Quote from: TristramEvans;814858I think you're confusing IP laws with patent laws.

Patents are IP. Or so my IP lawyers have told me. What did you think you were talking about?

QuoteThough I am curious what "bad" you think would come of something entering the public domain after it's creator's death?

As I said, investors are going to be reluctant to invest if the IP cannot be transferred and if it may unexpectedly enter the public domain at any time. That has consequences. If my intellectual property cannot be transferred and expires on my death I cannot use my IP to make provisions for my spouse, children, or other heirs. That lowers the value for all rationale potential IP creators. This is likely to result in less invention by anyone motivated by a financial return on their creative efforts.

Also, if IP becomes public if the inventor dies, you have just provided a perverse incentive for villainous people to kill the inventor to get around the IP. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that was an unintended consequence, but it seems easily foreseeable and a not particularly effective way to deter the evil suit-wearing crowd from evilness.

Quote from: Bren;814859Patents are IP. Or so my IP lawyers have told me. What did you think you were talking about?

Copyright, obviously. Patents don't apply in any way to RPGs.

QuoteAs I said, investors are going to be reluctant to invest if the IP cannot be transferred and if it may unexpectedly enter the public domain at any time. That has consequences. If my intellectual property cannot be transferred and expires on my death I cannot use my IP to make provisions for my spouse, children, or other heirs. That lowers the value for all rationale potential IP creators. This is likely to result in less invention by anyone motivated by a financial return on their creative efforts.

I'm pretty sure that's not how humanity operates, to be honest.

QuoteAlso, if IP becomes public if the inventor dies, you have just provided a perverse incentive for villainous people to kill the inventor to get around the IP. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that was an unintended consequence, but it seems easily foreseeable and a not particularly effective way to deter the evil suit-wearing crowd from evilness.

That's kind of a Snidely Whiplash, cartoon villain kind of reasoning, though.
Director: "I want to make this movie about Harry Potter as a middle aged vampire hunter, but I cant get the rights"
Universal Studios: "Its cool, we'll just assassinate JK Rowling"

And once it entered into the public domain, they wouldn't have exclusive rights, so they wouldnt have actually stolen anything for themselves.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;814745And yes, it is entitlement if you think it's your right to take someone else's IP and do what you want with it to make a buck for yourself.  The only "actions" this company is doing is enforcing their legal right to IP protection.  They aren't doing anything to you personally, so get off your high horse.

There was no money being made and no revenue loss for WOTC since they don't have a generator of their own.

Quote from: Necrozius;814852Ah so the tool allowed you to create characters, but didn't give you any of the rules on how things worked (eg: class abilities). That seems pretty fair to me. WoTC's "cease and desist" seems a bit overblown.

It was a bit, but hey its their football. They can take it and go home, and fans are free to play with another ball that WOTC doesn't own.

The bottom line is, when there is a demand that isn't being met, people will find a way to get what they want. Necessity is the mother of invention. Leave the fans without what they want and they will come up with it on their own.

By the time WOTC gets its head out if its ass and actually has digital tools to offer, there will probably be several generators of equal or higher quality floating around on torrent sites not "hosted" anywhere that can be shut down with a C&D.

Quote from: TristramEvans;814862Copyright, obviously. Patents don't apply in any way to RPGs.

Then maybe say you are talking about copyrights then instead of using the catchall term IP that covers a lot more than just copyrights.

But in the case of copyrights the historical US rule of inventors life +75 years or whatever the plus was before Disney started Mickey Mousing around with copyright law seems entirely reasonable. That protects the inventor, provides some cushion in the event of early death, allows the inventor to provide for heirs, while still allowing written works to be diseminated to the public in time.

What benefit do you see to sticking it to the inventor by making the copyright non-transferable and to sticking it to the inventor's heirs by making the copyright expire when the inventor dies?

QuoteI'm pretty sure that's not how humanity operates, to be honest.

In what sense? Because I'm pretty sure some people do spend some time thinking about their financial interests and on occassion trying to rationally decide what is in their interests. What decision making model are you proposing instead of rationale self-interest and how does it support your idea?

QuoteThat's kind of a Snidely Whiplash, cartoon villain kind of reasoning, honestly. Director: "I want to make this movie about Harry Potter as a middle aged vampire hunter, but I cant get the rights"
Universal Studios: "Its cool, we'll just assassinate JK Rowling"

Yes it is kind of Snidely Whiplash. But sometimes people are violent over money. To think otherwise is even more naive than Dudley Doright.

Quote from: Bren;814865Then maybe say you are talking about copyrights then instead of using the catchall term IP that covers a lot more than just copyrights.

QuoteBut in the case of copyrights the historical US rule of inventors life +75 years or whatever the plus was before Disney started Mickey Mousing around with copyright law seems entirely reasonable. That protects the inventor, provides some cushion in the event of early death, allows the inventor to provide for heirs, while still allowing written works to be diseminated to the public in time.

20+ years seems even more reasonable, though frankly I don't see that Junior getting paid for daddy's creativity is something that should be taken into account.

