Dungeons & Dragons Rolls a 1 on New License (OGL 1.1) ft. Matt Colville
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2023
- Listen up you nerds, it would be great if you could help support Richard Hoeg's recovery here: www.gofundme.com/f/reasonable...
Extra thanks to @mcolville for the assist!
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
As many people have said before
"It takes 20 years to build up a reputation and 5 minutes to tear it down"
10 seconds of stupidity can ruin 10 years of life.
Reminds me of that one "our jewelry is cheap because it's crap" guy.
_E: Minor grammatical error._
@@flazzorb Gerald Ratner!
Only to those that the OGL would affect. To me, it doesn't, and is not an issue.
To paraphrase an old Irish joke - ".... you boink one goat, and you're a goatboinker for life"
Watching WotC's 2022 actions both with regard to D&D and to MtG has been... a masterclass in how to ruin a company's relationship with it's customers.
That twitter thread about the Trust Thermocline seems very apt right now.
@@Kyman102 B, Pay 2 life: Draw a card.
D&D isn't a new comer to the "ruin it for your players" rodeo
Say it louder.
Truth on the stack…it resolves
If you had told me a year ago that I would be watching a Legal Eagle and Matt Colville collaboration, I would have never believed you. We truly do live in the strangest timeline, but love you both!
Right? What a great mashup
I'm fairly certain that I found Legal Eagle directly because of Matt Colville... He mentioned the channel in a livestream or video somewhere... Either way, an offhand mention is far from a colab. Cool to see creators I love working together!
Wow🎉
If you had told me thirty years ago that I would be watching a Legal Eagle and Matt Colville collaboration, I would have said "da da bah beh"
And that he'd make a MatPat reference during it.
I feel the "grey area" Devin kept referring to is what' folks are so worried about. With so much grey it leaves a lot of room for lawyers to...well...be lawyers. That and the "If you become successful with something that looks kinda like our thing, we want money....but only if it becomes successful and we can make a lot of money off of your success."
Lawyers can get a poor person to pay for being punched by a rich person.
Devin pretends that the law is fair. It's not.
It's a bludgeon used by, in this case, Wizards of the Coast, to extort and exploit anyone and everyone it can grab.
Well yeah. If you go digging for gold on my land that’s fine but if you find some, I want a cut.
@Ebrim more like borrowing your tools to dig for gold on my land and you ask for the cut.
That and the royalty structure could lead to fears that WotC would try to sue over copyright infringement of the rules, even if they can't have such a copyright because money would likely be needed to fight a lawsuit such as that up front, money someone being sued might not have. The leaked draft of the new OGL introduced vagueness rather than certainty.
@@finalbossbowser that's not how the law works. When they file a lawsuit they have to provide sufficient grounds FOR a lawsuit. The OGL isn't a legal document, it holds no weight in court. Never has, never will. The only thing that matters is copyright. If they say the reason they are putting up a lawsuit for is because of a violation of their copyright, then point to rules/mechanics, their lawsuit would be immediately dismissed with zero cost incurred to anyone but them.
Even if creators never needed the OGL the certainty that Hasbro/WotC wouldn't drag you to court was an important part of the homebrew scene.
Yep - being legally right doesn't mean you have the money to fight big corporations. The system is quite flawed
But it didnt do that either.
But it didnt do that either.
@@ccibinel Just look at CZcams's bots' regularly running roughshod over Fair Use and the First Amendment. Corporations are people too, but their mindless automatons can get away with murder.
@@falcychead8198 as far as alphabet is concerned that’s a feature not a bug of the system
Corporate IP attorney here and... wow... incredible. Succinct. Accurate. And all presented with charming editing, I have been missing out on this channel for years. This is such an inspiration for what contemporary, digital distribution of legal knowledge can look like. Wish I could like the video twice.
I got you covered
I'll put my like in your name
IP law is extreme government overreach.
@@LC-mq8iq Legal entities have the right to protect their own original ideas from plagiarism.
@@LC-mq8iq My creations are not yours to ruin.
There's a point of history that makes the OGL mean more than just what it says on the surface. The presence of a license means not only that you can win a lawsuit -- it means you don't have to be afraid of one. It spells out a promise that Wizards wasn't going to act like TSR had previously; the original publishers of D&D were notoriously litigious, and OGL was instrumental in making 3rd edition as successful as it was for that reason.
3rd edition was less successful than 2nd edition, though, so what point do you think you're making? 2nd edition, which was published by TSR, was the most popular edition of D&D until 5th edition was published. (Much of which had to do with the fact that 3rd tried to force a default campaign setting of Eberron, which nobody in particular cared about. Whereas Forgotten Realms had spent the entire '90s and part of the '80s having novels written about it, ushering an entire generation of fantasy enthusiasts into its fold, Eberron was born from nothing and eventually returned to nothing. It was a huge unforced error on the part of WotC to try to force a new campaign setting and thereby destroy all of the brand value that TSR had built into the Forgotten Realms, a fact which they eventually realized when they returned to making Forgotten Realms the default setting in 5th edition -- not coincidentally, that was also when they stopped having their lunch eaten by Pathfinder, hahah.)
And, considering the organic increase of the population over the decades between 2nd and 5th, one could argue that 2nd is still more popular on a per capita basis, as 5th has only recently, and not by a huge margin, surpassed the popularity of 2nd.
And on the topic of Pathfinder, let's not even talk about the disaster that was 4th edition. That was when D&D almost lost the keys to its own kingdom to an upstart competitior. Did this happen because of some license change? No, it happened because the game became overburdened with rules that made it unwieldy and, ultimately, unfun to play. (Randomly deciding to use Greyhawk as the default campaign setting didn't really help matters, either. By the 2010s, how many people cared still about Greyhawk, the "original" D&D world that, as far as most people were concerned, had been in the dustbin for decades?)
All of this underscores that the rise and fall of games is dictated by the games' content, not by abstruse legalities. The rules that you play under matter more, by orders of magnitude, than the rules that third-party publishers operate under.
@@StochasticUniverse Do you have any numbers for that? I can't really find anything online saying how many people played each edition.
@@StochasticUniverse This is all...very clearly untrue. First off, while we don't have exact sales numbers, WotC has stated in the past that the 3e PHB sold more copies in its first month than the 2e PHB did in its first *year*, and continued to outsell it significantly for the lifespan of the system. 3e (and especially 3.5) was an incredibly popular system, which is the entire reason we got Pathfinder; when D&D went to 4e, so many people refused to abandon what was at the time far and away the most popular rules system to ever exist that Pathfinder was able to corner the market as the "3.X but even better" system. When the shift from 2e to 3e happened there were certainly people who stuck with the old system, including me for a time, but most people ended up switching simply because of how much more intuitive the rules were and 2e collapsed in popularity. Which isn't shocking, because I played 2e for years and even I can barely explain to people now the idea behind THAC0, or why it was a good idea to give every class different leveling progression and XP caps. 2e still has its fans out there, and I would say it is still popular for a system that is over 30 years old, but that's a big caveat.
