Read: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19615&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Then consider: Now, granted the Phoenyx doesn't charge anything (not even eyeball time; we pay the costs out of our own pockets, not via ads) and never will, but hypothetically, what if we'd gone the Meetup route and charged GMs for mailing lists/forums. What if the GMs (some of 'em, anyway) passed the hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game you ran? I mean, I can appreciate WW wanting to license all the bootleg for-profit LARPs out there, but this seems a bit like... well, like Meetup's ongoing(?) faux pas. (Optional reading: the articles on BoingBoing, Slashdot and elsewhere, the behemoth that (I'm told) is the RPG.net thread on the subject, and so on.) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > Read: > > http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19615&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 > > Then consider: > > Now, granted the Phoenyx doesn't charge anything (not even eyeball time; > we pay the costs out of our own pockets, not via ads) and never will, but > hypothetically, what if we'd gone the Meetup route and charged GMs for > mailing lists/forums. What if the GMs (some of 'em, anyway) passed the > hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole > since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game > you ran? The most reasonable explanation of this that I've seen is that it's a self-protection thing to placate their lawyers and company insurance providers. They aren't going to try to collect, this just gives them a way to say "it wasn't official, we aren't responsible" when some parents sue the company because their kids got drunk at a LARP somewhere. As for the games at the Phoenyx being classified the same as a convention, probably not. It would be more like a group that rents a conference room (a Phoenyx list and webspace) and asks the players to share out the cost of rental. -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Bill Hamilton wrote: BH>The most reasonable explanation of this that I've seen is that it's a BH>self-protection thing to placate their lawyers and company insurance BH>providers. They aren't going to try to collect, this just gives them a BH>way to say "it wasn't official, we aren't responsible" when some parents BH>sue the company because their kids got drunk at a LARP somewhere. Normally, I'd agree, but the company has a somewhat checkered litigation history. They might be serious. BH>As for the games at the Phoenyx being classified the same as a convention, BH>probably not. It would be more like a group that rents a conference room BH>(a Phoenyx list and webspace) and asks the players to share out the cost BH>of rental. They might not see it that way, but I'd be inclined to. Flipping the argument on its head: whyever would we pay *them* if we don't pay any *other* game company? Bah. Hypothetically, I'd either say fine, announce that White Wolf will no longer permit us to run their games here, and let them take the flak for alienating their own customers... or else, and this is actually the more likely, say: *Bring* it, y'all. You want to protect your IP, we'll write you our very own license, none of that Camarilla horsepuckey, and you sign it and we'll sign it and pay you "$1 and other considerations." Otherwise we'll see you in court. And, heck, we'd sell TICKETS, and not give them any of that profit. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:40:53PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19615&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 What I notice in particular is that every GM and _every repeat player_ in these games has to have a Camarilla membership. Which is something you have to pay for, at $20 a year. Surely that's going to put off some casual players... and how many new members are they going to get? Is that Big Money for them? (I doubt it, but it can't hurt...) >Now, granted the Phoenyx doesn't charge anything (not even eyeball time; >we pay the costs out of our own pockets, not via ads) and never will, but >hypothetically, what if we'd gone the Meetup route and charged GMs for >mailing lists/forums. What if the GMs (some of 'em, anyway) passed the >hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole >since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game >you ran? I'd seek clarification from WW. Given the specific clause about charging to cover premises rental, I think it could go either way, so I'd want a written decision. (My policy for the mailing lists I run is to have no advertisements or other charge, but to encourage users to send money or buy things off my Amazon wish-list. This