White Wolf Applying License to Indie Games

Enigma23 writes "White Wolf, Inc. has decided to enforce a licensing system upon those who run their games in their World of Darkness. Here is the full text of the license. The Licensing process will force those who have not already joined the Camarilla, White Wolf's official fan club, to pay a yearly $20 fee. They're not going to go after games that don't charge money for the event, but the wording is such that they can legally sue those who don't comply even if they only charge enough money to cover costs. The practical upshot is that technically the WW Stormtroopers could raid your house merely if everyone chips in a few quid for pizza. This is evidently doubly so if anyone in your gaming group is under the age of 18, which is against the membership policy of The Camarilla. There is a further discussion on RPG.net about the various issues involved." The BoingBoing discussion is interesting, as well.

Comments

Here's what you do...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Well then, I'd say pay the fee or move on to something else. Simple, eh?

Re:Here's what you do...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Haven't you got a sister or cousin to fuck?

That's unenforcable...

[slavemowgli]

That's not enforcable, and here's why. Of course, IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is what I believe things are like. The basic point is that there is no such thing as an EULA or something similar that could be used to dicate terms like this (or any terms really) to the reader/user/customer/consumer. The reason for that is that while, as far as I understand, the purchase of a piece of software is being interpreted as buying the right to use it, so to speak, not as buying anything tangible, a book is different: you actually buy the physical book, and there is no license agreement between you and the author or publisher: the only contract is between you and the seller of the book. As such, I think that while a software company might be able to include a clause in the license that you (for example) have to pay them an annual fee depending on how you use the software might be able to persuade a court and win a hypothetical case (although it's not clear to me whether they would, as you as a customer probably can expect that when you buy a piece of software, you will be able to use it under reasonable terms); a book publisher, on the other hand, can only prevent you from doing things that copyright law as such does not give you an a priori permission to do, such as copying, distributing or broadcasting the work etc. They can *not* prevent you from actually using the work - in other words, you do not need a license from the publisher to *read* a book, for example, and I'd argue that in the case of RPG material, the same goes for using the rules to DM a campaign (LARP or not).

Re:That's unenforcable...

[cpt kangarooski]

The reason for that is that while, as far as I understand, the purchase of a piece of software is being interpreted as buying the right to use it, so to speak, not as buying anything tangible, a book is different: you actually buy the physical book, and there is no license agreement between you and the author or publisher: the only contract is between you and the seller of the book.

No. There's no actual reason to have EULAs. They're totally useless in that they offer no real advantage to developers, overcomplicate transactions, and are a bad practice.

However, there's nothing that limits them to the software field. If you're willing to tolerate them for programs, you had better expect to see them elsewhere. Frankly, I think it'd be better to prohibit virtually all adhesive contracts with regards to creative works. Copyright protection is sufficient for most people. In the rare cases that it's not, real contracts are likely to not be a burden. This makes OSS licenses a little tricky -- we'd need to carve out an exception -- but they're really not that good an idea anyway. I'd rather have copyright law that made them unnecessary.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[techmeltz]

IANAL Not exactly,when you buy software you are buying a license to use it, but you are still (usually) getting the cd it is distributed on. same with a book. You may be buying the book, but you are purchasing the right to possess a copy of the author's work, distributed on paper. the paper itself is yours. the words on the paper are the copyright holders. you've essentially paid for a user license. anyone can read the Whitewolf books, subject to copyright law, without paying their crummy fee. If however, you want to perform a derivitive work, you have to buy a license.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather you bought a book on critical thinking and didn't pay for the license.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[cpt kangarooski]

I think you really don't understand this. I blame licenses. They confuse the hell out of people, and they're pointless.

Look: You cannot own a creative work. No one can. You can, OTOH, own a copy (i.e. a tangible object in which that work is present, such as a book) or a copyright, which is a right pertaining to the work, but is distinct from the work itself.

When you buy a book, you own the book. No one owns the story. Due to your lawful possession of the book, you can read the story. It isn't necessary to have bought the book to do this; you could read it at the library, you could read it in the bookstore, you could read it over someone's shoulder, etc. Owning the book is just a convenient way to have access to what's within.

You can do anything lawful with the story, whether you own a copy of the book or not. During the copyright term, you're limited in your ability to do some things, but not others. For example, you can't make more copies (usually) but you can loan people your copy. When the term runs out, more things become lawful. You don't get more rights; rather, the roadblocks keeping you from exercising rights you inherently have are lifted.

As for whether playing the game constitutes performance of a derivative work, I think that's pretty damn dependant on a number of factors, and subject to a lot of dispute. I think it's also likely a fair use. I don't envy WW. I doubt that they can make their stupid idea work, though then again, I haven't found gamers to be the brightest bunch of people in the world with regards to copyright, trademark, etc.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[MrResistor]

You may be buying the book, but you are purchasing the right to possess a copy of the author's work, distributed on paper. the paper itself is yours. the words on the paper are the copyright holders. you've essentially paid for a user license.