QuoteWhat benefit do you see to sticking it to the inventor by making the copyright non-transferable and to sticking it to the inventor's heirs by making the copyright expire when the inventor dies?

Exactly the opposite. Its the transferring of copyright that has perpetually "stuck it to the inventor". See Superman, Monopoly, et al. I don't see it as "sticking it to the creator's heirs". If there's an inheritance based on money made by the creator they want to leave to their kids, great. Otherwise we get situations like Brian Herbert's Dune novels or Christopher Tolkien's "here's some notes my dad scribbled, give me $20! Volume XXVII"

QuoteIn what sense? Because I'm pretty sure some people do spend some time thinking about their financial interests and on occassion trying to rationally decide what is in their interests. What model are you proposing instead of rationole self-interest and how does it support your idea?

The entirety of human history.

QuoteYes it is kind of Snidely Whiplash. But sometimes people are violent over money. To think otherwise is even more naive than Dudley Doright.

I find it a bit of a ludicrous situation that would be very rare, and probably pretty easy to prove motivation in court when the crime was investigated.

All this lawyer-y crap is the worst. The heart of this hobby is the creation of new material — worlds, adventures, house-rules, etc. — by the people who actually play. The only thing that has changed is that people can share what they've made over the internet. I don't care whether someone gets a bug up their ass and figures out the law will help them build a wall around their precious; it is still contrary to the spirit of the hobby.

What really bugs the shit out of me is that the only actual money being made from something that amounts to intellectual theft comes from all the knock-offs that take advantage of the fact that you can exactly copy someone's entire game so long as you re-write it at the level of sentences and slap a new name on it. It doesn't personally offend me that this gets done because I don't think anyone is really harmed. But when the same people who make or buy these blatant copies pontificate about the evils of other sorts of fan-based 'riffing' on published games it makes me want to puke.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;814863There was no money being made and no revenue loss for WOTC since they don't have a generator of their own.

.

Irrelevant.  Just because the legal owner doesn't do something with an IP you think they should doesn't mean anyone else can do it as long as they aren't making money.

Quote from: TristramEvans;814868I find it a bit of a ludicrous situation that would be very rare, and probably pretty easy to prove motivation in court when the crime was investigated.

Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison routinely had people beaten just so they could file a patent faster than the person who actually invented it.

If there's a lot of money to be made, I wouldn't be shocked to see things like murder to be considered.  Wouldn't be the first time, and people have killed others for far less than the recipe for coca-cola or KFC herbs and spices.

Steve Jobs is dead.  Hey, let's start allowing anyone who wants to put the apple logo on anything they make.  That won't have a negative affect to customers at all...

Quote from: TristramEvans;814862Copyright, obviously. Patents don't apply in any way to RPGs.

Proper names like "Greyhawk" or named spells are copyrighted.
Game mechanics can be patented (see John Bohrer's Age of Steam or Reiner Knizia's Settler's dice game).

Patenting usually comes up only as a 'last resort' when there's conflict of interest. Classic case is, the designer wants to sell the game to a new company, or the old company has parted ways with the designer and wants to keep on selling the game. Such cases are immensely controvercial, because the designer did contracted labour, and usually operates under intellectual property right clauses (anything produced under the contract belongs to the company).

There's no question that this can be legally done. The issue seems rather that it's poorly received when no hard profit is involved. GMT and FFG are doing well as companies because they encourage fans to put up websites with 'help sheets' for their games. Such sheets are clearly in violation of IP, and they sometimes replicate game mechanics. Everyone is on the same page. The question is simply - why would a company act on that fact? Only if it perceived such fanbased initiatives as contrary to its business interests. And that, I take it, is what some people object to. WotC took a decision it clearly could - but it's so clearly against the interests of clients, that some here apparently question WotC' self-perception of its 'business interests'. Others don't question it. Big surprise. It's not a hard question with a definite answer.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;814874Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison routinely had people beaten just so they could file a patent faster than the person who actually invented it.

If there's a lot of money to be made, I wouldn't be shocked to see things like murder to be considered.  Wouldn't be the first time, and people have killed others for far less than the recipe for coca-cola or KFC herbs and spices.

Steve Jobs is dead.  Hey, let's start allowing anyone who wants to put the apple logo on anything they make.  That won't have a negative affect to customers at all...

Again, copyright, not patents.

Quote from: Windjammer;814878Proper names like "Greyhawk" or named spells are copyrighted.

Copyright, not trademarks.


lol, this happens every time this comes up.

Quote from: TristramEvans;81486820+ years seems even more reasonable, though frankly I don't see that Junior getting paid for daddy's creativity is something that should be taken into account.

Financial provisions for one's progeny and heirs is a longstanding human tradition. Taking that into account seems entirely reasonable to me. Also 20 years doesn't allow much time for a sick or elderly writer to financial gain from their creation especially since you want to prevent them from selling the copyright. But at least now we are discussing some period beyond the creator's lifetime.