seems to work quite well.) >I mean, I can appreciate WW wanting to license all the bootleg for-profit >LARPs out there, but this seems a bit like... well, like Meetup's >ongoing(?) faux pas. I don't know about Meetup... I don't think it can be a liability thing, since it's still legitimate to run a free LARP using the WW name, which would surely expose them to just as much risk. >(Optional reading: the articles on BoingBoing, Slashdot and elsewhere, >the behemoth that (I'm told) is the RPG.net thread on the subject, and so >on.) > >-- >Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>I'd seek clarification from WW. Given the specific clause about charging RBW>to cover premises rental, I think it could go either way, so I'd want a RBW>written decision. If we actually went that way, I'd stay with forgiveness being easier to get than permission - and from a legal standpoint, asking implies that we think they have a leg to stand on wrt us, which I don't think they would. RBW>I don't know about Meetup... I don't think it can be a liability thing, RBW>since it's still legitimate to run a free LARP using the WW name, which RBW>would surely expose them to just as much risk. Sort of. I think USAn liability changes when you start charging money for something. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > If we actually went that way, I'd stay with forgiveness being easier to > get than permission - and from a legal standpoint, asking implies that we > think they have a leg to stand on wrt us, which I don't think they would. The way I read it, it doesn't affect us. It addresses gamemasters charging their players... we're not the gamemasters, we're not running the White Wolf game. The issue is between the gamemasters and White Wolf. We're the guy who rents the bingo hall to those weird "vampire" people. Or you could even call us a gaming convention that only charges gamemasters for the right to run games (if we charged gamemasters, that is). White Wolf never says that landlords or convention organizers have any obligations to obtain a license. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ Wichita RP Community Resource -- http://www.wichitagamers.com/ ] ERROR: Unable to comprehend lame tagline. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:47:44PM -0500, Carl D Cravens wrote: >We're the guy who rents the bingo hall to those weird "vampire" people. >Or you could even call us a gaming convention that only charges >gamemasters for the right to run games (if we charged gamemasters, that >is). White Wolf never says that landlords or convention organizers have >any obligations to obtain a license. I think that the "convention" distinction comes from the idea that the players pay the _convention_, not the GM, in order to play in the game, and that the GM makes little or no money off it. If that is accurate, then a simple organisational change would remove what few teeth this claim has (always assuming it's enforceable at all, which is dubious at best): separate the GMs from the "organisation that rents the hall", make all fees payable to the latter, and make it clear that it's the former who is running the game. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>If that is accurate, then a simple organisational change would remove RBW>what few teeth this claim has (always assuming it's enforceable at all, RBW>which is dubious at best): separate the GMs from the "organisation that RBW>rents the hall", make all fees payable to the latter, and make it clear RBW>that it's the former who is running the game. Yes, one does wonder how they'd deal with an all-WW convention (I imagine those exist, unless they've wholly alienated their fans already). -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>We're the guy who rents the bingo hall to those weird "vampire" people. CDC>Or you could even call us a gaming convention that only charges CDC>gamemasters for the right to run games (if we charged gamemasters, that CDC>is). White Wolf never says that landlords or convention organizers have CDC>any obligations to obtain a license. Seems sensible. Ditto for Dreamlyrics... I don't feel like I'm infringing anything if I don't buy the gamebook for everything we have running here, after all. (Personally, I think the manufacturer should GIVE us one, but no one ever does...) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:47:44PM -0500, Carl D Cravens wrote:
> We're the guy who rents the bingo hall to those weird "vampire" people.
> Or you could even call us a gaming convention that only charges
> gamemasters for the right to run games (if we charged gamemasters, that
> is). White Wolf never says that landlords or convention organizers have
> any obligations to obtain a license.