IANAL either, but I have actually read USC17, and you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies. There is absolutely no such thing in US copyright law as a "user license".

You are correct in that a performance can be considered a copy, and thus requires a license from the copyright holder, but I think WW is going to have a very hard time making that argument against any LARP group that isn't specifically using scripts/modules produced by WW.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[cpt kangarooski]

I have actually read USC17 ...

Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies.

Really? So did I just imagine 17 USC 106(2)-(6), 602, 905, 1101, 1201, 1202, and 1308?

That's refreshing to know.

Or maybe you should read Title 17 again, for real this time.

Re:That's unenforcable...

[91degrees]

You own a copy. Copyright law limits your rights to an extent, but the limits are explicit, and generally only cover copying, broadcasting and public performance. You do have the right to read it, sell it and copy small portions of it for certain purposes, read it out loud to friends, lend it, and unless they make you agree to another contract, they can't limit your rights as a purchaser.

Computer software is a little vague in that in order to use a copy you typically have to make another copy on your hard drive. As a result they can get away with the EULA.

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that playing a game where users pay for the venue could be considered a copy or a broadcast, any more than sharing the cost of renting a DVD player would make it a public performance of a DVD. However, I'm no lawyer. Maybe this is a public performance.

This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

It's a dismal failure as a trademark license, given that 1) gamers are likely only engaging in nominative uses, which are perfectly legal and desirable anyway, and 2) there doesn't seem to be a quality control and auditing system, which actually jeopardizes WW's rights. They seem to be engaging in naked licensing, which is pretty bad.

In the copyright realm, it's also pretty lousy. You can't copyright game rules (you need a patent for that), so all they can stand on is the setting. Merely playing the game doesn't involve reproduction, distribution, preparing derivative works, or actionable public display. You could argue public performance based on the setting, but I think it'd be insulated by fair use, if not estoppel.

Personally, I'd ignore the hell out of them. Of course, the d20 license is stupid too -- if you're careful, it's perfectly legal to make unauthorized modules and such for the commercial market.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Planesdragon]

Of course, the d20 license is stupid too -- if you're careful, it's perfectly legal to make unauthorized modules and such for the commercial market.

Yes, but it's harder. And you don't get the ability to copy at-will from certain of their rulebooks, and you don't get the feel-good sensation of contriuting to copyleft.

And, to be pendatic, you're confusing the d20 System Trademark license with the OGL. The latter is the copyleft-inspired free-to-all one; the former is the one that lets you use the "d20 System" trademark.

(Not to mention that if you want to do MORE than modules--like, oh, make your own RPG game that's simliar to but different from D&D--the law gets a heck of a lot fuzzier.)

Re:This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, but it's harder.

It's not significantly harder.

And you don't get the ability to copy at-will from certain of their rulebooks

But you can copy their rules, and given the merger doctrine, you can probably closely approach their expression, at a minimum.

you don't get the feel-good sensation of contriuting to copyleft.

Sure you can -- you can still just GPL the text, or whatever.

And, to be pendatic, you're confusing the d20 System Trademark license with the OGL. The latter is the copyleft-inspired free-to-all one; the former is the one that lets you use the "d20 System" trademark.

To be more pedantic, you misspelled 'pedantic.' Also, I didn't confuse them, I conflated them. They're both pretty useless, IMO. You can write d20 compatable books without agreeing to their license, and you can use the d20 trademark to the degree that you advertise your book's compatability with their system. It's rather akin to how people are allowed to say that their software is Windows compatable, or whatever, without needing permission from MS.

(Not to mention that if you want to do MORE than modules--like, oh, make your own RPG game that's simliar to but different from D&D--the law gets a heck of a lot fuzzier.)

No. Rules are totally uncopyrightable. To protect a game rule, you need a patent. I'm only aware of one patent in the field; it's to do with Magic cards. Given that you cannot patent something 1 year after publishing it, and that there are some other limitations, it'd be difficult to get a patent for anything in the RPG field that was of import. Cost also probably plays a factor.

You can write your own d20 rulebook, or change the rules (though this will affect compatability, and thus your ability to use the d20 mark), at will.

You need only reword the rules yourself, so as to copy their idea, but not their expression of it. And where there are few viable expressions, you can probably even copy that too, due to merger.

The law's not that fuzzy.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Planesdragon]

Sure you can -- you can still just GPL the text, or whatever.

GPL'ing a roleplaying game text has about as much utility as GPLing a contribution to the Mach kernel. Sure, you get to look down your nose at impure licenses, but you'll never see your work used anywhere else.

They're both pretty useless, IMO.

I didn't point out the other big, huge reason why the OGL makes sense. It's a "get out of court free" card. If hasbro wanted to, they could smack around a little guy in 1999 who tried to follow the letter of copyright--they may lose the case, but they would certainly make the little guy lose his lifetime profit for his game.

After 2000, hasbro can't do a darn thing--and everyone in the industry knows it.

Rules are totally uncopyrightable.

A rules is, yes. So is a single line of code, or a single attribute of a character. But the more small uncopyrightable things you add together, the more copyrightable your creation becomes.

