A cautionary tale for the whole family.

[greyorm]

(The following is harsh and provocatory.  Consider yourself warned.)

I must say this, sorry:
This thread is utterly worthless; it is full of drivel, misinformation and reactionary garbage.  It seems like one, long meandering mental barf.  And, frankly, worth about as much.  There might be a few gems buried in the dross, but it's hard to pick them out and clean them up.

That statement may not make me a popular guy (is my CoR membership revoked? ), and it is harsh as heck, but it needs to be said before the crap gets any higher.

First and foremost, Jack's "cautionary tale" isn't.  Sorry, Jack.

It's frightened bedwetting masked as sage advice (I warned you this was harsh); it's as bad as one of those spam-er-ific e-mails that well-meaning friends send you warning you not to do such-and-such because the friend of a friend of a neighbor of a cousin of a distant relative who knows some guy had some god-awfully uneblievable and terrible thing happen to him or her.  It is exactly equal to one of those e-mails (Don't flash your brights!  Gang-bangers will kill you!).

One of the simple facts of this case, if there were any need to get into the legality of it, is that Shane's work was documented on GO.
He banged it out, the (large) membership of the Outpost saw it, it's his, hands down.  It doesn't matter if he lost money from it or not -- yes, I know that faceless-yet-well-known copyright lawyers say you have to make money at it or you can't defend your copyright, but when I hear it from one of these lawyers I'll believe it again.  Particularly since these FYWK copyright lawyers wouldn't fall over themselves laughing about the "poor man's copyright"...considering it is a complete and total myth.

Mailing something to yourself does not copyright anything.  Putting it down on paper does.  That's all you have to do.  No mailing something to yourself in an unopened envelope.
THIS POST is copyrighted RIGHT NOW.  The minute I put the first word down, it was copyrighted.

No, you can't sue for damages if you aren't making money at it.  However, you still get to nail someone's ass to the wall for using your material without your go-ahead, ESPECIALLY if they make money on it (at which point you ARE entitled to a cut of their profits).

If he were to want to take it to court -- IF -- that would be the largest point in his favor: documentation.

Imagine this: John Wick decides to write a game and posts his on-going design journal, including many of the mechanics and ideas, on a widely-read gaming forum.  Suddenly, before John finishes, somebody else comes out with a game called Orcs!, including all of the stuff John has been talking about.

Eeeeek!  So why did John put up design journals for Orkworld?  Damnit, John, you should NEVER have done those game design journals!  Someone might have STOLEN your ideas!

Bah and pish-posh.
He's smarter than falling for that, and so should the rest of us be.

Don't cross the street, you could be hit by a bus!
Don't sell your artwork, someone could steal it!
Don't publish anything on-line, because someone will take it!

This is inanity, terrified calls about how the sky is falling.

Please note, I was suckered in by this once, too, by a well-meaning, terrified artist friend who'd had work stolen and claimed that there was nothing he could do about it because copyright laws didn't protect him!!

Then a number of more reliable friends pointed out the realities of copyright law to me, and it isn't as horrible as what I'd been led to believe, or what's being stated or advised in this thread.

This is also why there is no redeeming value to Jack's tale: because it points out the obvious without providing valuable insight into the nature of the situation or a sensical fix.

It is crying out for people not to cross the street because buses are dangerous, and someone could get hit, hence breeding unecessary fear and failing to provide all but the harshest solution to the problem or reasonable debate on the topic.

It esentially warns us not to cross the street because we could get hit by a bus; it is a call for us to never cross the street; and that's just as foolish as what is being thought will be prevented by the solution.

We cross the street everday even though, yes, we could be hit by a bus.  But we aren't.
Why?  Not because it could *never* happen, not because we are lucky, but because we're smart enough to take the precaution to look both ways to avoid the bus before crossing (ok, maybe luck has a little bit to do with it, too).

Should we be afraid that someone is going to steal our material and sell it as their own?  No.  We should not worry about this.  It happens, yes, but there are precautions.

If there weren't, you wouldn't see a damn thing of mine up on the 'Net -- cripes, look at my art gallery, folks!!  Or my poetry collection!!  Do you think ANY of that would be on-line if I paid attention to copyright-stealing boogeymen?

Further -- everyone take note -- NOTHING is protected by copyright except the particular expression of an idea.  *Information* and ideas -- and this includes game mechanics -- are NOT protected by copyright.
Even if you came up with the idea, even if you've sold thousands of copies of something containing the idea, it doesn't matter...ONLY the *particular expression* of the material as penned or expressed by you is protected.

