Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Copyright and the OSR (part 2)

The first installment in this essay is here.

Preliminaries
This is a continuing general commentary on intellectual property as it pertains to the OSR (by which here I mean people who are currently distributing materials for out of print D&D or retroclones).

I'd like to address a comment from the first installment, made by Austrodavicus. He makes the point that by not naming names but mentioning products, I could create the potential for a witch hunt and rumors. In a different context I'd have to think more about whether it's better to name names or not, but in this case, since part of the issue raised by the community is legality, I will not create a pointer for a potential litigator to follow. Austrodavicus's point may be valid in other contexts, but I'd have to think it through more and I'll do that if/when it arises.

Disclosure
Something that I mentioned in the last post, and that was expanded by people in the comments is the issue of disclosure. By this I mean the effect of the publisher's telling people in advance about what the product is (in terms of legality and other intellectual property matters). In other words, if I thin I'm getting a pirated version of the real rules and I get a retro-clone, I'd be upset. If I thought I was getting a legal retro-clone and I get a pirated copy of the original rules, I'd be upset. I agree with the commentators on the first post in this series that part of the negative reaction to the rulebook (Holmes one) was that people expected a retro-clone and got something they considered to contain copyright violations. Quite a few of those people, I suspect, wouldn't have minded getting a book with copyright violations if they'd known that was how the book had been done. After all, whether it's legal or not, there is demand for new copies of the old books. I'll get to that in a second. I do think, however, that almost by definition the people who want retro-clones and the people who want copies are two different groups. There's quite a bit of overlap when you're talking about modules, since the product of a retro-clone is supposed to be usable with the regular rules, but when you're talking about buying the actual rulebooks themselves, I think the overlap is much smaller. You either want to use a clone or you want to use the real rules. So, disclosure by a publisher is fairly important in the case of a rulebook.

On the other hand, the obvious problem. Disclosure of a copy would involve someone saying outright, "I am breaking the law." Not a very good strategy for avoiding a lawsuit, and in fact violating copyright is also a criminal offense in the USA as well as grounds for a civil lawsuit.

Which leads to three different approaches with a very, very uncomfortable middle ground in there as well. The first approach is to create a retro-clone (whether using the OGL or not -- it would theoretically be possible to make one without the OGL, but the legal risk would be high). The second approach is to create a simulacrum in which safe-harbor rules are used to mimic the effect of the original but not the methods. The third approach is to go balls-out and copy the original. The uncomfortable middle ground is to copy text or to screw up the copyright issues in other ways, but to avoid mentioning that. In some cases it's possible to fall into that middle ground unintentionally -- there are some subtler issues in copyright law that could be accidentally violated, and the less the author knows about copyright law, the larger these errors might be. I've written about some of these issues on blog comments and in message board posts, so I'm not going to go into them in detail at this point. There's also the risk that while I know a fair amount about copyright law, I'm not an expert qualified to write a treatise about it. There would be gaps.

Approach #3: Deliberate Pirating
It's worth mentioning a practical exception to copyright, and a misconception. First the misconception because it's simple: distributing something for free has nothing to do with whether you're violating the law. Tenkar has pointed this out on his blog, and it's worth repeating since it seems to be a very, very common belief. If you distribute a copyright violation to one single person, you are violating the law. The chance of getting caught at that is obviously very low, and the chance that the copyright holder would care is obviously also quite low (unless it's a personal issue rather than a financial one). But you would be breaking the law.

Now the practical exception. You are generally allowed to make a copy of something for personal use. This allows making backups, as the obvious example. It might (and I think it does, although that's no guarantee) extend to making copies of something for your own gaming group. Why doesn't that fall afoul of the previous paragraph? Because the nature of a cooperative game tends to involve the sharing of baseline information -- the game is designed to do this. If I write a module using mindflayers and the D&D rules, I'm *clearly* not violating copyright because the rules were sold to me for that purpose. A copy of the rules themselves aren't as clear an issue, but if the reason for my copied-rulebook is to incorporate my house rules, it would be pretty hard to argue that this isn't personal use that was contemplated by the original seller.

