|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 18, 2018 15:16:58 GMT -5
I'm just a simple country bumpkin; I'm not a lawyer, or Constitutional expert, but I know a rotten fish when I smell one. And the plain fact is, for those that like to apply plain old common sense, the flurry of federal laws regarding copyright were/and are, nothing more than big money interest buying off congress in order to maintain control over their IP. I'm speaking specifically within the U.S. The Constitution states specifically, the authority of the federal government (here) :
*my bolding
1. The full life time of an author/inventor does not sound "limited" to me. And if one researches back quite a few decades, one will discover that the copyright duration was far shorter than most would believe possible; way shorter than the lifetime of an author/inventor. And the fact that earlier sittings of the U.S. Congress set the limited times to very short duration, clearly speaks to how better they understood their Constitutional authority, than the recent incarnations of Congress, that have been bought and paid to do the bidding of Corporate Interests.
2. It requires an Amendment to alter the powers of Congress as detailed in the Constitution. No such process was used to implement the plethora of federal laws that have resulted in the current day quagmire of IP control and ownership.
Sorry if this derails the thread. Didn't mean to.
And, of course, I will gladly reconsider my assessment of the legalities of this matter if offered reasonable, rational, plain talking rebuttal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 15:40:40 GMT -5
I'm just a simple country bumpkin; I'm not a lawyer, or Constitutional expert, but I know a rotten fish when I smell one. And the plain fact is, for those that like to apply plain old common sense, the flurry of federal laws regarding copyright were/and are, nothing more than big money interest buying off congress in order to maintain control over their IP. I'm speaking specifically within the U.S. The Constitution states specifically, the authority of the federal government (here) : *my bolding 1. The full life time of an author/inventor does not sound "limited" to me. And if one researches back quite a few decades, one will discover that the copyright duration was far shorter than most would believe possible; way shorter than the lifetime of an author/inventor. And the fact that earlier sittings of the U.S. Congress set the limited times to very short duration, clearly speaks to how better they understood their Constitutional authority, than the recent incarnations of Congress, that have been bought and paid to do the bidding of Corporate Interests. 2. It requires an Amendment to alter the powers of Congress as detailed in the Constitution. No such process was used to implement the plethora of federal laws that have resulted in the current day quagmire of IP control and ownership. Sorry if this derails the thread. Didn't mean to. And, of course, I will gladly reconsider my assessment of the legalities of this matter if offered reasonable, rational, plain talking rebuttal. Respectfully, I've read your posts here and elsewhere and you fail to strike me as a bumpkin. I've always considered you to be quite intelligent and well-informed. That said? Please forgive me for saying this but a debate about copyright law is off-topic in this thread or on this forum, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 18, 2018 15:45:36 GMT -5
Mechanics are not copyrightable. Neither are common words. The SRD is a sham perpetrated by WotC to promote their control through a complicit licensing. I wrote about this years ago at my blog. They can only copyright trade names that are their proprietary IP. Wonder why they did not include Beholder, Mind Flayer, et al in the SRD? Because that would mean surrenduring their IP, so, as I stated they surrendered nothing, as mechanics and common names (fireball, charm, etc) are NOT copyrightable.
They then crippled the SRD by saying one could not use the experience tables as well, which is but another mechanic used for the tracking of a scale.
Mayfair proved this years ago on their lawsuits with TSR and I proved that with my PPP modules (1986-1988) which used D&D magic items and spell names, etc. In the latter case all TSR told me was that they would not allow me to advertise in THE DRAGON, but they could do nothing else due to the Mayfair suit/ruling.