And with the stricter and stricter interpretations of the courts with regards to copyright recently, it's probably not a safe bet to presume that you'll win in court.

In fact, that's never a safe bet. Even if you've got videotape of the other guy beating you senseless.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

It's a "get out of court free" card.

Meh. Pen and pencil games aren't a huge profit sector. If you want to make money, there are better ways to do it. And I still wouldn't worry too much about attempted retribution, especially given 17 USC 505.

But the more small uncopyrightable things you add together, the more copyrightable your creation becomes.

Oh? Going for a compilation? I wouldn't be very confident about that. The gaming industry just isn't that creative. At the high level, where we are with compilation copyrights on uncopyrightable subject matter, most games are the same, and thus unlikely to be original: there are character generation rules, weapon damage rules, skill challenge rules, basically. Even within each group, there are too many similarities.

And with the stricter and stricter interpretations of the courts with regards to copyright recently

Those are unrelated to what we're talking about, though.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Planesdragon]

Meh. Pen and pencil games aren't a huge profit sector.

Yes, exactly. All the more reason not to even chance it.

Those are unrelated to what we're talking about, though.

IIRC, a federal judge found not too long ago that a five-note chord that was unconciously inseted into a song was copyrightable infringement. It's exactly what we're talking about--the courtroom is not a certain place, and being able to stay far away from it is a worthwhile thing, the benefits of the OGL notwithstanding.

The objective measure is that there are more games on the market and less hard feelings in the four year block between 2001 and now than in the four-year block between 1996 and 2000. The OGL, quite unlike the GPL, did exactly what it set out to do.

Hardly a "worthless" license.

As for the compilation issue--it's enough to be raised in court, which means more than likely enough to keep from being summarily dismissed. And considering that those who play pen and paper RPGs find differences ad nauseum between different "systems", I wouldn't put my money on any court saying that they're not distinct.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

I wouldn't put my money on any court saying that they're not distinct.

I didn't say that they don't have to lack distinctions. I said that compilations of rules in rpgs are without originality, generally. It's like phone books: the arrangement of names in alphabetical order by surname isn't original, and thus is unprotectable. A very creatively designed rpg might be able to avoid this, but I doubt it.

Plus, there's still the point that copyright cannot apply to a system, method, process, etc. The method of playing a specific public domain game demands all the rules. Given that that's a question of law, I think it could be knocked out easily on summary judgment.

To say otherwise would be to say that A cannot derive the rules of poker from B's copyrighted book about poker; he can only derive some of the rules, such as calling, alone. That's just stupid.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Seraphim_72]

Kangarooski?

I dunno if anyone has ever said this - but thanks. Being a lawyer, admitting here in the unwashed masses and giving some real legal insight is darn helpfull. So, thank you for being you.

Sera

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Planesdragon]

It's like phone books: the arrangement of names in alphabetical order by surname isn't original, and thus is unprotectable. A very creatively designed rpg might be able to avoid this, but I doubt it.

There's no cleverness requirement for copyrightability, AFAIK. There's a fair torrent of original ideas in RPGs these days--and, if the systems were ever copyrightable, then the long length of copyright and the lack of a duty to police mean that they're still enforceable.

D&D, Storyteller, and GURPS may all be old hat now, but they weren't when they were first published--and each one is still published by a corporate entity with rights to the original publisher.

To say otherwise would be to say that A cannot derive the rules of poker from B's copyrighted book about poker; he can only derive some of the rules, such as calling, alone. That's just stupid.

Yes, it would be--except that (1) poker has been around long enough to be public domain even if it had been copyrightable and (2) RPG games are more complex than any other game out there.

Even the most similar RPGs have distinct differences, in both how the various numbers are taken, how they interact, and what the range of possibilities is. It's arguable that even if the "system" of D&D isn't copyrightable, the individual and collective widgets that partake of the system are.

And if you have to come up with all-new races, classes, feats, skills, spells, and items, then you're doing a lot of work that the OGL can save you from.

(Not to mention that, while it's not part of WotC's OGL offering, the very-copyrightable settings that RPGs such as White Wolf use are quite applicable to the OGL.)

And, of course, to get back on topic, the OGL serves the same purpose as White Wolf's new policy. It's part scary document that the company can use against people who do things with their games that they'd like to curtail, and part easy license for those that just want to play the game.

$20/year just to use White Wolf's rules is silly. $20/year to run games with an "official White Wolf seal of approval" is more than a fair price.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

There's no cleverness requirement for copyrightability, AFAIK.

There is a constitutional originality requirement, which requires that copyrighted material possesses a modicum of creativity and that it originates with the author.

Compilations of uncopyrightable material can only be copyrighted themselves where they meet the requirements for a copyrightable work. This means that the selection and arrangement of rules must be at least slightly creative and that it must have stemmed from the author.

This is difficult in rpgs, I think, as there is too much borrowing; too much similarity.

Yes, it would be--except that (1) poker has been around long enough to be public domain even if it had been copyrightable and (2) RPG games are more complex than any other game out there.