I could write the d20 system RIGHT NOW, with a different name, and as long as my expression of the system was different from WotC's, they would have no recourse.  d20's for all tasks!  Higher is better!  Difficulty defaults to 15!  Character classes!  Spells!  Dragons!  Monsters!  Treasure!

Just take a look at Rifts and AD&D -- talk about a D&D clone...

Or instead I could use WhiteWolf's mechanics and make a game about Vampires (or some kind of monster), calling it "Undeath" or "The Undying Ones" or something similar.  WhiteWolf would have no recourse of lawsuit, as long as the material *presentation* was substantially different than theirs.  Their mechanical system IS NOT PROTECTED, nor is the concept of vampires, or of role-playing a vampire.

(Well, they could deluge me with letters and threats of legal action, but in the end, it would be a great deal of hot air).

So, Jack, take your stuff down.  Once you DO publish it somewhere, you'll still have no recourse if someone "steals your ideas."

Writers: I long ago learned that ideas are created to be expressed, there's no other reason to vocalize (or otherwise make tangible) an idea.  What's your reason for writing?  If you desire to cling desperately to what's "yours", clutching it to your chest in the misguided hope that you can keep anyone else from ever discussing it or utilizing it, you need to find a different career.

So, Jack, why are you a game writer?
If you aren't in it for the writing, for the disemination of ideas, why are you writing?  Ego?  Money?  Women?
Time to divest yourself (and quickly) of those notions.

In fifty years (or more, or less), you'll be dead, and your material will enter the public domain.  You won't care who uses it then...because you're dead, right?  Then it's ego driving you.  And that's not a healthy thing...the power will go right to your head (want to bet?  Yes.  I've seen it...repeatedly.)

In closing, this thread is woefully inaccurate and wrong-headed; I'm ashamed it's even on the Forge, ashamed because the Forge should be presenting good, well-researched, intelligent discussion; not half-baked cries of misfortune (however well-meaning) nor misinformation about the legal system, because as far as I know, no one here is a copyright lawyer (and if someone is, they'd better speak up).

And that's my two cents.
As well, for those thinking it: I would have made this private, but there were too many participants involved to make that reasonable, and too much needed to be said publically about the issue(s).

I have a feeling I should go get my rubberized flame-suit, now.  Should I?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Raven,

I think you are being quick on the trigger. (Rude, too? Probably. But let's break it down and stick with the issues ...)

Reviewing my posts on this thread, at least, I still think my essential point is valid - that we should focus on the ability to protect IP (a very general thing) rather than on establishing copyright (a specific thing). Your point regarding "automatic copyright" SUPPORTS that position. In other words, how meaningful that copyright is, is determined by one's ability to defend it.

I agree with you about documentation as the fundamental form of defense. My claim is an extension of yours (not a counter-view), because commerce is an excellent form of documentation.

You may not be happy with my own non-documentation regarding lawyers and so on. That's fine. None of my points about them contradict any of yours - you are saying, "You don't need lawyers to establish copyright," and I am saying, "Copyright by itself is not always sufficient." These are compatible points.

I'm especially puzzled about your comments about the mail-to-yourself, because both of us are saying the same thing, that it's a delusion of protection.

I agree with you that Jack is over-reacting in taking down his material. However, that's his business, and the fact that I didn't call attention to his choice is important. We aren't talking about whether he's doing right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable.

No one really knows whether website-publishing does well to protect IP or not. These are new technologies and new laws. I think that, as with all new tech and new law, it's going to take a spectrum of court cases to establish precedent before we can be confident about how it all works.

If you'll permit a personal comment, Raven, you tend to get pretty fired-up on-line. I absolutely hate the whole, you-said-that-I-meant-when-I-said phenomenon. Please don't ride the wave-front on this one - we've both said our piece and let's try to make sense together, rather than butt heads, especially because I really don't see a point of contention about the issue between us.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

I think you are being quick on the trigger. (Rude, too? Probably. But let's break it down and stick with the issues ...)

It may seem that way, but I waffled for a full two days before deciding to post that.   Rude?  Yes, probably, but I did warn you!

Reviewing my posts on this thread, at least, I still think my essential point is valid - that we should focus on the ability to protect IP (a very general thing) rather than on establishing copyright (a specific thing).

Indeed.  That's one of the gems in the dross I mentioned, and the post to which I am replying goes a long way to lifting the it out of the muck it was formerly encased it.  My beef, as stated, was that there was too much crap immuring the important bits such as protecting IP and reasonable methods by which it might be done.