Also, in what world did WotC try to force Eberron as the "default" campaign setting? They certainly pushed the product because it was new and exciting, but you can look at lists of the sourcebooks for both settings and see that even in 3.5 the number of Forgotten Realms releases far outstripped Eberron. Not only that, but Eberron didn't even get a single videogame adaptation to my knowledge, while there are multiple 3e FR games out there, including Icewind Dale II and Neverwinter Nights I & II, all of which were hugely popular. Forgotten Realms was very much still the "default" campaign setting for much if not all of 3.X's lifespan.
Also also, sorry, but there is absolutely no way that 5e has "only recently" outstripped 2e in popularity. 2e games are *incredibly* niche in this day and age, far surpassed in popularity by 3.5, which in itself is far surpassed in popularity by 5e. The difference in popularity currently between 2e and 5e is multiple orders of magnitude. And even if you compare both systems at their peaks, 2e was a very popular game for its time but it *was* still a relatively niche hobby, where 5e has suddenly become a major cultural touchstone in a way no other D&D system had come close to managing. I don't even *like* 5e that much and I still know it's foolish to pretend it's somehow *only just* edging out 2e for popularity. Millions of people play 5e today, there are *maybe* a few tens of thousands of people out there still actively playing 2e.
TSR stole from the lotr. TSR was sued by tolkiens estate. they settled that you cannot have a hobbit race. TSR called em halflings
@@mr_blinky1094 Man, a 2e v 3e argument. This is like when a Billie Eilish fan watches their grandfather and uncle start arguing about whether or not The Who was better than Nirvana.
The main problem I had was the "We get a license for whatever you make related to DnD and use it for whatever we want, including selling exact copies."
Can I give kudos to the editor of this video for seeing our lawyer man making an unintentional dice roll gesture at 7:31, and editing in a realistic dice roll animation with the appropriate sound effect to it? That was chefs kiss!
There’s a second one as well, but I didn’t check the timestamp.
@@thomasburns950218:28. You’re welcome 😊
Laughed my ass off. 😂
I liked all the other touches as well, especially the animation right at the end.
I totally missed that! 🤣
A big reason for the OGL was that D&D's old parent company was very litigious. They believed they owned the concept of a pen and paper roll playing game and would sue anyone who made their own. This is partly why so many old school RPGs are radically different than D&D. It was to get around their lawyers.
The OGL was essentially a peace agreement so other publishers could create content without the fear of being sued.
When Gary Gygax left they tried to sue him for using his own name on the new game he made
I remember a similar controversy from the late '90s when Wizards of the Coast allegedly toyed with the idea that they owned the concept of collectable card games.
Despite the fact that, as the video states, they would've had no grounds for any lawsuit involving rules and processes
@@Tomatech Yes! But the problem is that the legal system doesn't favor the party is in the right so much as the party with more money. Individual people and smaller companies can't handle the cost of a lawsuit against Wizards of the Coast.
@@Tomatech But the threat of an expensive frivolous lawsuit is still enough to put off small publishers. The legal system unfortunately isn't completely just.
"Cool kids play Magic" 😂
Fantastic way to really sell the humour. Well done.
Also, thank you for covering this! It's much appreciated by the TTRPG community as a whole, I'm sure.
It might be the funniest thing I've heard from this entire channel. It's half a second, and it's subtle enough you might miss it. The cool kids played Yugioh though.
Jokes aside, I think it's been long enough to say the controversy was very... odd to me in the Yugioh crowd. In the back of all our heads we all collectively went "I expected us to have some problems first..." Simply because of how often Japanese companies tend to be with copyright. In a very bizarre way, us grown ups playing our children's card game were in the Tabletop crowd's corner. Obviously we don't have homebrew, but we have online simulators and stuff like that.
Sidebar, your honor.
One of the things that Virtual Tabletops needs from the OGL is the ability to reprint the rule text for reference. For instance a given tabletop application might provide users with the ability to select spells for their sorcerer to learn, then when those spells are cast, in addition to performing the necessary die rolls and calculations, announcing the save, etc. the application might also provide a link to the exact text of the spell, including a citation of which book and page number to use to find that text, and any relevant errata, so that other players or the GM (ESPECIALLY the game master) can quickly know what the spell should do and what else might need to happen to resolve it.
It would be like being able to submit legal motions that include hyperlinks to the relevant case law directly to judge, jury, client(s), and opposing council all at the same time.
I love how he’s talked before about how a sidebar requires both parties to be present, so you’re essentially asking Legal Eagle/his fan base to listen to what you and others knowledgeable about TSR history have to say. Well done.
Wait, I assumed you were making the same point as other people in the comments. This is actually a very interesting take, because the inclusion of spells definitely made me think about how the essential ideas of them have been used in other media, but called different things/been slightly altered, so this is a good reference for those that haven’t played before.
@@emmakane6848 You know, it didn't occur to me that people might not know how the Virtual Tabletops work. It now has, so.
Part of what the VTT supplies is a literal virtual tabletop space where users can roll virtual dice and move tokens around a map representing the game world. But the more useful part for most of the userbase is that they let you make character sheets, records of your character's stats, abilities, and inventories, and will usually use the information stored on them to automatically keep track of health changes, spells used, attack and damage formulas, combat turn order, and that sort of thing.
Like I pointed out, they also often present a reference copy of the rules text in case that's necessary.
And because D&D Beyond exist, I can see why VTT would never be protected by the OGL because it litteraly does what the actual game's website does. WOTC has no reason to support that, and honestly I do believe that it's fair. They already provide a similar service in expression.
@@laughingmonkey8838 If Beyond was pioneering in that aspect, I'd imagine the community as a whole would be less hostile to the changed wording. The trouble is, between Roll20, Tabletop Simulator, Foundry, Fantasy Grounts, etc. etc. this feels less like WotC trying to protect their IP and more like they're trying to tap into a market they weren't in by pre-emptively quashing their competitors' ability to compete with it.
As others are stating, I think the big thing for a lot of creators isn't that they needed the OGL to do it, but that the OGL was Wizards saying they won't sue over it. Their predecessors TSR were known to sue smaller content creators, even if they didn't have a valid legal basis, and make smaller creators fold because they could not afford to fight it.
This is the cruz of it.