No, any game itself is forever uncopyrightable. Only a description of how to play a game could possibly be copyrighted.

So it doesn't matter how new or old the game being described is. The creator has no rights in it, unless they can patent it. Your first point is wrong.

As for complexity, that doesn't matter either. The most complex process is still uncopyrightable subject matter.

I think that Baker v. Selden controls:

Where the truths of a science or the methods of an art are the common property of the whole world, any author has the right to express the one, or explain and use the other, in his own way. As an author, Selden explained the system in a particular way. It may be conceded that Baker makes and uses account-books arranged on substantially the same system; but the proof fails to show that he has violated the copyright of book, regarding the latter merely as an explanatory work; or that he has infringed Selden's right in any way, unless the latter became entitled to an exclusive right in the system.

The evidence of the complainant is principally directed to the object of showing that Baker uses the same system as that which is explained and illustrated in Selden's books. It becomes important, therefore, to determine whether, in obtaining the copyright of his books, he secured the exclusive right to the use of the system or method of book-keeping which the said books are intended to illustrate and explain. It is contended that he has secured such exclusive right, because no one can use the system without using substantially the same ruled lines and headings which he was appended to his books in illustration of it. In other words, it is contended that the ruled lines and headings, given to illustrate the system, are a part of the book, and, as such, are secured by the copyright; and that no one can make or use similar ruled lines and headings, or ruled lines and headings made and arranged on substantially the same system, without violating the copyright. And this is really the question to be decided in this case. Stated in another form, the question is, whether the exclusive property in a system of book-keeping can be claimed, under the law or copyright, by means of a book in which that system is explained? The complainant's bill, and the case made under it, are based on the hypothesis that it can be.

...

There is no doubt that a work on the subject of book-keeping, though only explanatory of well-known systems, may be the subject of a copyright; but, then, it is claimed only as a book. Such a book may be explanatory either of old systems, or of an entirely new system; and, considered as a book, as the work of an author, conveying information on the subject of book-keeping, and containing detailed explanations of the art, it may be a very valuable acquisition to the practical knowledge of the community. But there is a clear distinction between the book, as such, and the art which it is intended to illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident, that it requires hardly any argument to support it. The same distinction may be predicated of eve

Re:This seems pretty silly

[Planesdragon]

No, you just have to come up with all-new descriptions. They cannot have a monopoly over the idea of an elf or a magician.

No, they can't. But they can have a copyright on a specific elf. Or a specific kind of elf. Or a specific, original, and named elven characteristic.

And, again, "writing it all over again" is the sort of work that just wastes time, when all you want is "D&D but with superheroes." (Not to mention the rather common sentiment that the OGL is a "good thing".)

That said...

Second, if you look at the license, there's no real quality control standards or ways to implement them.

The license is a requirement to join their fan-club, which itself has standards and a review process. $20/year gets you access to their group of folk to run the LARP how WW thinks it should be ran, along with a few other small things.

And among the WW LARP crowd, "what White Wolf thinks" actually goes quite a long way.

Re:This seems pretty silly

[cpt kangarooski]

No, they can't. But they can have a copyright on a specific elf. Or a specific kind of elf. Or a specific, original, and named elven characteristic.

A character, yes. A kind of elf, that's dubious (see e.g. the Hobbit / Halfling thing). A mere characteristic, that's unlikely. Again, you're ignoring the idea/expression dichotomy.

And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller...

[MoodyLoner]

...although I'd love to see them try to enforce this.

Been thinking of starting a campaign at the Friendly Local Gaming Store. Looks like D&D 3.5 it is, then.

Is this like some kind of stupid plague?

[failrate]

So, someone at White Wolf cottoned on to all of the patent and IP lawsuits going around and decided they wanted a piece of the pie. So, like I'm guessing some form of stupidity plague is pandemic in corporate offices (must be that nasty office air), like an airborne form of BSE. Otherwise, their legal department must be just an ordinary bunch of idiots.

Re:Is this like some kind of stupid plague?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like an airborne form of the BSA, I'd say. It's infected quite a large segment of American corporate culture, anyway.

Great Strategy?

[urikkiru]

Seriously, this is insane. Let's sell our products to the customer base, and then sue them for making use of said products. Brilliant /sarcasm.

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[cpt kangarooski]

Bah. Real men play GURPS.

First Sale Doctrine

[Detritus]

They might want to look at Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, a Supreme Court decision that said that a copyright owner can't impose arbitrary restrictions on the purchaser under the guise of a license.

Re:First Sale Doctrine

[cpt kangarooski]

Kudos for referencing Bobbs-Merrill. But that's not what it says.

The Court said that copyright holders can't impose arbitrary restrictions on distribution (in the case it was a requirement that used copies be sold for a high minimum price) by virtue of their copyright.

However, the Court did leave open the possibility that there could be a contract to that effect, and numerous courts have later found that EULAs and other licenses are perfectly enforceable.