Your point regarding "automatic copyright" SUPPORTS that position. In other words, how meaningful that copyright is, is determined by one's ability to defend it.

Yes, exactly.

I'm especially puzzled about your comments about the mail-to-yourself, because both of us are saying the same thing, that it's a delusion of protection.

Then chalk it up to a misunderstanding on my part of what you were trying to get across with that statement.  I read something very different than what you'd intended.

I agree with you that Jack is over-reacting in taking down his material. However, that's his business, and the fact that I didn't call attention to his choice is important. We aren't talking about whether he's doing right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable.

I'll have to disagree with you here, since the main thrust of the thread, in fact, the post that started it all off, was exactly about this issue.  There was no reason to post it other than as "advice"...we all KNOW someone could steal our stuff on-line; this isn't (or shouldn't be) news to any of us.  Heck, folks with *published material have that same IP stolen!  
Telling us that it could happen is about as useful as posting a "Role-playing games are like plays: you pretend to be a character in a story" thread in RPG Theory, giving a "Physics for Dummies" lecture to a Nobel prize winning physicist, or yelling, "Hey, everyone!  You have to breathe or you'll DIE!"

If you'll permit a personal comment, Raven, you tend to get pretty fired-up on-line. I absolutely hate the whole, you-said-that-I-meant-when-I-said phenomenon. Please don't ride the wave-front on this one - we've both said our piece and let's try to make sense together, rather than butt heads, especially because I really don't see a point of contention about the issue between us.

I agree...and yes, I do get fired up...it's because I feel like an idiot when I'm talking.  I'm much more confident when writing, and it's all squirming to get out in one ecstatic splurge.

As well, in this case I don't want anyone losing any sleep over this issue, like I did for years (unless they want to, that is), because they've been misinformed or scared by information-limited and worst-case-scenario horror stories.

Honestly, the best advice I can give to anyone is if they are worried about distribution on-line and someone stealing their IP, talk to a copyright lawyer.

Finally, I think the above post, by you, goes a long way towards turning this discussion into a useful exploration of IP reality and protection.

[JSDiamond]

To sum up, -as often said, "You should be flattered that anyone would consider your work worth the risk of stealing."

Listen to Ron.

J

[Ian O'Rourke]

I must admit - this is all a bit depressing. Now, I'm under no illusions that there are hundreds of people out there ripping articles of FLN and selling them to scifi magazines - but I conscious of the fact some of them are of saleable quality (I know, I've done it).

So, keeping in mind I'm not sitting here as a paranoid freak, and just want some general info should I branch into more worthy attemps at writing, how would one document a works existence (beyond commerce) to defend copyright/IP?

Also we only seem to hear of copyright here in the UK, I hear less about IP?

You have articles or stories, assume for a minute they are worth something, how would one document the fact they existed and you wrote them on a specific date?

_________________
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net">www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-14 18:27 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Ian,

You're looking for documentation aside from commerce, right?

Well, then it's a matter of distribution. For instance, in the 80s, I wrote a hell of a lot of material for a Champions APA, over about four years. (For the youngsters, this was a kind of very slow internet forum, involving stamps and photocopies. It gave us something to do between bear hunts and digging middens in our caves.)

Well, if it so happens that I find a whole slew of paragraphs lifted directly out of one of those essays, as part of some Champions supplement or magazine article or something, I can dig up those issues of The Clobberin' Times, musty and dusty as they are. I could even probably contact a few of the old members to produce their musty & dusty copies, or provide statements of reference. Hell, even my old notebooks with draft copies are kickin' around (I'm a pack-rat when it comes to written stuff, hate to throw out old address books, etc.)

Of course, I still have to lay a suit on the perp's ass. I still have to pay a lawyer, and it still has to go to court, if the guy doesn't accept a "cease and desist."

Note too, that if the fellow simply paraphrased me, changing words enough in the time-hallowed manner of a college freshman in an English 103 class, then I'm pretty hosed. I have no way of showing that he did anything but think along the same lines I did, and said court will say, "If you thought of it first, well, he thought of it too and had the gumption to publish it while you let it languish in your closet."

But that's an aside, and I'll return to my point. Best would be if I'd published those articles in some magazine or other (they were, needless to say, entirely unsuited for the simulationist juggernaut represented by Hero/ICE following 1985 or so). As is, it helps that the ol' CT was indeed an entity in which written work appeared, that got distributed to others. It helps that it was in a print format. It's no guarantee, but it would help.