But there's a big caveat there -- this would only really apply to your actual, real, gaming group. Not to someone on the net. So this isn't really of much use to someone who wants to distribute copies in general. The reason that I mention it is to distinguish it from the misconception above. Just because you give it away for free doesn't mean that it's personal use. It's obvious that if you're selling it, that's not personal use, but the converse doesn't hold true: the definition of personal use isn't "given away free," it requires more than that.

Cool Stuff
Obviously I'm not in favor of rulebook-piracy, or I wouldn't have bothered to create any retro-clones in the first place. On a personal level I didn't like the idea that most of the sharing of resources in our community was forced to be based on piracy and that the scarcer rulebooks themselves were increasingly relying on piracy to keep the games going at all.

On the aspirational side, too, I hoped that retro-clones (because of their legality) would make it easier for a publisher to feel comfortable about spending some money to create co-operative modules more easily: hiring a cartographer or artist, as the best examples. I'm one of the people who wants to expand the hobby -- I don't argue with the people who don't care about that as a goal, but it's my goal.

However...

It should also be patently obvious that I'm a fanboy of the original rules, or I wouldn't have bothered with any of this. My personal moral rules don't let me pirate them myself, and I don't see piracy as a viable way of preserving or expanding the game ... but I can't help but cheer quietly when someone comes up with an artistic but piratical labor of love with those rules. I like a rebel. I like to see a work of art. Given the way I view laws and morality, I ought to shake my finger and say "tsk, tsk." But I have a moral/legal failing ... I tend to have an "attaboy" response, even though I think it's wrong.

There are two OD&D copies out there (maybe 3), and I mean copies. I'm not talking about Swords & Spellcraft or Swords & Wizardry: I'm talking about literal copies of WhiteBox OD&D, although I believe both are reorganized to read more smoothly. I'll call one of these the Frazetta copy, and the other the Austin copy. Note: I have paged through one of these, and seen pictures of the other. Comments about the content come from people whose opinions I trust, but other than basic visuals I haven't read these books in depth. I do not know the links to them -- please don't ask, I deliberately avoided making any sort of note about how to access them.

The Frazetta copy includes no house rules, although I'm told that it does contain some of Philotomy Jurament's musings as additional material. It's a beautiful thing; Frazetta art works really well with OD&D. On the other hand, I do have a couple of serious reservations because (a) Frazetta's art is still owned by his estate (ie, his kids), and I make a gut-level distinction between using material that is out of print, blocked from distribution by the owner, and providing no benefit to the creator (OD&D) ... versus material that is still available, provides benefit to the creator's children. I have a bit of a problem with the fact that Frazetta's art is in there, although I can't deny that it's awesome. (b) I would have a real problem if they copied Philotomy's musings without permission, but I don't know if they did or not.

The Austin copy includes house rules, and the art is done by the gaming group that uses these rules. This one is probably not piracy at all -- the copy I saw was in the hands of the guy who wrote it, and this might truly be a "for personal use" book. The art is the opposite of the pirated Frazetta art in the first book I mentioned -- it's unpolished and raw ... and it's full of awesome swords & sorcery energy, with power you can't imagine. It's possibly the best piece of homebrewed creativity I've ever seen. You might be able to find one of the draft copies of this out there somewhere, I don't know. I'm sorry to keep this one vague, and I would really like to point people to it, but I can't do that. I'm not going to "out" anyone.

I'm not sure if there will be a part three to this essay or not. I don't have anything outlined, but I know it's a big enough topic that I've certainly left out lots of interesting thoughts. I just haven't had those interesting thoughts yet. :)

Quick Edit: about the two OD&D versions that I mentioned, I don't know how complete they are. I assume the Frazetta one contains all of the LBB material, but the Austin clone probably doesn't - the book is too thin. So the Austin Clone is probably, like Princess Bride, that group's "good parts" version of OD&D.