I said it before and I'll say it again

[Digital Vomit]

From the article: "In brief, White Wolf is requesting that those who wish to charge players to play White Wolf games (beyond standard fees at a convention) obtain a license to do so from us. We request this both in order to ensure we can provide a consistent level of support and play experience to those fans looking to play our games and in order to protect our rights in terms of trademark and so forth.

"Q. All I charge my players is a share of the fee the facility where we play charges us. Do I still need this license?

"A. Yes. Even though you aren't making a profit, you are still collecting and disbursing money -- money earned through the use of White Wolf games and settings."

I said it before and I'll say it again: We need to seriously fix the problems caused by the notions of "Intellectual Property" soon or it will destroy our society faster than we think. Sure something like this is unenforceable and would be laughed out of court, but not until after having financially destroyed some poor gamers.

And sooner or later some idiot judge (it seems like there are no other kinds these days) is going to side against common sense and start giving corporations the power to actually force their customers to do things like this.

I know some people out there are going to somehow take this as a pro-piracy rant, or switch into "IP makes the world go round" mode, but this kind of crap has gone way, way too far for far too long. Intellectual Property laws have to be seriously reworked. If we keep going the way we've been going for the past few decades. We're going to self destruct as not only a nation, but as a society.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again

[NewStarRising]

I do not charge a fee to play WW games. I charge a fee for our regular "Local Gaming Group" to cover admin costs for venue, newsletter, and assorted sundries.
Occaisonally, we play WW games. Not every week.
Do I need a licence? How often Do I need a Licence?What If i apply for a licence and then don;t play? What if we we'ren't going to play WW, but then do? Can I retroactively apply for a licecnce?

Alternatively, can I ignore this ruling altogether?

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again

[Chyeld]

Say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true. This might be a bad move in terms of alienating WW's customer base, but it is NOT wrong in the sense of unethical or immoral.

YOU want to create things and give them away for free, do it be happy and enjoy your choice. Just don't bitch because the rest of us want to feed our kids without having to be a factory worker or someone's peon. We work to create our IP and just because it's easier for you to steal it than it is to steal a physical object doesn't make it right to do so.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again

[Digital Mage]

This will be very interesting to see how they enforce this during GenCon (or other cons for that manner). A small admissions fee is charged for each gaming event to cover the room, electricity, etc. I doubt all the groups running the WW gaming events have licenses. So is White Wolf going to shut down these games if they don't have licenses?

I want to see WW enforcers come in with flamethrowers torching character sheets and kicking us out of the rooms. It would be the highlight of GenCon.

Re:I said it before and I'll say it again

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't give anything away for free. They created a gaming system, then published and sold rule/source books specifically to be used to play the game. Now they're trying to say that by playing the game, you're exceeding your rights. That, quite simply, is bull.

That's no fun

[Cyberblah]

I don't play that game, but I can still laugh at what a bunch of morons they are.

There is also a question of whether they have the right to demand that fee. The answer might affect me, sooner or later.

So, really, it's not simple.

Article Blurb Wrong

[eddison_carter]

Actaully, it's not for every game, just every game that charges to pay, for bigger LARPs its pretty common to chip in $1 to cover the costs of the people running the game.

Hmm....

[sesshomaru]

Cataclysms of dubious utility, requiring you to throw out all your old books, and buy new ones? Check!

Sueing anyone who even mentions your games name in a sentence? Check!

Sooo.... how long before Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast buys the miserable company and puts them out of our misery. Do they have to go bankrupt first?

Did Lorraine Williams, aka "the bitch," take them over?

If anyone is looking for an alternative, the founders of Gothic Horror Rolplaying are still kicking! Chaosium, Inc.

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[Planesdragon]

Bah. Real men play GURPS.

Y'know, I should have figured GURPS would be your game of choice. ;)

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[Allison Geode]

i noticed you had said "friendly local gaming store." man, i wish i knew where to find one of thems. the only local store I know of that specializes in games is hardly friendly to people trying to get started (as in, if you don't already shop there or participate in their events, they are VERY VERY cold to you), and the other stores that carry games at all (but generalize, and carry toys and comics and stuff, too) and the clerks don't know anything about gaming at all (and one store has even hired a "barbie-girl" who doesn't really know ANYTHING about the topic, but hey, she's pretty, and drooling nerds spend more, right?)

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[overbom]

The comic / RPG shops up in the Twin Cities area are pretty good. You'll still see your share of weird stuff, though. I once walked past some dude reading some LARP sourcebook in his car in the parking lot of the Source, and his passenger seat was full of trash.

I mean, the greasy paper bags and paper wrappers filled up the floor. Then, they filled up the seat. They crested over the line of the passenger seat window like meniscus. It was obvious that he had not had a passenger in his car for quite some time. It was a 70 degree day, and he was wearing a trenchcoat, inside his car, with the windows up. I was boggled, utterly boggled. I had my own gawker slowdown walking past his car. /no offense to you normal larpers

Cross posting:

[Godeke]

This is what I posted over there... interested in seeing if it stays:

There are only four things that White Wolf can hang this license: Patent, Copyright, Contract Law and Trademarks.