I suggest getting your written work into something similar, whether it be a club newsletter, a photocopy for a writing group, or any damn thing that can be thought of as "made available to a bunch of people as Ian's work." Print is better than electronic/internet, mainly because (as I've said before) precedents are rare and iffy in the case of the latter.

And one last thing. A lot of people use the phrase "protected by copyright," which is the stupidest damn phrase I can think of. Nothing protects your IP. Let me say that again: NOTHING PROTECTS YOUR IP FROM BEING USED BY ANOTHER, AND NOTHING EVER WILL. Copyright is about retaliation and recompense for theft, not about prevention of theft.

When recent law changes produced "automatic copyright," they essentially were saying, "no copyright." This is important. It means that protection is not the issue. It means that deterrence is the issue. The best deterrence, beyond commerce, is evidence that a lot of people have seen it and own it.

Best,
Ron

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

On 2001-12-14 18:24, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
So, keeping in mind I'm not sitting here as a paranoid freak, and just want some general info should I branch into more worthy attemps at writing, how would one document a works existence (beyond commerce) to defend copyright/IP?

Also we only seem to hear of copyright here in the UK, I hear less about IP?

I don't know about RP material specifically, but my girlfriend found this page useful:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/index.htm

She runs a webpage which has pics and things she's taken herself. She recently found a local quasi-governmental body had taken those pics, and was using them itself. Her one and only response from this group was that the pictures were not copyrighted, as they didn't have the little (c) symbol. :smile: This is bollocks.

Anyway, she ended up mailing them extracts from that page. =) They're *finally* doing something about it, months later...

It's surprisingly accesssible for a UK governmental page, unlikely as that may sound.

And this page - http://www.cyndislist.com/copyrite.htm - looks to have extensive links and advice.

Joe.

[Ian O'Rourke]

All very interesting thanks. Yeah I'm aware of the issue that people can pretty much write the same thing, as long as they don't copy it word for word. I just find the whole topic interesting. How do some authors successfully challenge others? As an example, I realise JK Rowling won her case with regards to the Harry Potter books (but you here of situations in which challengers win), but surely the books where not written word for word anyway?

Also, what about the old myth of stuffing your writings somewhere that date stamps their entry. I realise this is a variation on the mail it to yourself argument. If you do mail something to yourself, or shove it in a 'secure box' that date stamps every entry surely that proves you at least had that article at that time.

Just curious now, as I say, it's not overly something I worry about, and I agree with Ron in some respects, if your bothered about it that much, and the articles are that good, then get the bastards published in something worthwhile :smile:

Funnily enough the UK Government sites mentioned above actually recommend the registered mailing option. They say it does not prove it is your original work (obviously) but it does provide some security against a copier coming after you later.
_________________
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net">www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-15 04:29 ]

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-12-14 19:17, Ron Edwards wrote:

I suggest getting your written work into something similar, whether it be a club newsletter, a photocopy for a writing group, or any damn thing that can be thought of as "made available to a bunch of people as Ian's work." Print is better than electronic/internet, mainly because (as I've said before) precedents are rare and iffy in the case of the latter.

Of course, this relies on the others keeping copies of your work, and being able to find them.  Not especially reliable but better than an internet forum or something similar.

I agree w/ Ron on the reduced weight of Electronic/internet distribution, especially forums.  In the above example, Raven noted that Shane had documented his work on the GO forum.  Assuming Shane had a case and which to receive damages.

(He doesn't.  I can't stress that enough.  He appears to have something good going with SJG in spite of this, or prehaps because of this, and hell if I want to screw that up for him)

His documentation is on GO, but if GO continues the was it is lately, before too long it'll go POOF and there goes his documentation.  He might be able to retrieve the somehow, or perhaps he can contact some of the people who had read the forum.  Maybe they'll remember.  Maybe not.  And good luck getting them to appear in court for you.

As an example, I realise JK Rowling won her case with regards to the Harry Potter books (but you here of situations in which challengers win), but surely the books where not written word for word anyway?

Yeah, this is sort of the point of the thread.  I wish I had thought of it when I started it.  Copyright is only as good as your defence.  JK ROwling has quite a pile of money now so she can defned her copyright against all (most) challengers.  Not so the average person who can't raise the capitol to defned their material, usually.

I don't hear of challengers winning too often, but I do here of the challenged settling quite a bit.  One good example that springs to mind is the Eddie Murphy vehicle Coming To America.  The studio settled with someone for a large sum of money.  IIRC the reason is that the person had submitted a similar script to the studio.  Eddie Murphy (most likely) had never seen this script when he wrote Coming.  But the studio had accepted the other person's script and had to pay them.