Yeah, most game creators know that you can't copyright rule and game design, that is not enforceable. The main point of the OGL is that it sort of ensure that you won't make wizard of the coast angry and also ensure you could potentially have a friendly relationship if you want to partner with them in the future.
Sure they can't sue you over this, but they can screw you in other way that the law can't interfere with.
TSR Was particularly Sue happy under Gary’s tenure and in its late stage was really bad about blatantly plagiarize/steal stuff that.
12:47 - Though it’s an easy to miss minor point and, I would agree, there needs to be a lot more noise made about it.
Yeah, the OGL FAQ specifies that this was to create explicit permission to do the things gamers normally do (make and modify their games) which helped to encourage a design and publishing community around the D&D brand.
The original creators of OGL 1.0 recently said the intent of the OGL was to assure people that WotC wouldn't try to sue them and make something seen as possible gray area clear rather than actually have any significant power. In other words the spirit of the original was to protect us from WotC, the new one lacks the same spirit.
Also the original creators are now trying to form the alternative Open RPG Creative License (ORC)
The new OGL seems like the exact opposite... WotC seems to be trying to protect themselves from the content creators...
This, a thousand times this. The OGL was a promise not to sue if you stick to its restrictions, since everyone in the space at the time remembered TSR suing everyone who tried making DnD content no matter how clearcut the case was against them.
Yes, this. It allowed the ecosystem of third-party publishing to form in the first place. It's been a hugely important document over the past 20 years.
And it's important to remember that the OGL1.0 never really covered anything copyrightable to begin with. All invented words and proper names weren't covered by it, and you can't legally copyright game rule mechanics to begin with! It was never anything more than a promise not to bully 3rd-party publishers with frivolous lawsuits, so long as they only overlapped on mechanics.
Thank you for supporting Hoeg! It's so great to see the entire legal CZcams community rallying around his recovery!
THIS!!
Started watching Matt Colville to learn how to become a GM and Legal Eagle to learn how to understand the law.
I feel like this is the crossover I never ask for but always needed lmao
Well said. It's a match made in heaven.
Legal Eagle ft. Matt Colville is a crossover I was never expecting
Anybody can get into a lawsuit, Legal Eagle can crossover with ANYTHING.
Does Legus Eagus play RPG himself? Or any computer games?
A surprise. But a welcome one.
Same
It isn’t the crossover that I wanted, but it was the crossover that I needed.
YES I AM SO HAPPY DEVIN IS COVERING THIS. Also, I can't get over how Legus Eagus' alignment is just "lawful".
He's using the red box rules.
Remember, law i smade to keep social order NOT moral gratification.
Also when the rich can legally bribe law makers dont expect it to be really moral, if at all.
Haha good eye. Ref: 0:34
Not sure if he's lawful good or lawful neutral.
He's the opposite of Chaotic Stupid, he is Lawful Smart.
As a D&D nerd I can say, most of us are just players and not creators. However, we are all afraid of what this may lead to. It's more a lack of trust.
I laughed out loud when you said “typical lawyers, just the worst “ 😂
So I brought up the OGL stuff at the D&D session we had earlier today and my brother goes, "I'm waiting on Legal Eagle to cover it." So thank you for almost immediately posting a video on this after he said that
Pathfinder 1st Edition kind of fits in a bucket in between homebrew and reproduction. But Paizo also has a sort of legal ace in the hole. It's called "the guys on our legal team are the guys who originally wrote the OGL, and they're damn sure you can't revoke it."
Don't be too sure. They did not use a magic word. Of course that magic word only became a word of power after the OGL was written, but lacking that magic word could render the OGL powerless. Intent does not matter, only what is written down. And never forget that words only mean exactly what the judge wants them to mean at that particular moment.
@@thorinpalladino2826 Intent is actually a huge factor when interpreting a contract. Especially in this case, when it comes to determining the irrevocability of a contract from the time when the magic word wasn't in use. Apart from the original authors of the contract, WotC made it clear they intended the contract to be irrevocable - see for example the FAQs they tried to silently remove recently.
@@thorinpalladino2826 You're wrong about intent. When it comes to contracts and laws intent means a lot and has been systematically defined and broached upon over and over again in said laws.
They don't publush PF1E anymore
2E is completely rid of anything that could get them sued, Paizo made 2E mostly to protect them if WotC ever went berserk (which they did)
@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 my only worry is the Owlcat games based on Pf1e, I really hope those won't run into any trouble if they ever make another one
I think it's slightly more complicated in Critical Role's case. Matt Mercer's original campaign setting, was fully homebrewed but now he has had them made into official supplementary materials by Wizards of the Coast. So wanting to create original stories in that campaign setting could come under fire.
It's not. Critical Role is still the sole owner of the world of Exandria. The fine print in the books published by Wizards of the Coast spells this out:
"The world of Exandria, its groups of individuals, its elements, its distinctive characters, and its locations are the sole property of Critical Role. All rights reserved."
Those books are the result of Critical Role licensing their IP to Wizards of the Coast, not the other way around.
@@johnclikeman5041 oh that's fantastic!
Thanks for the Hoeg shout out! We're all rooting for him and his family.
One of the big concerns I have heard over the last couple of weeks is that even if the OGL (either version) isn't actually enforceable, Wizards/Hasbro could still bankrupt a small company or creator by forcing them into extensive legal fees to defend themselves. This is part of why Paizo's announcement of a joint project to create a universal OGL with a bunch of other companies is pretty big. They can afford to go toe-to-toe in the legal system.
Also Paizo saying they were going to defend the 1.0a OGL in court against attempts by WotC to enforce its revocation. Wizards has really set up Paizo here to be a white knight
Yea Wizards is providing Paizo some incredeble advertisment and PR right now
I was personally really worried that WotC would use this as an excuse to do this exact thing _to_ Paizo, and as an enjoyer of their content, it was very comforting to see them announce their resolve to not let Wizards get away with this.
@@Jegge_100 I love that Paizo and D&D Beyond went offline *for two very different reasons.*
Paizo's servers couldn't deal with the influx of customers supporting them. We just made their year.
D&D Beyond is single-handedly being the metric used to voice disapproval to WoTC and losing business. People came out in droves to screw them over.
It's glorious.
well here is the thing. doing that does not give WotC any money (and there is a stark difference between the sins greed and wrath)
I love love love that Matt is such a D&D fan that he called the GSL "Draconic" instead of "Draconian"
He just doesn't like Dragonlance ...
Haha, I didn't even catch that because I'd probably do the same
@@TheBayru Who does?
@@nzlemming I do?
@@TheBayru Okay, there's one ;-)
OMG I love the ending, because when I was in junior high school I actually said that to someone. I was invited to a D&D game and I said "I'm not a nerd cool kids play magic".