36 comments:

  1. Hmmm the "Austin Clone" I know of is a collection of house rules and not a complete copy of D&D. It does duplicate a few bits whole hat from D&D and other sources. It doesn't pass itself off as a whole new game however and one really would need the original or a reasonable facsimile to play. Are there copyright violations...yeah. They might indeed be fair-use for a play-group but not likely so when distributed to the outside world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JD, thanks for that clarification. I included it here because from what I'd seen it definitely includes some copied text (or at least tables). It's clearly intended for the specific gaming group that uses it, but it was a great example of something that, while copying text, does so in an incredibly cool and creative way. Also, in terms of disclosure, all the discussion about it that I've seen has been very clear that it's more about house rules than about being a true reproduction. I put it side-by-side with the Frazetta version more because it contains copied text, not because it has the same intended goal/use (which it definitely doesn't). I probably should have been clearer about that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe we should make October "OSR Copyright Infringement Awareness Month". ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is how I look at piracy, using the Frazetta D&D book as an example:

    Who gets hurt?

    Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson, or Frank Frazetta? Clearly not, since they are all dead.

    How about the descendants of Gygax or Arneson? Also no, since they do not profit from sales of the 1974 D&D rules.

    How about WotC? Well, it's not like people are getting the Frazetta D&D book instead of a legal PDF since there are no legal PDFs. So even WotC is not losing a penny.

    How about the heirs of Frazetta? No, because tons of Frazetta art is freely and openly available elsewhere. So it's not like anyone could think, "Ha! I was going to buy some Frazetta art from the heirs, but this D&D book lets me save my money by giving me otherwise unavailable free Frazetta art." I mean, seriously, who would not buy Frazetta art only because he could get this D&D book?

    So nobody is hurt. There is no victim.

    As for the law, it is a sick joke? There are more laws in this country than anyone could possibly read, let alone obey. An average of 70 pages are added to the Code of Federal Regulations each day. With the possible exceptions of newborns and people in comas, we all unknowingly commit multiple felonies each and every day.

    So lest anyone get angry with my defense of piracy since it breaks the law, keep in mind that YOU, dear reader, have already commited at least one felony today, and you will undoubtedly commit some more before bedtime. You, too, are a lawbreaker. We all are. It is unavoidable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Btw, Geoffrey, it has just occurred to me upon seeing your comment that I should have called it the Frazetta book that is being sold on lulu through a private link. There's a second Frazetta-illustrated book which you know of; that second one isn't the one I'm talking about. It may have been generated using the same text, I'm not sure, but I was specifically talking about one that's on lulu.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's definitely a sticky issue, one that offers many, many shade of grey, IMO. I know, for myself, I still haven't decided fully where I stand. I am a collector of OD&D and Classic D&D material. I like to read it, and use it in my games.

    I'll admit that a lot of what I have in PDF is pirated. No other way to get it. As a general rule though, I don't share it. Not hosted for others to use, though a piece or two were passed along to others for getting other things in kind.

    I also troll the forums and blogs and find countless things I could use in my game. Some released under the OGL, much more just freely shared.

    So, now I want to collate all these neat bits into a house rules document, or even a full campaign sourcebook for "my" D&D. I can comfortably do so for private use at among my game group, at my table, as you point out. But since I also borrow so much from the OSR community, I really want to give something back and share what I create with them too.

    What to do? I can piece together what I use at home, using the "real" TSR material, pirated art, the whole shebang, and keep it private. I can post that on my blog and share it illegally. I can do all the work of re-writing it all to be OGL-compliant, compatible with S&W or Lab Lord, etc. Ideally that's the legal solution of course, if I had time, but that's a problem too. I'd need to get art I have permission for, or commission some, for one. There's also the issue that I run my game using the real rules, not a clone, so in the end I have a legal product to share but I can't actually use it myself.

    It's a conundrum, and leads down a slippery slope. I'm curious how some others puzzled through this before they shared what they did.

    I'm going to cross post this to some forums to see what discussion it causes...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Geoffrey - your point, tho' exagerated, is well made. However, although ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in most cases, it can be a mitigating circumstance. Knowingly breaking the law is hard to defend against.