The SRD was the biggest sham ever produced by WotC to control the market narrative during the D20 push. It was all about cornering the market and intimidating competitors.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 18, 2018 15:58:49 GMT -5
I'm just a simple country bumpkin; I'm not a lawyer, or Constitutional expert, but I know a rotten fish when I smell one. And the plain fact is, for those that like to apply plain old common sense, the flurry of federal laws regarding copyright were/and are, nothing more than big money interest buying off congress in order to maintain control over their IP. I'm speaking specifically within the U.S. The Constitution states specifically, the authority of the federal government (here) : *my bolding 1. The full life time of an author/inventor does not sound "limited" to me. And if one researches back quite a few decades, one will discover that the copyright duration was far shorter than most would believe possible; way shorter than the lifetime of an author/inventor. And the fact that earlier sittings of the U.S. Congress set the limited times to very short duration, clearly speaks to how better they understood their Constitutional authority, than the recent incarnations of Congress, that have been bought and paid to do the bidding of Corporate Interests. 2. It requires an Amendment to alter the powers of Congress as detailed in the Constitution. No such process was used to implement the plethora of federal laws that have resulted in the current day quagmire of IP control and ownership. Sorry if this derails the thread. Didn't mean to. And, of course, I will gladly reconsider my assessment of the legalities of this matter if offered reasonable, rational, plain talking rebuttal. Respectfully, I've read your posts here and elsewhere and you fail to strike me as a bumpkin. I've always considered you to be quite intelligent and well-informed. That said? Please forgive me for saying this but a debate about copyright law is off-topic in this thread or on this forum, for that matter. To be honest, I was hoping everyone would see the brilliance of my logic and not wish to debate me.  But, your point is taken; I do tend to go afield sometimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 16:02:39 GMT -5
To be honest, I was hoping everyone would see the brilliance of my logic and not wish to debate me. But, your point is taken; I do tend to go afield sometimes. LOL! Well, I do admire the passion and perspective you bring to the topic! Have an exalt. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 18, 2018 17:21:21 GMT -5
Mechanics are not copyrightable. Neither are common words. The SRD is a sham perpetrated by WotC to promote their control through a complicit licensing. I wrote about this years ago at my blog. They can only copyright trade names that are their proprietary IP. Wonder why they did not include Beholder, Mind Flayer, et al in the SRD? Because that would mean surrenduring their IP, so, as I stated they surrendered nothing, as mechanics and common names (fireball, charm, etc) are NOT copyrightable. They then crippled the SRD by saying one could not use the experience tables as well, which is but another mechanic used for the tracking of a scale. Mayfair proved this years ago on their lawsuits with TSR and I proved that with my PPP modules (1986-1988) which used D&D magic items and spell names, etc. In the latter case all TSR told me was that they would not allow me to advertise in THE DRAGON, but they could do nothing else due to the Mayfair suit/ruling. The SRD was the biggest sham ever produced by WotC to control the market narrative during the D20 push. It was all about cornering the market and intimidating competitors. If the d20 SRD and everything based off them are a sham, then make your own set of rules and release it under a license of your creation giving permission to other to use it in their own works. There been several RPGs created that ignored the Open Game License and opted for an alternative like one of the Creative Common licenses. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 18, 2018 17:30:51 GMT -5
Mechanics are not copyrightable. Neither are common words. The SRD is a sham perpetrated by WotC to promote their control through a complicit licensing. I wrote about this years ago at my blog. They can only copyright trade names that are their proprietary IP. Wonder why they did not include Beholder, Mind Flayer, et al in the SRD? Because that would mean surrenduring their IP, so, as I stated they surrendered nothing, as mechanics and common names (fireball, charm, etc) are NOT copyrightable. They then crippled the SRD by saying one could not use the experience tables as well, which is but another mechanic used for the tracking of a scale. Mayfair proved this years ago on their lawsuits with TSR and I proved that with my PPP modules (1986-1988) which used D&D magic items and spell names, etc. In the latter case all TSR told me was that they would not allow me to advertise in THE DRAGON, but they could do nothing else due to the Mayfair suit/ruling. The SRD was the biggest sham ever produced by WotC to control the market narrative during the D20 push. It was all about cornering the market and intimidating competitors. If the d20 SRD and everything based off them are a sham, then make your own set of rules and release it under a license of your creation giving permission to other to use it in their own works. There been several RPGs created that ignored the Open Game License and opted for an alternative like one of the Creative Common licenses. I's not IF it is a sham. It is a sham and as I noted. I spoke at great length, in person, with Darwin Bromley about this. Kenzer also knows this (because Dave Kenzer is an IP Lawyer)l and of course the public has had access to the TSR vs. Mayfair court proceedings and rulings for years now; and, as well, my own experiences with TSR also proves this out, as noted above. Why I choose to do (or not do) anything is a superfluous point. What I know is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 18:06:13 GMT -5
Furthermore, more RULES are the last thing this stupid hobby needs.