I now realize we were both nerds.
So technically before the ogl, TSR could have taken me to the cleaners for writing my own AD&D adventures and publishing them. The game shops back in the 80s carried "off" brand modules and supplements all based on AD&D. That was the heyday before litigation darkened the lands.
They always could and they still can. The OGL is symbolic and nothing more. If you use their copyrighted material, they own whatever you make. It was that way then, it's that way now.
@@williameldridge9382 it's not symbolic, it's an assurance that you won't just win a court case, but that you can end it as soon as possible so smaller creators don't have to worry about being dragged down in legal fees
“Typical lawyers- just the worst.”
I love how Devin can poke fun at himself and his profession.
+2 Int, -3 Cha
The tongue in cheek "this is too nerdy for me" from a lawyer who has breakdown videos of legal arguments from the 23rd century, made in the 90s was worth the lol. I hope your colleague recovers soon, and thank you for sharing his gofundme. It's good to have perspective on this, since this is important to a lot of us in the hobby or even adjacent to via in sociological studies.
Or breakdowns of court cases in animated shows loll
"This is too nerdy for me" when earlier he showed a mockup of his D&D character sheet XD
followed by "cool kids played magic" - I damn near died laughing!!!
it would be interesting how a lawyer can argue both sides instead of only one side.
Thank you for your tribute to Hoeg. He is an amazing dude and I have been so happy since he started filming again.
0:38
"So, what's your alignment?"
"Lawful."
"Oh, Lawful Neutral, I see."
"No, it's not that."
"Then what-"
"It's:
*Lawful.* "
The fact that copyright does not apply to processes comes up A LOT in the knitting community! Because knitting patterns are basically just processes you follow to create something, that means that pattern designers have a hard time copyrighting their work. (In the US... apparently the laws are different in the EU.)
It comes up in the maille community as well. As far as I know there's only one weave that's copyrighted--the Mobius Ball--and there have been disputes about who owns that copyright. The rest? You can copyright a specific pieces, but NOT a design. 99.999% of the community is fine with that, and several big names have gone so far as to make what weaves they have on record open for use (I don't know the legal terms, but check out Maille Artisans for an example). 0.001% are jerks who are making spirited attempts to ruin it for everyone.
I would be curious about how crochet is affected by this....In crochet you can diagram patterns, and those diagrams--being printed objects--should be copyrightable. This could become significant in some cases, such as Irish crochet, where various motifs are connected by a net. Those motifs tended to be handed down within families or from teacher to student, serving as something of a signature. The really old ones can't be copyrighted (even if they were the copyright would have expired), but can the modern ones? None of my books say anything on the topic. The individual book is copyrighted, but whether or not the patterns are isn't addressed.
I'm actually really interested in that question. I've made my own motif--a little rose, for my daughter--and if I could copyright it, it would be kinda nifty. Based on my personal views I'd make it available for anyone to use, but it would be neat to have something i made for my daughter official!
That's because processes are something that patents deal with. Trademarks are for branding, copyrights are for content, patents are for processes.
WAIT. Is that why so many patterns are posted for free on people's websites but the PDF is like $3 or $4 to download? Devin mentioned that the specific presentation of the rules can often be protected, so makers are putting the PDF together and copyrighting that, but not the pattern itself, which then can be posted free if one doesn't feel the need for the PDF. I've always wondered why that came up so often in US patterns.
@Amber Dent if there’s no copyright then anyone can sell it. you don’t need to copyright the PDF in order to sell it.
Yeah I can imagine that gets very grey area especially if you are trying to sell instructions rather than the product itself.
"It's time to think like a rulues lawyer."
Now I KNOW that I missed my calling.
D&D eventually led me to being a lawyer.
@@JasonFightsCrime It is what I liked about the game, the consistency of the rules and all the exception within the rules. I always enjoyed trying to figure out how to do certain things legitimately and within the rules.
I think it would be good to also mention the other category of intellectual property registration, which is patent law. Patents are limited in how long they are maintained (20 years compared to copyright's life of the creator + 70 yrs), but they do provide some I.P. protection to a design/system. This played a role in the history of Monopoly, because the creator (Lizzie Magie) patented "The Landlord's Game" system many years before another person (Charles Darrow) played the game and started hawking the game to toy companies as his own with slight modification to the original system, which they named Monopoly. Eventually Parker Brothers made a deal to buy the patent from Lizzie Magie, though they did not credit her with the creation of the game for many years. All this said, Wizards Of The Coast could, assuming a properly registered patent, claim rights to the system underpinning D&D as a general whole or in modular form, and they would be able to restrict or pursue recompense from outside entities that copied or sold that system without significant iteration or re-engineering on the original patented design. I don't know that WotC have a patent on the current D&D system, or if it ever was patented or if the patent expired, but in this case the game system, at least when taken as a designed whole, would have protections that trademark and copyright do not provide. A "homebrewer" that republishes or sells a product containing part of the design that is patented would be required to obtained a use license from WotC or agree to some sort of compensation structure to the patent holder. Just thought this should be in the educational conversation.
Yes, I thought this was a huge missed issue in the video, especially as patents _are_ supposed to be for registering IP on rules and processes and inventions
I agree it's big oversight, but the patents are most likely long time expired.
As far I know 20 years is on the upper limit for patents and only if you have good reasons to file for prolongation - like being unable to reasonable profit from it, that's certainly NOT the case with WotC.
This video kept getting recommended to me by the ol' algorithm. I finally took the bait. Man, I'm glad I did...
Entertaining. Educational. Fair and balanced. Full of excellent Easter eggs. What a treat.
Good call on bringing in Colville. Thank you for sacrificing your cool kid street cred covering this for us and your colleague
This is one combo I never thought I'd see
@@TheAmbex Fr
Matt Colville is twelve feet tall, if he's an inch.
Yeah, these are 2 people I've listened to an obscene amount of
I think an important thing to remember is that while WotC trying to claim royalties from or stop creators that are simply using D&D rules might not hold up in court, for a lot of small indie groups (as opposed to Paizo) just going to court could be financial doom for them. Having legal language that clarifies that Hasbro/WotC cannot and will not interfere with their game making is important.
This right here. Hasbro/WOTC has deeeep pockets and could bury anyone in legal fees who challenges the new OGL.
Yeah, Games Workshop sued the $#@! out of a bunch of people, including Fan artists. Only one went to court, the rest just rolled over, as they couldn't afford to fight.
considering the royalties clause triggers on revenue over $750,000 in a single year, I struggle to define anybody making almost a million dollars a year on WotC's IP as "indie".