    As an example, NYC has a traffic law that does not allow a right turn on red (except in a handful of interections that are signed to allow such). It's fairly common for someone from out of the metropolitan area to be ignorant of the law (even though every roadway entering the city has signs reminding you of the law). If I pulled you over for the above violation, and you explained you didn't know you were breaking the law, and you weren't from the general area, I'd let you go with a warning. If you, 15 minutes later, committed the same violation, I gave you a summons (only has happened once for me).

    It is the repeat offender that I find offensive, because it shows me that you just don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ignorance of the law or an ignorant law does not make you exempt from the law.

    Using the logic of "You already (unknowingly) committed one crime why not commit one more with knowledge" is not logic at all.

    I'd also challenge that people unknowingly commit felonies everyday. I challenge as a basis of fact and as an argument.

    And Fraztta's art is not open. Sure it is out there, but it still protected and using it is theft. His work is protected after his death and his family owns the reproduction rights (though in this case in particular that is a morass). Use his stuff then you have to pay them.

    What now? Steve Jobs is dead so I should be able to steal an iPhone? Why not! I supposedly committed felonies just getting here today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim, I recommend Harvey Silvergate's book, Three Felonies a Day.

    Also, walk into a fully-stocked legal library. Let your eyes wander over the interminable volumes of federal law, regulations, and codes with all their tiny font. And keep in mind that the collection is incomplete, as scores of pages of similar verbiage is being added to it every day. Then ask yourself if you truly believe you are not in violation of some of those laws. These laws cover just about anything of which you can conceive, and often in such a vague manner (such as much of copyright law!), that there is virtually no way that you haven't commited at least one felony since you woke-up this morning.

    I do not advocate victimizing anyone, thus I do not advocate knifing a random person, or kidnapping him, or stealing his wallet, etc. Which is a completely different manner than my recognition that the countless pages of U. S. law are a boondoggle and a farce 100 times over, and that nobody need feel guilty over ignoring such nonsense.

    Otherwise we'd all be paralyzed with guilt over our daily, repeated, and unavoidable "crimes".

    (This illustrates why the U. S. has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country on Earth. Prosecutors can prove that almost any given person has violated some law somewhere.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. crap, if I'm a felon, I can't remain on my job. i need a list of those felonies to make sure i'm in the clear ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geoffrey, you've obviously never dealt with a Bronx jury.

    Our high population behind bars is because of the strict drug laws in this country for recreational drug use and our large number of drug users. Remove drugs from the equation and the prison population drops dramitcally.

    But you knew that ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. That book sounds really interesting. I don't think that sort of thing is the cause of high imprisonment rates (I agree with Tenkar that the drug war is largely responsible for that), but there definitely is a terrifying number of things that are technically illegal. For the most part they are illegal either because someone wrote a law poorly or because the law is overly inclusive in order to prevent real criminals using a technicality to avoid or evade the consequences. However, with alarming frequency, a totally normal situation can catch someone up into a Kafkaesque situation.

    But I'm with Tim, the conclusion to draw isn't that it's therefore fair game to break any law one wants to, the conclusion is that we need to be keeping a closer eye on lawmakers, law enforcement, and prosecutors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd like to address a comment from the first installment, made by Austrodavicus. He makes the point that by not naming names but mentioning products, I could create the potential for a witch hunt and rumors.

    My comment wasn't aimed at you Matt, but was a response to the previous comment by dervishdelver. I purposely used the word "often" rather than "always" because I don't believe it's always good or appropriate to name names.

    And speaking of naming names, I'm happy to out myself as the "editor" of the "Frazetta version". There are indeed two versions of it - my original and the one on Lulu re-edited by another (who I seem to recall got permission from Philotomy to add his Musings as an appendix).

    I sourced the Frazetta art off the internet and clearly stated in the credits that its use was unauthorized.

    At no stage have I overtly and publicly provided links to the document, nor have I uploaded it to any vendor sites such as Lulu or RPGNow. I made it available to a small group of people on a private forum.