Note... I'm not a lawyer, but I make a living off of software which means I have to deal with all of these issues all the time. That said, this isn't legal advice (if you plan on taking a legal action may I suggest you talk to your lawyer instead of using random Internet posts as your basis).

Patent: If White Wolf had a patent on the rule system they have total control over the use of the same. A quick search of the patent databases show that they own nothing of the sort, so we can discount this as a "patent license".

Copyright: Copyright covers a very limited (but powerful) set of controls. The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work. If a group were to recite the rulebook and fictional pieces therein, White Wolf would be within their rights to stop this from happening. However, as people in the board game industry painfully know, people *playing* your rules do not trigger copyright. (A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law). Only patent can control game *rules* as ideas.

TSR attempted this type of control, claiming that being compatible with or working with a given rule set made something a derived work back in the bad old days. They failed miserably, except at intimidation (you can't *afford* to fight this). To exert this kind of control would be akin to writing a text book on a subject and then saying "using this knowledge is forbidden unless licensed" (assuming the knowledge was not covered by a patent, which is independent). Copyright does not give this sort of control.

In particular, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._ Straus is interesting because it shows that copyright law does *not* allow any restrictions (beyond replication) after the "first sale" of a work. The software industry has been angry for years about reselling "used" console games and rentals of the same (it cuts into profits *big-time*), but every lawsuit brought on the matter has fallen on the side of "no further restrictions beyond the first sale". The companies have tried the "you don't own this, you just license it" thing in the past will no effect... because of the doctrine of first sale. (Note, this limitation doesn't apply to big corporations who buy software in bulk: they actually sign a contract.)

Contract: That brings us to contract law. When you bought the book, you didn't sign anything, so any claims based on contract law are nonsense. Even printing a contract in the book won't work... only if you *negotiated* a contract *as equals* (i.e., you have the ability to reject terms and negotiate) and then signed the contract would the contract be binding. "Click wrap" licenses in software are on some pretty shoddy legal basis themselves and have been successfully avoided in quite a few lawsuits and this "retrofitting" of a contract onto a book is absurd to contemplate in terms of contract law.

Trademark: So that leaves us with trademark law. This seems to be what prompted the whole nonsense. Note the comment about "rights in terms of trademark and so forth"... trademark is the *only* framework that requires protection of rights to be proactive, so you can just delete "and so forth". (People who use the term "Intellectual Property" are talking about patent, copyright and trademark... there is nothing actually called "Intellectual Property" in law). However, if this is a trademark license then the whole issue can be safely bypassed by not *using* the trademarks in question. You can run a "Modern era live RPG featuring vampires"... even with White Wolf systems as the core

Re:Cross posting:

[cei]

And here's where the trademark infringment is most likely to occur... the names of the race / clan / tribe / class / tradition / association / etc of the characters in the World of Darkness universe are all registered trademarks. So by saying a character is an "X", where "X" is a praticular character type that denotes specific abilities and/or limitations... such declarations of type cannot be made without violating their trademarks.

Re:Cross posting:

[Lehk228]

no, trademarks only apply to commerce, trademark law cannot be enforced like copyright or patent law, only company names and products either sold or given away for free can be targeted by trademark law. so you couldn't sell a product or service named after a character in the book but you can use the names and races for just about anything that is not labelling or advertisement.

Re:Cross posting:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but here's the rub: "free" performances are okay, but "pay for play" isn't. For trademark purposes, you'd have to show dilution or confusion, and that's going to be hard to do if you want to let *anyone* play your game at all. Which, I do believe, puts White Wolf back on trying to defend their practice through a dubious reading of 17 USC 106.

Now, to be fair, this is my knee-jerk reaction, and I don't do copyright law. It's an interesting legal issue, though, and should generate some interesting case law if the company is foolish enough to try and enforce their policy.

Re:Cross posting:

[cei]

But isn't the point of this that they're cracking down on people charging to play games? By doing so, they're creating a service that incorporates use of the trademark, aren't they? I know, probably a stretch. Just trying to pre-guess what angle they're using.

Re:Cross posting:

[cpt kangarooski]

The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work.

It covers more than that. See, e.g. 17 USC 106. If anything, they're looking at public performance, not reproduction.

(A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law).

You shouldn't rely so much on 17 USC 117. It only applies when you own a copy of the software. Licensing it dodges the whole thing. This is one of the reasons we need to ban EULAs.

In particular, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._ Straus is interesting because it shows that copyright law does *not* allow any restrictions (beyond replication) after the "first sale" of a work. The software industry has been angry for years about reselling "used" console games and rentals of the same (it cuts into profits *big-time*), but every lawsuit brought on the matter has fallen on the side of "no further restrictions beyond the first sale". The companies have tried the "you don't own this, you just license it" thing in the past will no effect... because of the doctrine of first sale. (Note, this limitation doesn't apply to big corporations who buy software in bulk: they actually sign a contract.)