@@econmediocre "or stop"
750k a year is like 4 dudes in a shack my man. A large company is like Hasbro/WoTC that makes billions in a year
I think one of the things you missed (being not a dnd nerd) is that a lot of OGL covered materials are supplemental, not full games on their own. Supplemental books, meant to work in games played with the source material, need to work really tightly with dnd's original Rules As Written in order to prevent fights at the table. The best/easiest way to do this is to copy the ip.
@21:00 all the best to Hoeg, wishing for a speedy recovery
The main thing of importance here, is that even though they can't copyright rules, they can certainly send out Cease and Desists, and attempt to intimidate creators of the game, or simply bleed them out in court.
They want to use the law to see if you can withstand it, not because they think they can win.
The OGL was the insurance that they wouldn't see, and they're clearly trying to take that away.
Unless they actually have done that, that's nothing but speculation on your part.
@@jeffhoward162 not a far fetched theory bud
@@timmarks3050 you mean guess, because it is pure speculation.
It's possibility, so why creators should risk instead of chosing safe alternatives like open rpg that's gonna happen soon.
@@jeffhoward162 TSR (the previous owners of Dungeons and Dragons) were quite well known for doing this, which is a lot of people have a tendency to state that the sky is falling. While TSR aren't really the same company as Hasbro, DnD used to do this, lots, and it is generally the approach used by many other game companies (you are unlikely to get very far producing content based on... say Warhammer rules, without getting hit very quickly with a cease and desist, because the TTRPG ecosystem is the one part of 'games' where companies don't immediately call their lawyers)
I don't think Hasbro/WotC was expecting quite THIS much coverage on this issue. I'm really happy seeing this blow up in their faces, and I'm also really glad to see that this video is why we haven't heard anything from Colville until now!
They definitely weren't. They expected a bunch of crying like the internet usually does, then for people to get distracted by other things.
Magic 30 was the last straw for a lot of people. Not just players but even investors have had enough of Hasbro.
they were definetly hoping it would only be the drama of the week and everyone would forget about it and not care
Colville has previous content on this issue.
Those dice roll edits are everything! Wow you guys make great content
stupid asf. Slimey lawyers profits off news and YT as if he does not have enough money as it is and pretends to be one of us nerds. Lawyers really are the worst! of course he can afford a good editor...
"Cool kids play Magic" took me out. Thanks for your insight as always, and it was cool seeing you cover something nerdy despite the unfortunate circumstances.
Man, I seriously would love to see Devin in a Dimension 20 one-shot. Rogue lawyer? Wizard of deniability? Warrior proficient in paperwork? I don't know what, but I think fun would be had.
Civil Litigation lawyers are an odd subset of Bard. They still prioritize Charisma and Dexterity, but they go for Intelligence over Constitution
I have no idea why this just popped into my head, probably the meds:
"DEATH BY TEN THOUSAND PAPERCUTS! ....Delivered as per bureaucratic procedure."
Make him a wizard. He can cast “Find Traps” on any legal document to magically deduce if it has any legal “traps” made on purpose.
Has Devin been in any unscripted or improvised videos before? It seems like he prefers scripted content.
Most lawyers and politicians would just be NPC nobles from the Monster Manual. If you wanted to play one, I'd suggest bard. Lots of charisma skills and manipulation spells.
The thing about the original OGL, was regardless of the actual legality it gave publishers confidence that WotC wouldn't come after them. Legal threats have chilling effects regardless of their merits.
Thank you for the shout-out for Mr. Hoeg! Hope he fully recovers. I think it's been pretty rough for his wife and family.
Thank you for cutting through all the internet rage and presenting clear, understandable, and nerd-rage-free overview of the situation.
I've been a DnD player since the 80s. I'm really glad you spoke about this. The problem isn't even the OGL anymore. It's that WotC wants to bully the rest of the TTRPG Community into submission.
Despite being at 90% market share.
i think thats the problem. If they want something taken down they can because with the cost to go to court over the dispute, many dont have to money to even fight it.
Did you forget your history? Gary used to sue everyone who attempted to make anything for D&D and even sued the fellow creator of the game.
Aww come on! Its not like the entire gaming community had any sort of backlash when Gygax did pretty much the same thing. Oh..wait...I'm being told they did.
That was what opening the system up in the first place was about. It helped WotC deal with a lot of up and coming game systems with different rules. By going open source they managed to sure up their control of the ecosystem.
#6 on trending - no wonder, every D&D Reddit is sharing this and multiple friends and Discord servers are bouncing this video everywhere. Well done, LegalEagle.
I'm not even familiar with D&D, was just curious about the whole controversy
It’s now #4 now.
Yep, not only did WotC upset their fans, but now they inspired a top 5 trending video that explains that they basically don’t own one of their most valuable assets… I can’t wait to see how their stock price responds to this.
D&D fans really need to listen to the breakdown by the Opening Arguments podcast. That show does a great job of walking through the legalese in a thorough-yet-digestible way.
@Matt Duffy I listened to that and also recommended it to a bunch of my gaming friends. It was a good breakdown, but I do have to say that there was a lot of context surrounding the OGL and the current conversation that wasn't addressed, and it made it sound like D&D fans are screaming about nothing -- and that's just not the case.
I don't love D&D (although I play it out of convenience), but I understand that even as a player of other games, I've benefitted from the OGL -- and so has Wizards.
The edit adding the d20 roll to the die shaking hand movement was appreciated.
Thank you so much for this video. I was always wondering about these distinctions in trademark and copyright in regards to rule systems. Please don't be afraid to go into nerdy topics. I think far more people are into that stuff than it often seems.
I find it especially admirable that this episode seems to be made as a fundraiser for another content creator.
He should ask Wotc for a contribution he wa certainly kissing their ass through the video.
He must of knew that it would be popular with the current backlash
@@DaDunge ??? this is the most dogmatic take ever lol
Hoeg is fantastic, in the early mornings he does analysis of big news articles to discuss media bias and deep dive into topics. Such a humble and down to earth guy. Really touching that LegalEagle and what seems like the entire legal CZcams community have come together for him.
I think it's sick that a rich first world country requires it's citizens to start a GoFundMe campaign to survive the hospital bill.
I see little worth of admiration in that.
I love that Matt said “draconic” instead of “draconian”
Best wishes for Hoeg Law and his recovery!
I almost never comment on youtube. I felt it necessary to express my wishes for Richards full recovery. Thank you for picking up this topic while he is unable to.
I think spell descriptions are probably the biggest area where the OGL would apply, since complicated spell effects mean exact wording is very important to making sure the same spell does the same thing from table to table. There are plenty of reasons for third-party content to need to reprint spells (for example, if an important boss needs to use spells, or if a new spell in a book modifies an existing spell when cast).