    Having said that, I confess my desire that the file would go viral on the internet (as is the nature of the beast). My motivation is that the increasingly expensive original game remain realistically available to new generations of gamers. And while I'm not willing to publicly distribute the document, I have no problems with people doing whatever they want with it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The logic still doesn't follow.

    I have been working at universities as professor, instructor or researcher for my entire adult life. I have been to many legal libraries including one of the largest open shelf legal libraries in the country so no, I wouldn't be all that surprised to be honest.

    But I'll look up that book all the same.

    Until the law is changed it is against the law. Just because someone is not victimized or profiting from it though is still not enough for me to say it is OK to do a morally questionable thing. Taking someone else's work with out paying or other proper attribution is still theft to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Austrodavicus, even though you were only commenting generally, your point was important enough that I wanted to stop and think about whether I was right or wrong to approach this using the "maintain anonymity" method. I didn't mean to suggest that you had gone after me specifically, but I did want to consider whether you should have. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. austrodavicus,
    i reread your post in response to my comments and i don't believe i disagree with you. but, unlike many of you, i'm a casual gamer who had found and followed the osr for the past year and a half only because it took me back to a simpler time when i first started playing D&D. That being said, i know there are many others like me checking out these blogs and even purchasing osr material that get a bad impression when alot of drama breaks loose over these things. everyone always roots for the underdog, especially when the dogs being kicked. so, why would anyone want to be associated as the guy kicking the dog?

    ReplyDelete
  17. i know there are many others like me checking out these blogs and even purchasing osr material that get a bad impression when alot of drama breaks loose over these things.

    And this is exactly why some issues need to be confronted without any beating around the bush.

    The OSR, while not an organisation, is a label people self-identify with and which has become a brand name of sorts. Individuals who do something to give people "a bad impression" damage not only their own image, but the image of other OSR publishers and the wider old school gaming community as a whole.

    Given that there is no central authority in the OSR, publishers within the community rely on the judgement of their peers. Naming someone for a bad call to promote discussion over the issue can both open their eyes to their error in judgement, as well as educate the wider community as to what is acceptable and proper in the scene.

    But I strongly agree with you dervishdelver, this all depends on how that criticism is dished out. As I suggested previously, there's a big difference between delivering criticism objectively and with respect, and kicking the dog. Those who choose to kick the dog should come under the judgement of their peers just as much as the guy that makes an error in judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "But there's a big caveat there -- this would only really apply to your actual, real, gaming group. Not to someone on the net."

    How do you view ConstantCon and the potential for international gaming groups numbering in the dozens or even hundreds?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Tim Brennan that one shouldn't feel alright about disobeying a law simply because one has already broken others.

    Having said that, I also think that the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with moral and immoral behavior, but rather providing benefits to some parties at the expense of others. While I don't want to be kidnapped by guys with badges and guns for disobeying an unjust law bought and paid for by Walt Disney et al in order to provide them with rents, my greatest concern is whether my actions are moral or not.

    I don't see the least bit of immorality in copying and disseminating information. Thus, with regards to obeying intellectual monopoly laws, the primary moral consideration that I have to consider is that disobeying them may be a positive step in the process of overcoming them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. maasenstodt, we're not talking about copying and disseminating information, but games. Games that are product, typically produced by someone else, not you.

    I see far too much of this mindset today: I want it, you have it, gimme it. Just because someone else has something you want doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I try to obey laws because a) I think many of of them have some real benefit that is worthwhile according to my values system(i.e.: no right turn on red in a pedestrian heavy city like NYC probably saves lives) and b) I usually don't want to suffer the consequences of breaking the law. I mean, if I'm going to get in trouble, I'd want it to be for an act of civil disobedience because I feel that a law is unjust, not for printing up counterfeit Mickey Mouse T-shirts and trying to sell them in Times Square.
    I wouldn't think printing up a rpg booklet for my friends with swiped artwork as a form of disobedience that I could be proud of the way some civil rights protesters could point to 'when they broke the law by sitting at the whites only table in Montgomery Alabama in 1965.'
    I think that there are enough retro-clones out there that I don't need to resort to piracy to get what I want. Some of them even provide a word document if I want to edit the test to my own taste. Printing off a few copies for my gaming table might be technically "illegal" (or at least in a grey area since the authors of said works provided me their text 'for editing'), but, as long as I am not distributing it or trying to make a buck off of it, I don't lose any sleep over it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ Bree Yark!, if, by a game, we're talking about a physical item (book, box set, etc.) that someone owns, I certainly agree that taking it without permission is theft and, therefore, is wrong.