If you did charge, there's a law working its way through Congress that would
make sure that *you* were really screwed:
http://news.com.com/The+coming+Web+security+woes/2010-1071_3-5772012.html
-Rob
--
-=-=-= Rob Knop =-= rknop@pobox.com =-= http://www.pobox.com/~rknop =-=-=-
Help the EFF protect basic freedoms online: http://www.eff.org
Playwrights & theatre types, see The Dramatic Exchange: http://www.dramex.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote: RAKJ>If you did charge, there's a law working its way through Congress that would RAKJ>make sure that *you* were really screwed: Nah, we'd find a workaround. Spammers haven't done us in yet, Congress sure can't. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:38:25PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > Nah, we'd find a workaround. Spammers haven't done us in yet, Congress > sure can't. The difference being that spammers don't control any law enforcement agencies who can come and confiscate your equipment.... -Rob -- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote: RAKJ>The difference being that spammers don't control any law enforcement RAKJ>agencies who can come and confiscate your equipment.... No, but on the other hand Congresscritters don't base their livelihood on finding technological ways to defeat our workarounds, and aren't nearly as agile when it comes to altering their methods. At best they're even, but I still think the spammers have the edge. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:40:53PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Read: >http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19615&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 They've backed down for the moment: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=20161 Sounds to me as though they're going to get a slightly more competent lawyer to re-draught it, at which point we might actually find out what the point is. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 02:34:51PM -0500, Roger Burton West wrote: > Sounds to me as though they're going to get a slightly more competent > lawyer to re-draught it, at which point we might actually find out what > the point is. I still think they have no right to restrict what they say (again) they are trying to restrict, but at least they have backed off the silliness for now. -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger swiftone@swiftone.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Sounds to me as though they're going to get a slightly more competent RBW>lawyer to re-draught it, at which point we might actually find out what RBW>the point is. I've heard a number of possible interpretations, all of which seem to have, charitably put, plot holes in them. Which, yes, makes me curious about their real motive, cause I can't see one from where I'm sitting. It *is* interesting that if one considers playing a roleplaying game to be a derivative work (which is arguable, but let it stand for now), one has only fair use (particularly, the nature of the work: it's a game, it's *meant* to be played) to fall back on. Under USAn legal code, anyhow. Was I the maker of a roleplaying game, I wouldn't count on winning the derivative-work test, much less having the commercial use trumping the nature-of-the-work clause. On t'other hand, were I a commercial LARP operator, I wouldn't count on a judge throwing it out immediately, which may be sufficient for a chilling effect there. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:02:04PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > It *is* interesting that if one considers playing a roleplaying game to be > a derivative work (which is arguable, but let it stand for now), Stand? Let it stand? Bah! I would say that in a public setting, you could argue that it's a derivative work, just as an improv play that is based on an existing play or novel is a public performance of a derivative work. But in private? I doubt it. Unless *reading* itself is soon going to be covered by copyright. (If you have an eidetic memory, is it illegal to go to movies?) -Rob -- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote: RAKJ>I would say that in a public setting, you could argue that it's a derivative RAKJ>work, just as an improv play that is based on an existing play or novel is a RAKJ>public performance of a derivative work. But in private? I doubt it. RAKJ>Unless *reading* itself is soon going to be covered by copyright. The meaning of "derivative work" has become broader and broader; still, I don't think that playing a game is *necessarily* a derivative work. Sometimes, certainly. From my limited memories of WoD (I have 1st ed Vampire and Werewolf around here somewhere), I don't think it *would* stand. A little bit of trademark use (not necessarily infringing), but a derivative work? Is it a "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted"? I don't think so. I mean, is a roleplaying session a dramatization of the rulebook? No, not really. It'd sure be fun to stage one in a courtroom, though, by way of demonstrating the difference. Or a musical arrangement. (If any of you podcast, and are running short on ideas, try setting some OGL'd rules to the Gilligan's Island theme and report back to us on the results.) Now, okay, when you're looking at the setting portions of the book, it might be possible to argue that you're transforming that into parts of your game. But then you run hard against the fair use bits about the *nature* of the work, and the *amount* you're using. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:02:04PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >On t'other hand, were I a commercial LARP operator, I wouldn't count on a >judge throwing it out immediately, which may be sufficient for a chilling >effect there. Absolutely. If running LARPs were a side job for me, as I think for many people it is, then I couldn't afford to be tied up in court and away from my real work; if it were my main job, then I couldn't afford not to be able to do it while things were being decided. Non-Pyramidians may also want to look at Marcus Rowland's new policy for his games at the top of http://www.livejournal.com/users/ffutures_news/ :-) R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Absolutely. If running LARPs were a side job for me, as I think for many RBW>people it is, then I couldn't afford to be tied up in court and away RBW>from my real work; if it were my main job, then I couldn't afford not to RBW>be able to do it while things were being decided. Right. It's something we'll have to consider, here (the Phoenyx will never involve income, but other domains here will. Maybe. Someday). RBW>Non-Pyramidians may also want to look at Marcus Rowland's new policy for RBW>his games at the top of http://www.livejournal.com/users/ffutures_news/ See, now, this is actually what I was hoping to see come of that: explicit licenses going the *other* direction. So long as they're not like the OGL (or the D20 trademark license, I forget which) and force you to trade in some fair-use rights, anyway. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> If you did charge, there's a law working its way through Congress that would
> make sure that *you* were really screwed:
Boy, that's really stupid. But then, the law isn't _intended_ to work the
way it's actually written. How stupid are our lawmakers, anyway?