Love the video. Although as you stated, the OGL is not really needed for rules, there was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when the original D&D company TSR sued many companies for using D&D rules. As a lawyer you are well aware sometimes you just need deeper pockets to "win." The irony for me is this cycle in which Wizards of the Coast (before they had D&D) became huge after Palladium Books sued them for explaining how to use their homebrew for the Palladium Role-Playing game. They made Magic: The Gathering as a quick way to get funds and not use TTRPG rules that might get them sued. The Palladium Role-Playing Game itself is basically an AD&D 1st edition homebrew. So much suing. Spawn creator Todd McFarlane sued Palladium Books for using the name "Nightspawn," which it saw as a TM infringement of his "Spawn," although the material wasn't anything related to rules or lore and a RPG vs. a comic. And Palladium Books also sued Trion Worlds for their video game MMORPG "Rift," because they have a TTRPG named "Rifts" Trademarked. Again, nothing similar in lore or rules. As well as many game companies sending cease and desist letters to people posting rule conversions on their websites. Everyone sued everyone back then. The OGL was a "let's simmer down the suing" statement as much as it was a "heh, you can use our rules, (hehe they don't know they can already do that) statement." People could breathe without worrying about pointless lawsuits in which they might run out of money before they could win the "slam-dunk" case. As it has been in place now for 22-23 years, many gamers don't know life before the OGL and/or that it's more peace of mind rather than needed.
thanks for the insight.
WotC were very eager to disturb that exact piece of mind :-) and they managed admirably ...
Rather than the 3pps splintering the non-D&D ttrpg space and spending many marketing dollars fighting each other for market share, they would probably be better off putting that money into a central fun that buys all of them the appropriate legal advice regarding copyright etc. and still engaging with 5e content. It's the much larger market.
It was basically a document that told people un detail what they were allowed to do, plus allowing them to refer to content of their intellectual property (like designing prestige classes for a class desinged by WOTC).
Bump
It's such a nice thing that the leak happened to alert people of it. It's almost like someone knew it was wrong and wanted to get people talking about it and exposing it for how awful it really is.
Excellent work Sir! I've seen many of your pieces and have enjoyed them but this was great not only for it's content but for your heart felt pitch for your friend at the end. I have clicked the link and kicked in. Well done to and quick recovery to your friend. (Extra credit for the bit at the VERY end)
I'm amazed that "you can't copyright rules" (except for the text) wasn't common knowledge.
I remember there being a plethora of commercial products available that were "DnD compatible" long before the OGL existed.
You don't know how many times I had to have this fight while dming adventurers League D&D were people tried to call the srds pirated content.
Like no they have to give you the rules for free people using SRD content is hekin valid
I'm still confused by this. So computer code can't be copyrighted? Isn't code just a list of rules that when followed by a computer, produce a product?
@@mesplin3
Is it legally defined as "rules"? If you reword it, then does it still work the same exact way?
@@mesplin3 Yes, the computer code text can be copyrighted just like the rules text. However write some code or rules that does the exact same thing, but isn't the exact same text and you created another expression.
@@mesplin3 Computer code can be copyrighted in the same way that the rules for a board game are copyrighted as discussed in this video. If someone takes the exact code and reuses it, it's similar to plagiarism. Just as if I had copied a book describing a process word for word and resold it. But if someone writes computer code that does the same thing as different code (without it being an exact copy) that is fine.
I never even considered that the scariest thing in AD&D would be the player who's rules lawyering being an actual lawyer!😆
One thing I've learned through this whole debacle, is a lot of lawyers play D&D.
@@ghostlightplays an all-lawyer game of D&D sounds terrifying
@@ally939 Other parts of lawtube have exactly that, an all-lawyer dnd group.
@@ally939 sounds like it would take years of litigation before it ever reaches the table, ultimately settling outside the basement.
A charity stream of D&D encompassing all lawyers to support Hoeg would be worth the watch for all the dry legal comedy that'd ensue.
Now do FASA! They were sued (and lost) SOOOO many times, but they won once! I'd really like to hear you talk about it. (Also, I am super angry at them over ShadowRun - and William Gibson was pretty irritated about it, too.)
Finally, someone has finally brought up the fact that you can't copyright rules! It's been driving me crazy that no one seemed to realize this.
No, but you can copyright the language used in the rules. And everyone has been saying that. And if you publish playable 3rd party content, you will have to use this copyrighted language. Because designing monsters without stats and classes without feats or spells is kind of pointless, since the buyer would still have to do the hardest part of the job. I love how this guy, despite evidently not knowing what the people in question are even publishing, just acts like the the thousands of people complaining about this are just idiots. Including other lawyers, btw.
And the reason people are pissed off is that WotC has enough money to sue you even if you're in the right before tying you up until you give them your precious IP
Given how famously litigious both TSR and WotC have been over the years, having faith that you're operating in what you believe to be the clear doesn't prevent that expense of having to defend a suit. The OGL provides that badly needed surety.
In the United states.....
@@lugenkresse5825 Southco vs. Kanebridge strongly indicates that mere terminology and short phrases cant be copyrighted. WoTC likely owns far less than they think they do.
I was so pleasantly surprised to see Matt make a cameo!!! It's like two worlds colliding 🤯
I've seen at least a couple videos where LE brought him on to discuss a topic.
I popped, for sure
The main gray area for me is with the monsters, equipment and other "famous" things in D&D. As the new OGL says itself, those are "unlicensed" content, and any campaign will feature a lot of them,. including Critical Role and Dimension 20 ones. It's practically impossible to play a long-running D&D campaign and not end up referring to a Beholder, a Mind Flayer, the Acheron Blade or the Flame of Tiamat, for example.
Which is why products that were already running with the old OGL would simply file off the serial numbers of more iconic monsters that actually hold a copyright. You can have orcs, they're part of the SRD (and frankly are far too "common" to be protected) but if you want a "Carrion Crawler" you're going to have to call it a "Corpse Grub" or something. This isn't anything new.
In fact, D&D got into this very trouble with the Tolkien estate for the same reason, which is why we have Balors instead of Balrogs and Halflings instead of Hobbits
@@WittyDroog "A many-eyed sphere beast you say..."
@@WittyDroog Tolkien estate wanted the words dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg removed from the game.
@@TheGilgameshepic My favorite that I've seen for Beholders is "Eye Tyrant"
@WSAD QWER Oh sure they wanted tons of stuff but the courts only granted terms that could actually stand to a trademark, which is why "elf" is fine its common use since Tolkien didn't invent that, but stuff like "Balrog" was protected and TSR had to comb through and make changes as appropriate.