Back in 1982 or 1983 when Hero Games was working on what later became "Fantasy Hero," their inhouse working title was "YARG" -- "Yet Another Roleplaying Game."
Rules are the least important thing. There is a limit to how interested people are in all the various ways to simulate putting your sword through somebody's chitlins.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 18, 2018 18:48:41 GMT -5
Furthermore, more RULES are the last thing this stupid hobby needs. The point isn't to create another set of rules. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 18, 2018 19:08:50 GMT -5
If the d20 SRD and everything based off them are a sham, then make your own set of rules and release it under a license of your creation giving permission to other to use it in their own works. There been several RPGs created that ignored the Open Game License and opted for an alternative like one of the Creative Common licenses. I's not IF it is a sham. It is a sham and as I noted. I spoke at great length, in person, with Darwin Bromley about this. Kenzer also knows this (because Dave Kenzer is an IP Lawyer)l and of course the public has had access to the TSR vs. Mayfair court proceedings and rulings for years now; and, as well, my own experiences with TSR also proves this out, as noted above. Why I choose to do (or not do) anything is a superfluous point. What I know is not. So are you saying that myself and others should read the TSR vs. Mayfair to find out exactly what I can or can't use out of the 1974 edition of Dungeons & Dragons? Without consulting an IP attorney? That I do this for my material despite the fact there is a document, the d20 SRD, the contains all the terms I need and was released with the explicit permission of the IP Holder with a license deliberately written to be used and understood by a layman without consulting a IP attorney. Dave Kenzer as you pointed out is an IP attorney. Darwin Bromely of Mayfair Games had access to legal counsel paid for by his company's revenue. I and others are not IP attorneys or have the cast to pay for a IP attorney. I read the Mayfair ruling, it a morass of disputes about trademark violations, licensing agreements, and the issue we are debating about rules and copyrights. In sort I would have to take it to an attorney for their advice. Or I could agree to abide by the Open Game License and get what I need to use that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Mar 18, 2018 19:40:29 GMT -5
I'm gonna tap out for a bit. I am not going to take part in yet another debate over the SRD, copyrights and arm chair attorneying. I'll keep an eye on things for when it goes back to discussing where we need to go with our love of OD&D and ceases to be a WOTC bash session.