What if my user agreement says I will make no effort to protect your
personal information from disclosure? You give me your personal
information at your own risk.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ Fudge Factor Webzine -- http://www.fudgefactor.org/ ]
You are in a maze of twisty messages, all alike.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:56:14PM -0500, Carl D Cravens wrote: > Boy, that's really stupid. But then, the law isn't _intended_ to work the > way it's actually written. How stupid are our lawmakers, anyway? Do you really have to ask? > What if my user agreement says I will make no effort to protect your > personal information from disclosure? You give me your personal > information at your own risk. If the law allows that loophole, that loophole will become the standard. And the law will be meaningless. Which perhaps wouldn't be such a bad thing, considering the alternative. To my mind, the easiest way to fix it is to make the law apply only to physical address and social security number. Making it apply to e-mail address and user ID is ludicrous. -Rob -- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:40:53PM -0500, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole > since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game > you ran? Seems doubtful. They are pretty sweeping in what they consider "charging" for games. I'm a Camarilla member, and I'm in the process of drafting a letter informing them that I don't recognize that they have any legal right over my games, and that my membership fee does not indicate acceptance of their claims. I think this is a terrible idea for the industry, and if it is indeed done for liability purposes, I think it's a bad move on their part. Now they have awareness of groups they did not before, even with a host of denied liability clauses. > I mean, I can appreciate WW wanting to license all the bootleg for-profit > LARPs out there, I can't. What is White Wolf providing these LARPs? A setting and rules? Those were purcahsed. Trademark disputes can be much more easily settled. White wolf is going somewhere the industry has not gone, and I can only hope others don't follow. Of course, most companies are smart enough not to sue (or threaten to sue) their customers. -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger swiftone@swiftone.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Brett Sanger wrote: BS>Seems doubtful. They are pretty sweeping in what they consider BS>"charging" for games. Yeah, that bit was what really boggled my mind. BS>I can't. What is White Wolf providing these LARPs? A setting and BS>rules? Those were purcahsed. Trademark disputes can be much more Not in a bootleg game, no. That's what I meant. BS>easily settled. White wolf is going somewhere the industry has not BS>gone, and I can only hope others don't follow. Of course, most BS>companies are smart enough not to sue (or threaten to sue) their BS>customers. It's usually a sign of desperation... the "We're going out of business anyway, but this'll at least get us some cash to offset our debt load" tactic. Corporate goodwill is worthless at that point anyway. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > Now, granted the Phoenyx doesn't charge anything (not even eyeball time; > we pay the costs out of our own pockets, not via ads) and never will, but > hypothetically, what if we'd gone the Meetup route and charged GMs for > mailing lists/forums. What if the GMs (some of 'em, anyway) passed the > hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole > since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game > you ran? I posted the link to Dreamlyrics, which does charge, but on sitewise rather than game-by-game basis. The consensus there is that DL falls under the "conventions" loophole, although one or two people have doubts. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > Now, granted the Phoenyx doesn't charge anything (not even eyeball time; > we pay the costs out of our own pockets, not via ads) and never will, but > hypothetically, what if we'd gone the Meetup route and charged GMs for > mailing lists/forums. What if the GMs (some of 'em, anyway) passed the > hat to cover the charges? Would we fall under the "conventions" loophole > since I suppose our hypothetical fee would be the same no matter what game > you ran? I posted the link to Dreamlyrics, which does change, but on sitewise rather than game-by-game basis. The consensus there is that DL falls under the "conventions" loophole, although one or two people have doubts. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
