|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Apr 27, 2018 20:01:03 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, when @piper, was told no by Wizbro you said I am curious, why would doing something with permission have resulted in I would think that would be keeping the genie in the bottle to do it with permission. Letting the genie out of the bottle would be doing it without permission and Wizbro ignoring it, would it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Apr 27, 2018 20:02:29 GMT -5
As he said - it was a long shot. And a worthy goal. WotC does have a justified fear: the trademarks of "D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are easily lost when (not only if) someone can show they've become generic. IMO they became generic the moment that 3E was published.  Just sayin'! |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Apr 27, 2018 20:09:23 GMT -5
If you have a case, go for it. Why wait until 2050 or whenever? I'd druther everyone be able to use the trademark.
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 3, 2018 21:17:27 GMT -5
They (WotC) seem to be fairly smart people. They don't want to open any fresh can of worms. I'd say just use the OGL and write a book of commentary. Think of it like all those biblical concordances that are out there.  |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on May 4, 2018 10:20:53 GMT -5
They (WotC) seem to be fairly smart people. They don't want to open any fresh can of worms. I'd say just use the OGL and write a book of commentary. Think of it like all those biblical concordances that are out there. What is this can of worms, people keep mentioning? If you get permission there is no can of worms, is there? |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 5, 2018 19:53:36 GMT -5
They (WotC) seem to be fairly smart people. They don't want to open any fresh can of worms. I'd say just use the OGL and write a book of commentary. Think of it like all those biblical concordances that are out there. What is this can of worms, people keep mentioning? If you get permission there is no can of worms, is there?I It's about retention of copyright. Should someone be too loose about giving others permission to use copyrighted material, it becomes difficult to defend ownership of it in court (should the need for this arise). |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on May 6, 2018 18:30:55 GMT -5
What is this can of worms, people keep mentioning? If you get permission there is no can of worms, is there?I It's about retention of copyright. Should someone be too loose about giving others permission to use copyrighted material, it becomes difficult to defend ownership of it in court (should the need for this arise). Hmm, odd that doing it with permission weakens the copyright. Of course I assumed if they gave permission, they would be the publisher. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 14, 2018 15:02:54 GMT -5
It's about retention of copyright. Should someone be too loose about giving others permission to use copyrighted material, it becomes difficult to defend ownership of it in court (should the need for this arise). Hmm, odd that doing it with permission weakens the copyright. Of course I assumed if they gave permission, they would be the publisher. Allow me to try it another way: Let's say you have a lawn mower. The neighbor on your north borrows this routinely (with permission) to mow his lawn. After a while, your neighbor on the south also asks for (and receives) your permission to use it to mow his lawn. A while later still, your neighbor on the east also asks for (and gets) permission to use it to mow his lawn. Around about now, you are beginning to worry about how much you're loaning out your mower. So when the neighbor on the west asks, you refuse. West Neighbor takes you to court, claiming that - by freely giving permission to your other three adjoining neighbors for so long (without receiving compensation) - your lawnmower has become community property (e.g. has entered the public domain). The judge may or may not agree with this argument, of course. But it IS a valid legal argument and therefore you may lose your exclusive rights to your own property. What works for your lawnmower works even more strongly for copyright. Unlike a lawnmower (which you can lock up in your garage) there isn't anything but the legalisms of the courts that can keep someone from simply using copyrighted material however they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 14, 2018 20:45:22 GMT -5
Hmm, odd that doing it with permission weakens the copyright. Of course I assumed if they gave permission, they would be the publisher. Allow me to try it another way: Let's say you have a lawn mower. The neighbor on your north borrows this routinely (with permission) to mow his lawn. After a while, your neighbor on the south also asks for (and receives) your permission to use it to mow his lawn. A while later still, your neighbor on the east also asks for (and gets) permission to use it to mow his lawn. Around about now, you are beginning to worry about how much you're loaning out your mower. So when the neighbor on the west asks, you refuse. West Neighbor takes you to court, claiming that - by freely giving permission to your other three adjoining neighbors for so long (without receiving compensation) - your lawnmower has become community property (e.g. has entered the public domain). The judge may or may not agree with this argument, of course. But it IS a valid legal argument and therefore you may lose your exclusive rights to your own property. What works for your lawnmower works even more strongly for copyright. Unlike a lawnmower (which you can lock up in your garage) there isn't anything but the legalisms of the courts that can keep someone from simply using copyrighted material however they wish. Wow that is terrible. If that is a valid legal argument, then the law is even more corrupt than my dad says it is. That is saying to protect yourself legally, be a bad neighbor all the way round. Of course, you would have to be a really bad person to sue in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 14, 2018 22:09:52 GMT -5