I'm fuzzy on the details of this, and it's probably so much urban legend, but this is kinda how it works.

The target audience for this was people who were blissfully unaware of the potential trouble or are just choosing to ignore it.

Suddenly I remember a slightly better cautionary tale.  I'm going to try to keep the names and places anonymous again.

A certain RPG had a small yet devoted on-line community.  Several fans had their house rules of this game up on their web sites.  All was well until on of them decide, for whatever reason, to take all of that material, put it together in a book labeled "House Rules," have it printed and sell it.

Actually, my memory is a little fuzzy on that point.  I can't remember if he sold it ($10 IIRC) or if he simply had it distributed as a big file on his web page.

Either way, it caused trouble since he failed to give proper credit in some cases and didn't bother asking anyone's permission to do this first.  This problem was compounded when he later published a print fanzine and, yes indeedy, sold it.  SOme of the material was submitted, others were just taken from websites, forums and mailing lists, again w/o permission in some cases.  

The fallout is that hard feelings have and AFAIK continue to abound in that game's on-line fan base.  Many people got angry and at least one guy took his site down.

The point of this is not figure out what that game was or who the people were.  If you insist on knowing, the game was Spawn of Fashan, now get back to the issue at hand.

The point is that happy-go-lucky-everybody-sharing-their-material-with-everybody-else-on-their-web-sites-isn't-it-cool-could-you-pass-the-bean-dip world does not exist.  You put your material up on a web page or discuss your ideas in a public forum and you'r opening yoursself up to problems, and it's not necessarily someone else getting rich off of your work.  That guys didn't get rich.  His fanzine had to fold after a couple issues because, well, the fan base was all pissed at him.

Maybe I'm spreading paranoia.  But I'd hope I'm just telling it like it is and sparing someone the rude awakening.

[greyorm]

Of course, this relies on the others keeping copies of your work, and being able to find them.  Not especially reliable but better than an internet forum or something similar.

I disagree with Ron on the weight of electronic distribution because I know the system a little better in this case: if you've e-mailed something to someone, there are a half-dozen copies out there in cyberland, stored forever on some server somewhere.

It usually isn't too much trouble to find one, either.  Oftentimes you can just e-mail your ISP, tell them it is a legal matter, and they can help out.

In fact, everything is stored somewhere, even old webpages that no longer exist for your browsing pleasure.  Yes, you can go find pages that vanished five years ago on the 'Net.

Heck, with foresight, you could put it up on Usenet to establish the date.  Google (formerly Deja) will automatically archive it, forever.

And good luck getting them to appear in court for you.

And all you need is a notarized statement from the individual if they can't appear in court.  This isn't too much trouble for a person to get or mail to you.

Copyright is only as good as your defence. JK ROwling has quite a pile of money now so she can defned her copyright against all (most) challengers. Not so the average person who can't raise the capitol to defned their material, usually.

But the studio had accepted the other person's script and had to pay them.

Yeah!  The little guy never wins!
Er, wait, the little guy DOES win...

Huh?

Sorry, Jack, but this proves, to me, that this is all nonsense on your part.

First you point out how you can only defend yourself if you have lots of money, and that small-time authors are at risk because they don't have as much; then you go and tell about how small-time authors get the big, rich companies to settle out of court all the time.

Can you see why I called this whole thing fluff and drivel from the get go?
It sounds like reprocessed garbage you've heard your whole life without thinking about it -- that you point out two contradictory examples in support of your point only showcases this all the more.

Again, the ONLY sound advice you should be handing out is "Talk to a copyright lawyer."  Not repeating anecdotes and urban myths (even true urban myths).

I'm fuzzy on the details of this, and it's probably so much urban legend, but this is kinda how it works.

"...kinda how it works..."

That sounds like the death knell in this whole argument...heck, that's the death knell in anything.

Particularly in legal ones, where "kinda how it works" equals "not how it works" and generally ends up in you losing your case.

Knowing "kinda" how it works is sort of like knowing "kinda" how to drive a car, or "kinda" how to fix the sink, or "kinda" how to apologize to your wife for busting the plumbing.

Like I said, find a copyright lawyer and talk to them. Going on "common sense," hearsay and old wives tales will do you no good, nor provide a useful source of knowledge on the issue (to say nothing of how reputable such information is).