You are highly misinformed. First, you can read the first sale statute at 17 USC 109. Note the special treatment afforded to software and music. Second, Bobbs-Merrill doesn't say that you can't have EULAs that limit first sale. In fact it leaves that open. It just says that copyright by itself doesn't permit limits on first sale. AFAIK no one's used it to challenge limits built into the statute. Given that first sale was codified a year after the decision, I think it'd be a tough case. And many courts have upheld EULAs as being binding. See e.g. ProCD.

Contract: That brings us to contract law. When you bought the book, you didn't sign anything, so any claims based on contract law are nonsense. Even printing a contract in the book won't work... only if you *negotiated* a contract *as equals* (i.e., you have the ability to reject terms and negotiate) and then signed the contract would the contract be binding. "Click wrap" licenses in software are on some pretty shoddy legal basis themselves and have been successfully avoided in quite a few lawsuits and this "retrofitting" of a contract onto a book is absurd to contemplate in terms of contract law.

Again, you don't grasp the situation. Clickwraps are generally upheld, adhesive contracts are virtually always upheld, equal bargaining positions as a necessity for formation is absurd on its face, and agreement doesn't require a signature. You need to get yourself educated.

People who use the term "Intellectual Property" are talking about patent, copyright and trademark

Actually, you left out the most important one: trade secrets. Copyrights and patents are actually quite unimportant in the big picture. Trade secrets and trademarks are where the money is. And there are other rights regimes as well, e.g. publicity rights.

However, if this is a trademark license then the whole issue can be safely bypassed by not *using* the trademarks in question. You can run a "Modern era live RPG featuring vampires"... even with White Wolf systems as the core, as long as you don't *use* the trademarks (and no, "featuring vampires" won't run afoul of trademark law: normal use of English dictionary words in a sentence won't trigger a trademark claim).

No need. The doctrine of trademark fair use (which is totally different from copyright fair use) includes the concept of nominative uses. If you're playing Vampire, you're allowed to say so. You don't have to talk around it.

Plus, this is the worst trademark license I've seen. It's a great example of naked licensing, and it actually is harmful to WW's trademarks. If they really are doing this, they're going to risk losing this. They need to get a better lawyer.

Re:Cross posting:

[yar]

Yes... but trademark does not distinguish between for profit and not for profit uses. If they're going to require licensing in some cases, they really need to require licensing in all cases- even when no money changes hands.

Re:Cross posting:

[Godeke]

Could you publicly announce what law firm you work for so I can avoid ever accidently employing you?

"Again, you don't grasp the situation. Clickwraps are generally upheld, adhesive contracts are virtually always upheld, equal bargaining positions as a necessity for formation is absurd on its face, and agreement doesn't require a signature. You need to get yourself educated."

My lawyer laughed... and she doesn't find much amusing. Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even fully themselves. I presume you are under one of those juridictions and have a vested interest? Are you aware of UCITA "Bomb shelter" laws? (My state has them and specifically targets EULA as done in "clickwrap" as unenforcable... the fact you discount this scares me). This is not decided in either direction fully, but the fact that you see "adhesive contracts" and lack of negotiation as a plus (quick note: a great way to avoid a clause it to prove it adhesive or unnegotiated) tells me you are a danger to anyone who employs you.

However, where you go completely off course is by assuming that playing an RPG is a "performance of a copywritten work". The copywritten work is a ruleset, and rulesets can only be patented to enforce the ideas the rules embody... the corpwrite protects *only* the fixed form of those rules. The board game industry has long hated the fact that the courts rule that a game that has new terms and rewritten rules is not infringing despite the fact they copy the *ideas* within the rules slavishly. People "playing" the game are using the product as intended (not copying *any* of the content), with thier own characters, stories and actions. To claim this activity as "derivation" (or the fact you misunderstood my comment so much as to not comprehend this implication) takes you from "dangerous" to "who licensed you again?".

Re:Cross posting:

[realityfighter]

You're half right. Trademark does not distinguish between for-profit commercial use and non-profit commercial use. (For example, the Red Cross still has to get permission to use another company's trademark. Likewise, a DM who only takes up money for the pizza makes no money, but still engages in commerce.)

But the purpose of trademark is to ensure that no unscrupulous person makes money off your company's good name. (This is why your trademark application includes a specific description of the goods and services you will offer under the trademark.) So in instances of private get togethers, where no money changes hands and the "advertising" is all by word of mouth, the trademark bears no authority.

This isn't to say that White Wolf is doing the right thing. If they were just doing this to keep play legal, the license would cost one dollar instead of twenty.

Re:Cross posting:

[cpt kangarooski]

Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even fully themselves.

There has also been agreement in NY and CA districts, and possibly more, though I'd want to hit the books. Additionally, that's under the regular UCC Art. 2. I'm not talking about 2B (and only 4 states have anti-UCITA legislation, so they're not a big factor anyway), though that does bring up enforceability in VA and MD, and then we might start seeing some choice of law clauses.

you see "adhesive contracts" and lack of negotiation as a plus

I don't. I think we ought to ban EULAs altogether, leaving a small exception for adhesive licenses such as the GPL. However, this is wishful thinking. For the time being, we need to accept that there is a good chance that EULAs will be upheld when encountered.