    However, if we're talking about information (including text, illustrations, etc.), it is a different matter altogether because copying, while perhaps disrespectful of the content's creator and/or counterproductive if one wants to encourage more content creation, is not theft. Because no one has been deprived of something they owned, the act of copying might be distasteful, but it isn't immoral.

    I'd wouldn't have purchased a printed copy of Matt's Tome of Adventure Design from someone who simply printed the .pdf, even if it cost less than what Frog God Games charges. The reason is that I want to see Matt rewarded for his work and I'd like to encourage him to create more great stuff. When it comes to OD&D, though, those factors don't come into play. Not only do I not see the distribution of print copies of OD&D as being immoral, I don't even find it distasteful. To the contrary, in fact - I think it's a great thing to share!

    ReplyDelete
  23. You can totally print out the Swords & Wizardry docs; they're there for that, for free. It's not illegal at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. maasenstodt, where I come from, taking what doesn't belong to you IS immoral. This holds true regardless if the other person isn't technically left with "one less thing."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Re: My musings in the "Frazetta copy"

    I wasn't asked for permission. It was already available by the time I heard about it. I think it's flattering that someone thinks highly enough of the musings to include them as an appendix to a "single volume" compilation of the OD&D rules. That's way cool. I'm not at all upset about it. Nevertheless, I doubt that I would have given permission because of the trademark and copyright issues (WotC's the the Frazetta estate's, not mine). Had I been asked, I would've been obliged to say "no."

    I've given permission to several people who've asked to use my musings in PDFs and such that are being distributed, but never in anything that infringes on someone else's trademarks or copyrights (that I know of, anyway). At this point though, all the copies of my musings (including what is up on my site) are out-of-date. At some point maybe I'll get around to releasing the expanded musings. Or I might stay too busy working and playing games to bother. ::grin::

    FWIW, I'm sympathetic to Geoffrey's argument about victimless "crime." But I also prefer to avoid blatantly waving a red cape in front of the bull, even if the bull is full of bullshit. At least when there are other options. And in the case of copyright and D&D, I think there are other options (e.g. retro-clones, fair-use supplements that avoid trademark infringement, et cetera).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Matt, in light of the stink that continues to emerge from this issue as witnessed at the K&K, i think it warrants a part 3. im not sure why i keep sticking my nose in this. i guess i thought i would be helping some of you by giving an outsiders perspective and for some reason it just sticks in my craw. i can only reference my previous posts in part 1 and 2 when i say it's a minority within the osr that brought this upon themselves.

    austrodavicus said... "Given that there is no central authority in the OSR, publishers within the community rely on the judgement of their peers. Naming someone for a bad call to promote discussion over the issue can both open their eyes to their error in judgement, as well as educate the wider community as to what is acceptable and proper in the scene."

    to this i can only respond by stating: rule/enforcement by consensus either = stagnation (no one will come to common agreement) or = compromise/degradation (agreement at the lowest common denominator).
    Agreement at the lowest common denominator usually has nothing to do with law, but rather, personal opinion and influence amongst the community.

