entirely wrong about what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Ah, I see. You’re posting badly on purpose. As a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. If you want legal advice on how close you can get and still win a lawsuit, pay an IP lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
Pathfinder: exists, unlitigated. This dude: "But can anyone really write about goblins in a way that doesn't invite a lawsuit?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
disposablewords posted:And yet, somehow, the frankly massive d20 market managed to get by without your very specific weird hangups. Nah, it must be everyone else who was entirely wrong about what was going on. disposablewords posted:Pathfinder: exists, unlitigated. Are you making the point that the OGL existed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Dude's acting like it was some unnavigable maze full of traps and treachery. It increasingly sounds like he doesn't actually know poo poo about RPGs at all and just burst in so he could have the same whine about "entitlement" literally everyone who has used that word has made in the past 20-some years. Heaven forfend someone he considers undeserving get a buck even if everyone actually involved is cool with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
homullus posted:Weird. I think it's pretty tricky to use monster information beyond what's in the SRD, since they're all copyrighted while many are simultaneously public domain. Nah, they held back some specific ones like beholders, mind flayers, I forget what others, but again, they put everything you can use in the SRD and 3rd party products have to mark what's free-to-use and what isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Nah, they held back some specific ones like beholders, mind flayers, I forget what others, but again, they put everything you can use in the SRD and 3rd party products have to mark what's free-to-use and what isn't. i literally just pointed out how many of classic D&D's monsters aren't in the SRD but are still okay to use for OGL games, come on: Arivia posted:i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you in good faith despite whatever the gently caress your posts have been, but it's important to know that for monsters in particular, many of D&D's classic monsters (for example, the flumph) are released as open gaming content without being in the SRD. wizards of the coast licensed necromancer/frog god games to release them under the OGL as the tome of horrors series back in the 2000s, and they have unique to that series copyright notices that have to be added to the standard OGL notice in a product using them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. If you want legal advice on how close you can get and still win a lawsuit, pay an IP lawyer. Seconded. On BGG, I see tons of people asking things like "Can I use the name of an existing brand in board game" or "Is character X in the public domain" or "Can I mention a celebrity in my trivia board game?" My response is always "You should talk to an IP lawyer or the general counsel of your publisher if you have one." That is what they are there for. Admittedly, I don't have a huge problem with people asking broadly to get a baseline knowledge from lay people who have a casual interest and understanding of the law, but that is only to satisfy your curiosity, not to inform any action. A lawyer probably isn't going to answer, and even if they do it is not going to constitute legal advice. There are rules of professionalism that govern this, and they do not bind internet randos. Also, if you pay for advice and it turns out that person sucks, I think you can then get a better lawyer and sue them. (As always, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer.) A recent one had a 2023 twist: they had been asking one of those chat based AIs for legal advice 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 09:40
|
|