There was no reason for this video to be so well made and informative. Fantastic job
The last few minutes were incredibly sweet and another incredible example of a community banding together to help.
The last few seconds, however, caught me so off guard I almost woke everyone in the house up :D
It's the middle of the night n as soon as he said Magic I let out a cackle n yelled "oh YOU FUCKER"
"Maybe the REAL OGL..."
Me: Don't.....
L.E.: "was the"
Me: -_-
I'm not crying you're crying 😢. So nice 🖤🎮. Haven't watched legal eagel in ages ironically since I watch lawtube. Saw Mrs Hoeg s post. What a sweet shoutout. He's gotta join lawyers and dragons as a guest one day
Couldn't have said it better myself! Got a cackle and a half out of me.
Also, hi! Did not expect to see you here, but I probably should have.
-K. Thunderbridge
I don't watch Hoeg but I am an avid D&D fan and seeing you, as one of the larger voices of the CZcams community shouting out smaller creators in their time of need warms my heart. Thank you for directing more attention to the issue that WOTC is pressing on our and for linking to Hoeg's gofundme so they can recover ASAP
I hadn't heard about his stroke, that's awful and I wish him all the best in his recovery.
Hoeg even has a D&D 5e stream called "Lawyers & Dragons" that has a couple of "lawtubers" as players.
I second the recommendation for Lawyers & Dragons. It's an awesome show, all the participants love it and it absolutely shows.
The OGL was, in this respect, critical for usage of monsters, spells, items, and stat blocks for those things to be printed and presently available in 3rd party materials.
Back when the OGL first came out, it briefly gave me the idea of making a video game that used the D&D rules. I came to the conclusion that it was possible to do so as long as I didn't call it dungeons and dragons. Then I dropped the idea because such a project would have been ridiculously ambitious.
But it is nice to hear that even as a layperson I came to similar conclusions as you.
So glad to hear a lawyer's take on all this. A lot of channels covering this are D&D channels so have a vested interest, so an outside POV is really appreciated.
If you want more lawyerly input, check out the Battlezoo CZcams channel. A couple days ago they did an interview with Ryan Dancey that is one of the best interviews of all time on any subject.
I think this video misses a lot though about the challenges ambiguity and "well could they?" causes that the OGL settled for two decades. It also fails to appreciate how difficult it is to not cross that line of "just process" without having to rewrite just tons and tons and tons of sentences. For an adventure to explain succinctly it needs to use language that this video suggests "could be... depending". I mean Colonel Mustard is protected.... holy cow its a rank and a condiment....
Yeah, it's pretty clear that Devin doesn't actually play the game or is familiar with some of the terminology (5e for example), but I think that's actually a great thing to have an outsider's perspective on the law.
Especially a POV from a user who actually practices law
Another lawyer covering this is Roll of Law
Stepping up because a friend has suffered health issues is a wonderful expression of friendship -- by stepping up when needed. Kudos, LegalEagle for being a stand-up guy when you were needed, and no doubt the gaming community appreciates it. Slainté (Irish Gaelic for "to your health")
Well, I'll reply with the French 'to your health': Santé!
Yes! Thank you, I was missing a Hoeg video on this so bad
I miss hoeg so much with all this going on! 🥺🥺 hope we have him back sooner than we think! 💙
You are hysterical. Fantastic video. I hope you keep covering nerdy interesting topics! Your humor and simplified examples really helped.
0:35 I love the Character sheet for "Legus Eagus"
So now we know the Eagle's character is a Human Level 10 Lawyer, Lawful (Neutral, I'm assuming), named Legus Eagus. I presume he mainly fights court battles and his idea of a Short Rest is chilling with an old court case file and some Fresca.
Whenever someone was going to play a lawyer when I DM'd, they'd play a rogue with a lot of CHA skills or an aristocrat.
@@benjamincook3426 I usually go with an Eloquence Bard.
@@CanadianCrits There's the classic Fiend Tomelock.
I think the OGL was made to say, "We will not sue you" where the new OGL says, "We will not sue you, but..."
And when you're dumping tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into a product the last thing you want to worry about is if you're going to be sued by a large company regardless of the outcome of the court case.
I would even go so far as to say the new version sounds a lot like "we will sue you!" It doesn't even matter whether they would have any gound to stand on with a legal case. The threat would be enough to keep the competition down and bully the rest into paying royalties. And I think that's what it comes down to, they want to control the market.
Legal Eagle, the production quality is pretty awesome. Keep it up. :)
This video earned my sub. I’ve always enjoyed your content but thank you for covering this and helping me understand.
One thing I've heard from RPG writers is that it's less the ability to use the D&D mechanics that's at stake, but that a big deal is that being able to directly reprint game text is a game changer when working with something as crunchy as D&D. With so many details and moving parts and such, the ability to just lift the rules from the SRD directly made a big difference compared to having to rewrite it all from scratch, even with same result.
I work in the TTRPG industry, and while my livelihood was never going to be directly affected by this whole ordeal (I've never worked on or with D&D in particular) I was thrilled to see a channel I generally trust took the time to look into it and explain things in a 20 minute video that's neither alarmist nor dismissive.
This. So many people are trusting the words of people who have way too much skin in the game. Sure, there will be people who will lose out from this, but I'm honestly surprised Hasbro went this long before reigning it in. A company is only going to wait so long before stopping people making money off their IP for free.
"Neither alarmist nor dismissive." Pause and reflect a moment upon how scarce this has become in our world.🥺
This man is a complete shill and always has the worst opinion. The reason he isn't 'dismissive' is because he'd be torn to shreds if he was. He's not being neutral, he's just covering his own ass. Trusting him is the dumbest thing I've heard.
@@Ailieorz Issue is that noone was making money off their IP, as the IP itself was never covered by the OGL. Plus, as the people who actually made the OGL 1.0 in the first place will say, it was never meant to be revoked. Even with their army of lawyers, Hasbro will have hard time trying to revoke a mutually beneficial open license that had been in effect for 20 years
Bullcrap.
I love the way you don't tear down other channels, but lift yourself and them :) Hope Richard recovers!
My read is that the implication of this is that there is no reason to sign their new OGL, but there is plenty of reason NOT to - you agree to things that are bad for you with no gain and then they can become binding.
You don't "sign" the OGL, it is a license. By using their work within your own work you are automatically using their materials under that license.
You are supposed to attribute that work to WotC by saying something like "The respective works of WotC herein are being used under the OGL" but even if you didn't, the OGL would still apply if WotC could prove that you had used their works as a reference. No need to sign anything, it could still be applied.
A license isn't a contract.....
@@williameldridge9382 It is when you utilize someone's copywritten materials. With or without the knowledge of having done so. It's implied.