You put your material up on a web page or discuss your ideas in a public forum and you'r opening yoursself up to problems,

I have news for you: you're opening yourself up for problems no matter what medium you publish it in.
If you're that worried about it, don't publish at all and gods-sakes don't tell anyone; that way there's no danger at all that someone, somewhere will ever steal your material.

I have to say as well that the last cautionary tale you wrote down seemed more pertinent to getting permission before using anyone else's work than to fearing the copyright-stealing boogeyman.

Maybe I'm spreading paranoia.  But I'd hope I'm just telling it like it is

Quite definitively the former.  It isn't the latter.
_________________
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
   --http://www.daegmorgan.net

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-12-17 02:10 ]

[Ryan Ary]

I don't know how much the fellow in question got paid (nor am I soliciting a figure) but it seem to me (a as nascent d20 publisher with some experience) that the best thing the publisher could do in the first place is pay the guy 4 cents a word (or what even he's comfortable with)for the material he has free on the web, have him jerk his material from the web and then just rewrite whatever is necessary.

Of course, SJG may well have already paid someone to write the game so that might not look to be a good solution if they had been developing a very similary property internally (i.e. would have paid twice for the writing). However, it 1) saves the company the appearance of impropriety (of course, maybe they don't care about that. I would.) and 2) eliminates competition with their product created by material available for free of the web.

Frankly, if they expect(ed) to sell alot of the games this option would be perfectly reasonable.  

Ryan

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Interesting comment, Ryan.  Reminded me of Monopoly.

The board game, as anyone with such useless trivia as I have on instant recall would know, was originally a game called The Landlord Game.  The names of the pronciples escape me, but the fellow credited with the invention of Monopoly actualy made a knock-off of the Landlord Game and managed to sell it to Parker Bros.

The difference here is Parker Bros. bought both games, they only produced Monopoly.  I suspect all the major game companies have a vault filled with unproduced games for this reason.

Now, I could say that this is what SJG should've done, but the reality is they should have done something that both parties would be happy with.  Shane doesn't have any complaints save that he wished he had believed in his own idea enough to market it, so I guess it worked out alright.

[Ryan Ary]

True enough P. If he is ok with it and they are willing to have virtually the same thing on the web (albeit obscurely), then all is well in gaming land. I would have paid the guy or hired him just to eliminate the competition. If this thing is selling (I've seen it at the local game store but they are all about LoTR right now so I havevn't heard anything about it.), Shane would do well apply that creative talent of his and make the sequel. I'm sure when he comes calling to sell it to SJG (for a Larger ammount no doubt) it will help that they have heard of him before. Just get some advice about what is a fair price for your work.

On the other account, I see no wrong (not that you were implying one)in buying things you never intend to publish if they are direct conflicts with your own material. Moreover, (and Ironically) the good material that competes with is more important to perma-shelve than the crap. I know some might think that is immoral but its business. I would never directly tell someone I intended to publish their material and then not though.

One serious problem in the d20 market is that there is virtually no horizontal consolidation of competition. Primarily because everyone is so darn shoestring they can't afford it. Moreover, while cash flow problems make it difficult to make money (i.e. grow) doing d20, it also means that many companies suffer a lingering death and never openly get out of the market. There are many website out there for companies that created one product (or less) and have essentially exited the industry but have "left the lights on" hoping they might get a break down the line. Eric Noah has now even reached the point of making companies renew there link on a regular basis to help eliminate some of the "noise" for the active companies.

I'm sorry I just totally derailed this string.
opps

just my 2p

Ryan      

[James V. West]

Well, this is all interesting.

I have no intentions of pulling anything off the net and no fears of theft. I believe that showing my work to as many people as possilbe only strengthens the fact that I did indeed create it and makes any would-be thieves less likely to pilfer.

Imagine me publishing a game about demon-summoning. Called "Sorcerous". Its story-driven, narrativist, and has a really neato method for creating demons. Ron Edwards can't do jack about it even though I essentially paraphrase his entire game. Ok, maybe he gets pissed enough to take me to court. But I didn't steal anything but an idea.

However, I'm now the laughing stalk of the net. THe most hated man on all rpg forums in existance. The flack alone could ensure a quick and painful death for my sales.

I know very little of legalities, but I know a lot about the integrity issue. I won't buy something from someone I KNOW is a thief. End of story.

That being said, its wise to share your work in a sesible, practical manner.

ENDNOTE: I have no experience with lawyers or copyright problems. I've self-pubbed comics for years and distributed 99% of them for free or trade. Shit happens, but if I was afraid of dying I'd never leave the house.

James V. West
http://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/index.html