Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.

The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.

This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.

I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.

I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.

So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist that tie them to WotC, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 11, 2023, 05:25:37 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.

The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.

This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.

I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.

I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.

So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?

When Pathfinder took off, they had no trouble getting exposure for people new to the hobby, even those who specifically wanted to play "Dungeons & Dragons". If Critical Role were to go back to Pathfinder, they would pretty comfortably get people using it. Goodman is pretty unlikely, DCC isn't a good slot in for the type of show CR is. Troll Lord may be possible to an extent, because C&C actually does have similarity to 5e, so it wouldn't be a drastic shift moving over. It would probably be better if they did a 2nd Edition, cleaning up some of the clunkier aspects of the system and fixing some of the problems while excising OGL content from it. Kenzer I think is quite unlikely, the type of play from Hackmaster 5e is distinctly different from what you get with D&D 5e and is again not suited to the type of show CR is. Paizo/Kobold is the most likely.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 05:04:00 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
I mean, WoW literally has floating eyeball monsters called beholders, and other floating eyeball monsters that *aren't* called Beholders but mechanically are basically Beholders.

The movie Big Trouble in Little China had a floating eyeball monster and TSR never said squat. I have heard you have to defend your IP or it falls into public usage (see Kleenex vs tissue). If a movie, and massive videogame used the floating eyeball (presumably without permission) then it might be a bit harder to go after that particular one.

This seems shaky to me. I think the beholder as a specific monster is likely protected content. It isn't based on prior art, and other people making similar (but still distinct) art doesn't necessarily erode this. Later monsters that are similar but not the same could be seen as "fair use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). They are copying a little part, but not the whole. Like the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China has some physical similarity, but there are also physical differences and it doesn't shoot rays, and isn't intelligent or powerful, and has a different function as a remote viewing. It's also a side movie character rather than an RPG antagonist.

The seminal case for character copyright was over H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. There, it was important that most of the characters were copied - not just one. So someone could probably get away with a beholder-like monster in a RuneQuest adventure. But if someone publishes a D&D retro-clone including all of beholder, displacer beast, carrion crawler, umber hulk, etc. - then I think Hasbro likely has a good argument for copyright infringement.

Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 04:59:44 PM

Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 03:24:42 PM
... because someone would have to go and type up hundreds of thousands of words in a legally-distinct manner to have the same degree of rules access for players that we have today.

I suspect someone at Piazo or Kobold.

I think my non-OGL game system plus fluff text ended up being about 240k words; though in the process of changes and revisions over the years I put into testing and honing mechanics it's probably been closer to 320k overall.

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

Floating Eye Beast works fine.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 05:04:00 PM
I have heard you have to defend your IP or it falls into public usage (see Kleenex vs tissue).

Only for trade marks. Not copyrights.

Though I spoke with a TSR lawyer back in the '90s who didn't seem to know that!

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.

Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.

Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 11, 2023, 05:25:37 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.

The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.

This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.

I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.

I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.

So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?

From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

What happens next is everybody scrambles to develop their own system that's going to compete with D&D. The scenarios you suggest, where several companies work together on a system, could compete with D&D... but it's not going to happen. Kobold Press is going to do their system, Paizo already has theirs, etc. Now they're all going to compete against one another and WotC will eat them for lunch. Paizo will have to de-OGL all of their stuff, which will take time and resources. Other companies will have to follow suit, spending the resources. It's all about yanking the rug out from under their competitors.

Mindflayer?

Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.

Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.

Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.

Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 09:11:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.

Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.

Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.

Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.

Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.

I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The Matt Finch take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMtk9SAjUI

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.