The last few minutes were incredibly sweet
👍
I lost it at the last ten seconds. Oh man.
Nice
Ok
darun
Talking about this, I want to mention one curious example. It took quite a while for Wizards to officially translate DnD 5e into Spanish, but there were many fans waiting for it. So a group of friends made their own DnD campaign, including all the basic rules (in their own words because, again, DnD 5e wasn't yet officially translated to Spanish) and sold it as a new original game called "El resurgir del dragón". Not as a homebrew of DnD but as its own game, even if is technically the same thing. And they profited from the stubbornness of Wizards about translating, for I’m sure they wouldn't had had the same success if DnD was being sold in Spanish at the same time. And Wizards can't do anything about it because, no matter how similar the rules are, it's its own independent game.
Although I will add the point that direct translation does not obliviate copyright. They had to write their own rules in Spanish, not just translate the 5E rules.
@@reverance_pavane depending on the country its published in
@@reverance_pavane Well if you're already going through the trouble of translating something, it's not much harder to rephrase everything in a slightly different way as you do it..
@@reverance_pavane It's not a literal copy, but it's quite clear what they were going for, and they admited as much. Similar rules worded in a different way. Different enough to not fall into copyright, but similar enough that is quite obvious if you've played both. Anyway, like I said, at the time DnD wasn't being sold in Spain (at least not translated) so nobody cared. For what I understand, now it has deviated quite a bit. It has being many years after all.
Hmm time to look into the Spanish translations of the game
This is a much needed channel. Great upload here.
Love your content and this nerdy video most off all. The special effects were a good chuckle! Happiness +5!⚔
Thank you for giving a shout-out to Hoeg. We in the community have been giving love and support to him and his family. I appreciate you giving that as well
To understand the history of the OGL, you have to look back to TSR, the original owners of D&D before Wizards of the Coast. TSR were NOTORIOUSLY litigious, and had sued so many 3rd party creators over trademark and copyright infringement that people were terrified to produce anything for D&D. The OGL was mostly seen as a surefire way to avoid litigation.
Back in the day the joke was TSR stood for They Sue Regularly
Exactly.
Your picture is a king.
Kings wage wars.
Replacing kings and wars with lawyers and lawsuits is one step of progress.
More progress is replacing lawsuits with businesses and money.
What comes after money, as a great buffer state to put us more separations away from war?
Right now money is the best.
Social media is growing into its own to nearly be a great replacement for money used this way but although it works in some instances I don't think it should be applied to all the world's problems.....yet.
@@darthparallax5207 my picture is an inside joke from a Pathfinder game we played years ago.
Thank you for doing this, and I hope the best for your friend.
This was widely informative, compassionate, and fair assessment of the situation. You sir, have overturned many stereotypes I've had about corporate law and its practitioners. Thank you.
That bit at the end about Hoeg, a person I never even heard of, made me cry. Excellent tribute to your colleague.
I screamed excitedly when I saw this was posted. Omfg, thank you for covering this. I’ve been so invested but I don’t know the legal-ese.
ikr? its like finding out your favorite uncle is a raging alcoholic wife beater, just a wtf moment.
Go watch the interview with an IP lawyer that wrote a PhD on OGL 1.0(a) on "Roll for Combat"
@@andychristensen2947 i mean its a corporation you should always expect them to pull shit like this
@@andychristensen2947 tf is wrong with you?
@@KairoStark eh. It is usually something that happens after a big management shift or change in ownership. They *can* act in a relatively 'good corporate citizen' manner, but someone comes along and tries to monetize that good behavior and pisses in everyone's cheerios.
Thank you for the clarification regarding copyright vs trademark, didn't even realize how little I understood the distinction before you laid it out
Thanks for bringing some clarity into this, I wasn't able to look through all the information anymore
Long time lurker here. I literally ROFL'd at "Cool kids play 'Magic'." And... thank you for covering such a niche legal/nerdy crossroad. All my best hopes to Richard Hogue as well.
It's not really niche or nerdy anymore. Which is why WoTC is doing this crap. They hit the mainstream with stranger things kids and CR fanboys.
Why care about the og fans that literally built the company when they can cater to the flake fans and get more money, short term
I would say “Kids with rich parents play Magic”, but that’s just me.
@@georgehillyer7959 Kids with rich parents play magic and their friends who casually sat around watching them play magic, but couldn't afford it. When they grow up play it because they now have their own adult money :D
@@calmfulspider I can get behind that and agree. My older son got into MtG and I had him in a budget. He soon after got his first job and spent his entire first check in cards. His friends from work then invited him out for pizza and he came to me for money. I said “what money do you think your friends are using?” He stoped playing MtG soon after. I remember when the game came out in the early 90’s. I was into Battle tech at the time and skipped it then. Still have all my miniatures and terrain.
@@georgehillyer7959 BattleTech is an un-aging game (though it too could go too far with rules expansions at times). I've still got my original Technical Readouts, with Mechs they later removed due to copyright issues.
If Devin makes a follow-up video, it might be useful to look into how d&d 3.5 and Paizo's Pathfinder, which was basically d&d 3.5 once 4e got massive backlash, panned out legally.
This is why fans of Hoeg Law is so sad at the moment that is the type of question he would love to look into.
True but Pathfinder predated 4.0 and was always just an alternate D&D. It became the 3.5 replacement when 4.0 “shit the bed”.
I’m curious how a game like Mutant and Masterminds would fair since it’s technically published under the OGL
and, in theory, uses the SRD but very minimally and divorce itself almost entirely from the trappings of D&D
@@nilus2k that’s not right. 4e came out the year before Pathfinder.
Pathfinder was a response to 4e as the APs were originally for 3.5
@@nilus2k that is objectively false. The developers of Pathfinder worked on 3.5, and when they saw what WotC was doing for 4e they did not like what they saw, so they left and formed Paizo
Edit: it appears that I have some parts of my timeline mixed up: Paizo didn't form in response to 4e, but pathfinder very much was. It was not an alternative to dnd before 4e, but they made 3rd party content for 3.5 before before making pathfinder
Thank you Sovietterran for the corrections
@@ErikVonStrix3 That's patently false. Paizo was creating 3rd party adventures for 3.5 for years and predates 4e. Paizo made the choice to create pathfinder after the GSL was pushed forward.
Edit: Paizo was founded in 2002, and Pathfinder was launched in 09.
Okay, the fact that he actually said, "rules lawyer" makes this an automatic win.
This was excellent! Props, my guy.
Changing your tagline to “Time to think like a rules lawyer” instantly led me know this was going to be a good one.
Thank you for listening to all of us who requested such a video, and so quick too! Wow!