Apparently WoTC really really wants to sour their relationship with the rest of the industry. For a year and a half they have been making their writers sign non-compete clauses.

http://d20.jonnydigital.com/2008/10/dungeons-dragons-writers-given-non-compete-clauses

Rob Conley

Quote from: estar;257170Apparently WoTC really really wants to sour their relationship with the rest of the industry. For a year and a half they have been making their writers sign non-compete clauses.

http://d20.jonnydigital.com/2008/10/dungeons-dragons-writers-given-non-compete-clauses

Rob Conley

Why should they care? they don't need "the industry." They are effectively their own industry - a functional monopoly. They can do whatever they like.

-clash

Clash, don´t you see the faulty logic?

If WotC WAS a monopoly, they would not NEED to protect themselves.

UNLESS their Monopoly itself would be based on Freelance writeres offerings. Which nobody here thinks, no?

I take it WotC is AFRAID right now.

Quote from: Settembrini;257183Clash, don´t you see the faulty logic?

If WotC WAS a monopoly, they would not NEED to protect themselves.

UNLESS their Monopoly itself would be based on Freelance writeres offerings. Which nobody here thinks, no?

I take it WotC is AFRAID right now.

Logically, for the non-compete clause to be effective, writers would have to be inclined to sign it. For them to be inclined, wouldn't WotC have to be big enough, ie monopolistic, that writers all but need to work with them so are inclined to sign the clause?

If one can make the same living writing for non-WotC companies, there would be no point in signing such a contract.

Utterly reprehensible, and utterly unsurprising. Waiting for the inevitable apologism...

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Settembrini;257183Clash, don´t you see the faulty logic?

If WotC WAS a monopoly, they would not NEED to protect themselves.

UNLESS their Monopoly itself would be based on Freelance writeres offerings. Which nobody here thinks, no?

I take it WotC is AFRAID right now.

Need has nothing to do with it. WotC is as effectively a monopoly as Microsoft. They hold so much of the market that any competition is scattered and ineffective. That they do this without need is typical of monopolies. It's pure paranoia. Microsoft handles this much better, actually. They ignore competition once it is crushed, because it's just pinpricks - they lose no customers. People who would use their competition are people who would never use Microsoft products anyway. That should be the way WotC handles it. By acknowledging and responding to the pinpricks, WotC legitimizes them. Speaking as a pinpricker, of course.

-clash

Quote from: CavScout;257189Logically, for the non-compete clause to be effective, writers would have to be inclined to sign it. For them to be inclined, wouldn't WotC have to be big enough, ie monopolistic, that writers all but need to work with them so are inclined to sign the clause?

RPG third party authors are paid very low compared to other gigs in the writing industry. Wizard's rates are much better and average three times what you would get writing for other companies.

Quote from: flyingmice;257202Need has nothing to do with it. WotC is as effectively a monopoly as Microsoft. They hold so much of the market that any competition is scattered and ineffective. That they do this without need is typical of monopolies. It's pure paranoia.

My theory it was part of some package of policies brought over from Hasbro. Because they offer good pay rates compared to the rest of industry it not exactly a burning issues for the people they have signed up. Also likely there is some type of NDA on the exact contract terms they offer.

Again not likely due to malice but part of the whole corporate culture that wizard's is now enmeshed in. I also believe that this policy originated from the same source that resulted in the GSL screw up. If I had to guess it would be that at some point in the last couple of years the legal department at Wizards became replace with people originating from Hasbro. The alternative is that last visages of the original management team left. Leaving only transferees from Hasbro.

Maybe they've been bitten by Freelancers learning the direction that things are heading and taking that info to create a product for another company.
 
Other industries have contracts that stipulate you can't work for a competing company for some time after leaving to prevent this. It's either that or be extremely careful with the info you give a freelancer and have some of their work needing rewrite due not fitting the new trend.
 
This was probably specifically at 4e, not wanting people working on 4e to simultaneously work for other publishers trying to get early bird competing projects out.

It sounds to me like a fairly standard application of in-house legal policy, even where it may not be necessary.

In house lawyers tend to be quite conservative about stuff like this, the harm it does the company is minimal if any (I suspect none), the harm if it was necessary and you didn't do it can be substantial.  Why take the risk?

In house legal will be asking for these as a matter of standard business practice, I doubt the people behind it even really know what rpgs are.

Trying to work out corporate motives beyond that is pointless, there's no need for any.  I've seen this sort of thing countless times.

Maybe I'm crass for saying this, but I don't get paid for making game books so I guess I really don't care. If it somehow eventually manages to affect the quality of my play-which I'd be pretty hard pressed to see happening-then maybe I'd care.

I'm that guy who shops at WalMart, not because I support how they do business, but because I can get cheap shit there. I make decent money, but I'm no where near that "I don't care what I spend" level, and don't think I'll see it any time soon. Until I do I don't care if 6 year old Indonesian kids write my games and print them on baby fetus paper, as long as I get it cheap.*

*Try to read the humorous tone this was intended to strike. Don't take it too seriously.

Quote from: estar;257232RPG third party authors are paid very low compared to other gigs in the writing industry. Wizard's rates are much better and average three times what you would get writing for other companies.

And presumably they don't ask you to do something, and then when you've done it they change their mind and stop all communication with you (happened to me recently :mad: ).

Quote from: estar;257232RPG third party authors are paid very low compared to other gigs in the writing industry. Wizard's rates are much better and average three times what you would get writing for other companies.

What are Wizards' pay rates? Just out of curiosity...

Kind of old news and not that shocking. I suppose if WotC were the first company to do so, it might be a different story.

Seanchai

Quote from: Balbinus;257266It sounds to me like a fairly standard application of in-house legal policy, even where it may not be necessary.

All of this makes sense but it isn't a bit odd that this is being applied to freelancers, as opposed to regular employees?

Of course we don't know the exact details. Presumably we aren't talking a lifetime prohibition but what are the time limits?

The idea of doing piece-work with no benefits and no guarantee of regular pay--which is what I interpret "freelance" to mean--while simultaneously being prevented from taking outside work--seems to combine the worst of several worlds. Although I don't know how other freelance oriented industries handle things, this suggests a pretty severe imbalance of power between labor and employer.