What is the need you see for a shorter timeframe than the historical period (which I think was either 50 or 75 years)? Why should authors agree to let society have their ideas for free sooner than was the case?

QuoteExactly the opposite. Its the transferring of copyright that has perpetually "stuck it to the inventor". See Superman, Monopoly, et al. I don't see it as "sticking it to the creator's heirs". If there's an inheritance based on money made by the creator they want to leave to their kids, great.

1. The guys that invented Superman and Monopoly are dead. They and their heirs aren't any more stuck by the current system that by your system or even by no system at all.

2. The creators knew (or should have known) what their employment agreements said regarding ownership of their inventions and work for hire. If they didn't that's sad, but hardly a tragedy that justifies overturning the copyright laws. If they did know what the agreements said, then too bad, not so sad.

3. By preventing transfer of the copyright there is no way for the inventor to benefit unless they can publish in their own lifetime (or your new proposal of lifetime+20 years) and no way for their heirs to benefit after their death (or death +20 years).

QuoteOtherwise we get situations like Brian Herbert's Dune novels or Christopher Tolkien's "here's some notes my dad scribbled, give me $20! Volume XXVII"

I don't understand what problem you see with the creation and sale of additional Dune novels or Middle Earth books. Would you prefer that those books not be published for people to buy? Or do you think that Christopher Tolkien and Brian Herbert should publish their dad's unpublished notes for free? I'm not getting what you think the societal benefit is here that justifies that.

QuoteThe entirety of human history.

Supports the notion that humans want to provide for their heirs. And that humans at times make decisions that are in their economic self-interest. What human history are you thinking of where those things don't occur?

QuoteI find it a bit of a ludicrous situation that would be very rare, and probably pretty easy to prove motivation in court when the crime was investigated.

I agree it would be a rare occurrence, but human history shows that it would be a motivation in murder at some point and even if the killer was caught that would be cold comfort to the victim and their family.

And you have yet to articulate what the big hurry is in making someone else's ideas available to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet who wants them for free. The author can already make their ideas freely available now.

Quote from: Omega;814837Youd be surprised how often it happens though. Big Money oft relies on the fact the little guy they stole from or are bullying doesnt have the money to afford to fight back. Or doesnt know they even can.

Heh, yes. I used 'hardER' very deliberately.

I'd like to read more about Franklin and Jefferson having people beaten up...

Quote from: Bren;814883Financial provisions for one's progeny and heirs is a longstanding human tradition. Taking that into account seems entirely reasonable to me. Also 20 years doesn't allow much time for a sick or elderly writer to financial gain from their creation especially since you want to prevent them from selling the copyright. But at least now we are discussing some period beyond the creator’s lifetime.What is the need you see for a shorter timeframe than the historical period (which I think was either 50 or 75 years)? Why should authors agree to let society have their ideas for free sooner than was the case?

The original historical period was 7 years after the creation. In 1790 this was extended to 14 years with one renewel of an additional 14 years possible. In 1831 this was extended to 28 years with an option to renew. It was not until 1976 this was extended to 75 years or time of the creator's death + 50 years.
So the "historical period"  you're talking about is incredibly recent.

QuoteThe guys that invented Superman and Monopoly are dead. They and their heirs aren't any more stuck by the current system that by your system or even by no system at all.

That really has no relevance to the point.

Quote2. The creators knew (or should have known) what their employment agreements said regarding ownership of their inventions and work for hire. If they didn't that's sad, but hardly a tragedy that justifies overturning the copyright laws. If they did know what the agreements said, then too bad, not so sad.

So you're concerned about providing for creator's heirs, but you don't care if a creator is screwed by a business contract? I think you and I may have just reached a moral impasse.

Quote3. By preventing transfer of the copyright there is no way for the inventor to benefit unless they can publish in their own lifetime (or your new proposal of lifetime+20 years) and no way for their heirs to benefit after their death (or death +20 years).

Of course they can benefit. Licensing.

QuoteI don't understand what problem you see with the creation and sale of additional Dune novels or Middle Earth books. Would you prefer that those books not be published for people to buy?

Yes. Or rather, I'd prefer that other, better writers had the opportunity to compete so the audience is not stuck with crap.

QuoteWhat human history are you thinking of where those things don’t occur?

Your claim was that without the current system of financial gain, human beings wont create. I'm suggesting the drive to create is so inherently strong a part of human nature it transcends any financial concerns, forever.

QuoteI agree it would be a rare occurrence, but human history shows that it would be a motivation in murder at some point and even if the killer was caught that would be cold comfort to the victim and their family.

I'm not interested in a system of trying to fix or do away with every possible motivation for murder ever. You're not advocating getting rid of money, and that motivates hundred of thousands of murders annually. Sex? How many murders does that motivate? Seriously its not even worth taking into consideration, really.

QuoteAnd you have yet to articulate what the big hurry is in making someone else’s ideas available to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet who wants them for free. The author can already make their ideas freely available now.

I believe Bria Hensen's Dune books illustrate it quite succinctly.