    BTW, it seems people continue to disparage the individual responsible for the origination of this post, even though he is not truly responsible for the current legal issues of another. ugh!

    i may have been wrong in my original comments to this article about outsiders impressions. the major TV networks seem to think so. that's why we have reality TV with such drivel as "The DMZ" and "The Jersey Shore". So, maybe my advice was wrong and everyone should ramp it up a notch with the drama.(sarcasm)

    ReplyDelete
  27. to this i can only respond by stating: rule/enforcement by consensus either = stagnation (no one will come to common agreement) or = compromise/degradation (agreement at the lowest common denominator).

    dervishdelver, I think you're reading things into my comment that I didn't intend. I wasn't talking about either rule or enforcement, but something more along the lines of peer review. I was specifically talking about publishers, amateur or otherwise, and not the wider old school community.

    OSR publishers, like their D20 counterparts, are a loose group that range from the professional to the amateur. Most know what they're doing, a few don't. Some just need their errors pointed out to them (which is very different from trying to boss them around or to enforce some sort of groupthink) for the penny to drop. Usually this is simply because they are ignorant of such things as the correct way to utilise the OGL, having a basic understanding of copyright, or whatever. Nothing sinister, nothing bullying, just plain speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  28. austrodavicus, this is why i stated in my original post to part 1, these things should be addressed in private, directly to the person involved. or let the person who owns said copy righted material handle it themselves. its not the groups (osr) responsibility to address these things because it only spirals into a screw fest which has nothing to do with law or even how a majority may see things and gives a poor impression to people such as myself. please don't take my comments as a personal swipe at you. i only used your statement because i believe it probably is a true reflection of what many think the osr should operate like, but not everyone has the same coutesy and tack as you. hence, why i referred to the continual bad mouthing of certain individual. i have yet to see anyone in the forums or blogs speak up about this. which tells me these people condone it and feel the individual deserves it. but i find it in bad taste.

    ReplyDelete
  29. these things should be addressed in private, directly to the person involved.

    Which doesn't allow for the many to learn from the mistakes of the individual. Personally I'd rather learn from someone else's mistake than learn the hard way myself. It's a lot less painful. :-)

    It also tends to flame the fires of controversy and gossip, as people end up with only half the story.

    its not the groups (osr) responsibility to address these things

    There is no group, there are just individuals who identify with a label. I'm not talking about a "group" confronting an issue, but of the right of an individual to express their opinion, to give their viewpoint. Especially on issues that potentially affect a much larger number of people than just the original fella.

    it only spirals into a screw fest which has nothing to do with law or even how a majority may see things and gives a poor impression to people such as myself.

    And which is why such behaviour (by individuals) should be confronted too. Also, I would hope and expect most people would clearly see that there is no "group" dishing out justice. Just individuals expressing their opinions.

    please don't take my comments as a personal swipe at you.

    Thanks dervishdelver, I don't.

    hence, why i referred to the continual bad mouthing of certain individual. i have yet to see anyone in the forums or blogs speak up about this. which tells me these people condone it and feel the individual deserves it. but i find it in bad taste.

    Obviously some people feel the tone of criticism is warranted, especially given that the person in question seems, to many, to have done the same thing twice now. I believe that this is a direct result of people not knowing all the facts of the situation.

    Keeping things "private" and hidden will often result in misinformation and gossip. And often, just by laying all the cards on the table, such a situation is diffused.

    Basically dervishdelver, all I am saying is that there is no one right way. Saying nothing, keeping it all private isn't always the best thing to do. And that applies equally to publicly outing people. There is no one right way for all situations.

    I would suggest that this explains why people haven't spoken out in his defence. However, I'll be blogging about this soon after having swapped several private messages with the individual involved. It's clear to me from my correspondence with him that his mistakes were in no way intentional, but simply the result of ignorance compounded by bad advice from a trusted source.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hmm strange, my last two paragraphs above have somehow swapped places. The second-to-last paragraph is actually the final one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. austrodavicus, i look forward to what you have to say in your blog. but no matter how you want to define it, the osr is a group. political parties are made up of individuals who identify with a label, sports are made up of individuals who identify with a label, religions are made of individuals who identify with a label. the osr may not be a well structured group, but it is a group. particularly, those who participate online through blogs and web sites are a group. i will only mention two more things. if it was you who slipped up, would you want to be made a public example of for the "good" of others? my other comment is- how many bloggers has the osr lost in the recent past because of all the discord? is it really worth pushing another one out?