[edit to add] not trying to be rude but I have had enough of this over the past decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 18, 2018 19:57:24 GMT -5
I's not IF it is a sham. It is a sham and as I noted. I spoke at great length, in person, with Darwin Bromley about this. Kenzer also knows this (because Dave Kenzer is an IP Lawyer)l and of course the public has had access to the TSR vs. Mayfair court proceedings and rulings for years now; and, as well, my own experiences with TSR also proves this out, as noted above. Why I choose to do (or not do) anything is a superfluous point. What I know is not. So are you saying that myself and others should read the TSR vs. Mayfair to find out exactly what I can or can't use out of the 1974 edition of Dungeons & Dragons? Without consulting an IP attorney? That I do this for my material despite the fact there is a document, the d20 SRD, the contains all the terms I need and was released with the explicit permission of the IP Holder with a license deliberately written to be used and understood by a layman without consulting a IP attorney. Dave Kenzer as you pointed out is an IP attorney. Darwin Bromely of Mayfair Games had access to legal counsel paid for by his company's revenue. I and others are not IP attorneys or have the cast to pay for a IP attorney. I read the Mayfair ruling, it a morass of disputes about trademark violations, licensing agreements, and the issue we are debating about rules and copyrights. In sort I would have to take it to an attorney for their advice. Or I could agree to abide by the Open Game License and get what I need to use that way. The point is it is not necessary, it was not their IP AS MECHANICS are not copyrightable. It was a sham the d2o phase to get people producing content for them through their game and under a fake license which people still believe to this day is what is required to do so. It's a lie perpetrated by WotC. There were two TSR vs. Mayfair suits, btw. The fact that Mayfair was not challenged over the mechanics or use of TSR's non-copyrightable system IS the TELLING POINT! It's an admission of the facts I have been speaking about. The main point was the trademark violations, which were not enough to stop Mayfair from using "Compatible with AD&D". The rest of it is non-sequitor, as I can use the mechanics and common names and HAVE (as previously noted) and was not sued by TSR! I suggest you re-read my previous posts with comprehension before going off wasting more electrons. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 18, 2018 20:36:40 GMT -5
Please forgive me for saying this but a debate about copyright law is off-topic in this thread or on this forum, for that matter. While I do not know much of the details and especially not the legal issues, I do know that robkuntz has published compatible materials for a long time both before and after the SRD and the OGL came into existence and I am not aware of any problems resulting from that. I may be wrong, but I have always been of the opinion that the SRD and OGL were a method of getting free advertising and keeping customers pointed back to WotC. But I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I think I am right, but I don't know enough to know if I am or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 18, 2018 20:38:11 GMT -5
I'm gonna tap out for a bit. I am not going to take part in yet another debate over the SRD, copyrights and arm chair attorneying. I'll keep an eye on things for when it goes back to discussing where we need to go with our love of OD&D and ceases to be a WOTC bash session. [edit to add] not trying to be rude but I have had enough of this over the past decade. I split the threads for you. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 18, 2018 23:38:07 GMT -5
As I understand things (and, again, I am no legal expert, but have looked into these matters slightly), no permission is needed (to be granted) should an author make copies available to the public minus the copyright notice imprinted somewhere within the documents. Once any written work is published/released without such a notice, it immediately falls into Public Domain. At least, that's how it was last time I checked.
So, it's a lot easier to do than one might think.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 19, 2018 6:02:19 GMT -5
As I understand things (and, again, I am no legal expert, but have looked into these matters slightly), no permission is needed (to be granted) should an author make copies available to the public minus the copyright notice imprinted somewhere within the documents. Once any written work is published/released without such a notice, it immediately falls into Public Domain. At least, that's how it was last time I checked. So, it's a lot easier to do than one might think. Not since 1976 in the United States, all works are copyrighted at the moment of their creation. However a formal registration is needed if you want to sue for monetary damages. Otherwise all you can win is a cease and desist. See www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 19, 2018 9:57:24 GMT -5
As I understand things (and, again, I am no legal expert, but have looked into these matters slightly), no permission is needed (to be granted) should an author make copies available to the public minus the copyright notice imprinted somewhere within the documents. Once any written work is published/released without such a notice, it immediately falls into Public Domain. At least, that's how it was last time I checked. So, it's a lot easier to do than one might think. Any copyright holder can open up their IP to the fans if they want to in any form they want to with whatever limitations they may or may not put into place. A prime example of an author that loves his fans is 1632-verse or Ring of Fire series/Ring of Fire shared universe |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 19, 2018 10:03:18 GMT -5
You are correct. It is this formal registration of one's claim to the work that litigates an author's claim of ownership. That is why the copyright notice must be present.
As to anything legislated that attempts to extend/expand the "Limited times", I stand firm in the belief such is un-Constitutional.
I think this is about all I want to contribute to the discussion at this point. Better things to talk about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Mar 30, 2018 16:27:38 GMT -5
These are great stories, easy read too! |
|