Allow me to try it another way: Let's say you have a lawn mower. The neighbor on your north borrows this routinely (with permission) to mow his lawn. After a while, your neighbor on the south also asks for (and receives) your permission to use it to mow his lawn. A while later still, your neighbor on the east also asks for (and gets) permission to use it to mow his lawn. Around about now, you are beginning to worry about how much you're loaning out your mower. So when the neighbor on the west asks, you refuse. West Neighbor takes you to court, claiming that - by freely giving permission to your other three adjoining neighbors for so long (without receiving compensation) - your lawnmower has become community property (e.g. has entered the public domain). The judge may or may not agree with this argument, of course. But it IS a valid legal argument and therefore you may lose your exclusive rights to your own property. What works for your lawnmower works even more strongly for copyright. Unlike a lawnmower (which you can lock up in your garage) there isn't anything but the legalisms of the courts that can keep someone from simply using copyrighted material however they wish. Wow that is terrible. If that is a valid legal argument, then the law is even more corrupt than my dad says it is. That is saying to protect yourself legally, be a bad neighbor all the way round. Of course, you would have to be a really bad person to sue in the first place. I'm actually just guessing about the possibility of the lawnmower becoming common public property. I picked that because it was something I could imagine someone loaning out often without imposing much control over the loan. But I *do* know that the legal principle in question definitely applies to land ownership. Specifically, if you allow someone to use your land over time without either limiting the use in some way or requiring some form of restitution (rent), you lose control of that portion of "your" property. The most common example is a private road which is open to other's use - except for that one day a year that you have to lock a chain across it to keep your rights to that stretch of property. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 14, 2018 22:34:07 GMT -5
Wow that is terrible. If that is a valid legal argument, then the law is even more corrupt than my dad says it is. That is saying to protect yourself legally, be a bad neighbor all the way round. Of course, you would have to be a really bad person to sue in the first place. I'm actually just guessing about the possibility of the lawnmower becoming common public property. I picked that because it was something I could imagine someone loaning out often without imposing much control over the loan. But I *do* know that the legal principle in question definitely applies to land ownership. Specifically, if you allow someone to use your land over time without either limiting the use in some way or requiring some form of restitution (rent), you lose control of that portion of "your" property. The most common example is a private road which is open to other's use - except for that one day a year that you have to lock a chain across it to keep your rights to that stretch of property. Sad that you are forced to be a jerk to protect your property rights because judges and the courts are corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 14, 2018 22:39:15 GMT -5
I'm actually just guessing about the possibility of the lawnmower becoming common public property. I picked that because it was something I could imagine someone loaning out often without imposing much control over the loan. But I *do* know that the legal principle in question definitely applies to land ownership. Specifically, if you allow someone to use your land over time without either limiting the use in some way or requiring some form of restitution (rent), you lose control of that portion of "your" property. The most common example is a private road which is open to other's use - except for that one day a year that you have to lock a chain across it to keep your rights to that stretch of property. Sad that you are forced to be a jerk to protect your property rights because judges and the courts are corrupt. It's not so much that, at least not in my opinion. It's the origin of property rights in Western culture that's at fault. The old saying "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." is a saying for a reason. At base, you really only possess that which you actually, literally possess. Allowing others to possess (use) your things without compensation erodes your claim to the exclusive use (and thus ownership) of those things. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on May 15, 2018 8:36:47 GMT -5
Sad that you are forced to be a jerk to protect your property rights because judges and the courts are corrupt. It's not so much that, at least not in my opinion. It's the origin of property rights in Western culture that's at fault. The old saying "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." is a saying for a reason. At base, you really only possess that which you actually, literally possess. Allowing others to possess (use) your things without compensation erodes your claim to the exclusive use (and thus ownership) of those things. You are completely right. It does point out that we are not as civilized as we pretend to be or this would be history by now as this really goes back to might makes right, instead of right makes right. This whole thing though does point out how we view land versus intellectual property both the similarities and the differences. I am afraid that we have derailed this thread and this side conversation should be split off into its own thread, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 13:03:43 GMT -5
If I may offer an observation, people are confusing 'copyright' with 'trademark'. The two are very different, and are very much misunderstood by gamers.
See also the multitude of court documents in "Arneson vs. Gygax, TSR, et al" where this discussion was had at great length before the Ninth Circuit and settled by the court in a quite detailed decision. The effects of this decision are still with us today, and are why WotC bought out both Gary's and Dave's rights and IP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 30, 2018 22:54:11 GMT -5
|
|
Just sayin'!