    ReplyDelete
  32. no matter how you want to define it, the osr is a group. political parties are made up of individuals who identify with a label, sports are made up of individuals who identify with a label, religions are made of individuals who identify with a label. the osr may not be a well structured group, but it is a group.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one dervishdelver. In my book a group is a bunch of people united by some sort of organised structure. People in a political party are financial members of that organisation (or at least they are in Australia). People in a sporting club are likewise financial members of the club and in team sports work together as a team. Religions are made up of people who for the most part agree on a common doctrine and if they don't tow the line they must seek a different group.

    A bunch of people gawking at a road accident aren't a group, even though they happen to be participating in the same activity. Likewise, all the people living in a particular town or suburb aren't a group. Yes they have something in common and can be given a label, they are a community, but they're a bunch of individuals, not a cohesive group.

    The same is true of bloggers and forum members - a community yes, but not an organised group. There is no financial membership, no organised structure, no common doctrine, no team, no community-wide cooperation. Just a bunch of individuals hanging around doing the same sort of stuff.

    I'm labouring the point here because there is a huge misconception out there as to what the OSR actually is. There is the real OSR and the imaginary one. That is, "the OSR" and "The OSR".

    The former one is real, it's a bunch of individuals who are participating (mostly online) in growing old school gaming. They do this in many ways and often don't agree with each other. Amusingly, some who are vocal in their hatred of the OSR are by their very actions an active part of it.

    The latter is "The OSR", an imaginary group of people who are seemingly organised in some way. People can join this OSR and quit it too, as if there was some kind of membership involved. There is a manifesto and to some there are even leaders in the OSR. All this is contrary to reality, but it doesn't stop people believing it. And sadly such a belief tends to stir up arguments as folks take an "us and them" stance.

    The OSR is simply a trend that has grown over the last several years, with roots in a variety of things such as old school forums, blogging, print on demand and pdf publishing, the OGL/SRD, retro-clones, etc. The trend is the growth in old school gaming both online and offline, in publishing, the free availability of cloned rules, etc. People are either contributing to all this in some small way, or they are not. Even commenting on an old school blog is participating in the OSR by taking part in an online discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. if it was you who slipped up, would you want to be made a public example of for the "good" of others?

    I would have no problem with that. I've said on my blog that if I act like a dickhead, tell me so. (I also pointed out that there is a difference between calling someone a dickhead and stating that they're acting like one - a distinction not everyone gets). And that holds true if I stuff up. Publicly criticise me, I can take it. In doing so you give me the opportunity to respond publicly, thus giving both sides of a story and helping others to get the full picture. A great way to throw water on the flames of gossip and misinformation.

    how many bloggers has the osr lost in the recent past because of all the discord? is it really worth pushing another one out?

    Firstly, anyone who says "I quit my blog because of The OSR" needs to get their hand off it, because they're not being honest (see above). Secondly, I've already agreed with you that haters need calling out too. And thirdly, we're all adults who make our own decisions. We quit or not because we choose to, and not because others forced us to do so. And as for the bloke involved, if he has a blog to quit I'm not aware of it. He certainly has a forum though.

    ReplyDelete
  34. austrodavicus, it's been enjoyable conversing with you. i'm afraid i've said all i need to say (maybe thankfully). again, i look forward to reading what you have to say on the subject in your blog. could you post a link? until then, i'll return to my lurking and occasional purchase of osr products, reaping the benefit of others creativity.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gentlemen, I want to commend you both for managing to carry on a mature, intelligent discussion here. I think you both have some valid points, although my view falls more to austrodavicus' side of things.

    It's nice to see that an internet disagreement doesn't need to devolve into name-calling and childishness. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2011/ ... s-and.html

    last drawing

    some images in Kellri's CDD #4:

    http://kellri.truculent.org/CDD%234%20- ... erence.pdf

    People are not being consistent.

    ReplyDelete