Incidentally, adhesion (i.e. not being negotiated) is not enough on its own to render agreements unenforceable. Most agreements people engage in are adhesive. What kills agreements is more often substantive unconscionability, which is a whole different animal.

However, where you go completely off course is by assuming that playing an RPG is a "performance of a copywritten work".

No, I said that if there is a relevant exclusive right, it's performance. I'm not convinced that there is one, however.

Essentially, your analysis is too limited. I agree -- since rules are not copyrightable, public performance of a game following those rules is not infringing. But that's not what I was thinking about to begin with.

Rather, I'm more interested in the copyrightable portions of the game, such as the setting. If a gaming group obtains a module, for example, and the GM reads verbatim from it, the group engages in the actions directed by the module, etc. then there might be performance of the work, or a derivative.

While this might not be a problem if a group only uses WW's rules, and nothing else, use of additional material could be problematic. Not being familiar with WW's games, I don't know which scenario is more likely. However, many groups do rely on copyrighted material provided by the game developers, so I doubt it'd be that rare.

Re:Cross posting:

[Godeke]

I think we are more in agreement than I initially thought, although my expression of some of the concepts isn't up to par with someone who plies the trade, so to speak.

In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one. There have been cases of enforcement, but more because (at least in the cases I have seen) the EULA wasn't the critical aspect of enforcement of rights: copyright law as a whole was the key. In my case, since my software is custom written, the EULA merely reiterates the existing written and signed contract with the client... that I'm willing to base my business on.

I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the silver bullet that the large software companies want them to be.

There has been a continuum of results here: console game makers have lost every important battle when they try to prevent resale or rental. Ironically, the biggest hurdle they faced in these cases was the copy protection they used was actually effective, which meant that the "people will illegally copy it" argument which *was* successfully used by the personal computer software companies against rentals didn't fly. However even that argument seems to have lost its luster as I see all the major game stores carry used PC games alongside the used console games, and two of the local used book stores (one a huge chain that exists state wide... not operating under the radar) also sells used application software. All that renting and resale are typically prohibited by the EULA, but the big companies somehow seem to be unable to enforce those clauses.

Turning this back to White Wolf's "license" (which they really seem to be proposing as some "after the fact, retrofitted to books you already own EULA" on their own website, which is just odd), as you pointed out my level of paranoia about trademark use isn't necessary (although considering how sue happy companies have become over pretty imaginary infringement, I'm not all that sure it isn't prudent). That really does leave them with copyright law as the leg they are trying to stand on. White Wolf tried to sue Sony regarding the movie Underworld (which in all honesty couldn't have been *more* of a thematic ripoff) and they lost. It turns out that the theme wasn't protected by copyright. Most of what White Wolf provides is two things: rule sets and theme. Yes, there are characters described and places and events, but in most games these things are the creations of the group. Each player creates a character, the game master creates the scenarios, the world at large, etc. Reading directly from the book would be considered poor form, to say the least and I doubt it happens.

Note that this would be untrue of many of the modules produced by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons line. That product line is played at a table and often a poorer quality game master *will* read verbatim passages. Since there are multiple players present (as many as 8 or 9) I guess it could be considered a "performance" of the work, but here is where another anomaly appears... it is the entire *point* behind producing the modules that this performance be done. Yes, nowhere have I ever seen permission granted to do so. Curious as what you think of this, as your comments have been very thought provoking for me.

Re:Cross posting:

[cpt kangarooski]

In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one.

I don't see the purpose of them at all. Copyright law is more than generous to software developers, but still has enough in it that users can get by. If you're doing custom development, you need real contracts anyway, and the software hardly needs more.

I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the silver bullet that the large software companies want them to be.

Renting software without authorization (other than in certain cases, such as console games) is an infringement of copyright. I haven't seen it at all. Of course, I question why software needs such special treatment. The world gets along fine with rental of virtually everything else, and making copies would still be infringing on its own.

as you pointed out my level of paranoia about trademark use isn't necessary

That, and that they way they've gone about it is actually quite harmful to their trademark rights. Their lawyer doesn't seem to be up to speed with trademark licensing, if that's what they're trying to engage in.

It turns out that the theme wasn't protected by copyright.

Actually there's a continuum. The more abstract the commonalities between two works are, the less likely it is that they infringe. However, courts don't want to permit people to change things just a bit and get away with it, so there is no bright line rule. Nichols v. Universal is a leading case with regards to this.

Yes, there are characters described and places and events, but in most games these things are the creations of the group. Each player creates a character, the game master creates the scenarios, the world at large, etc. Reading directly from the book would be considered poor form, to say the least and I doubt it happens.

Yes, but how closely do they draw on the underlying work? For example, if you play the Star Wars rpg, you're very likely to use so many story elements, places, situations, etc. from the films and such that I can see how a court might find it infringing. Fair use would have a good shot, I think, but the existence of a licensing system makes it a little trickier to make that case.

it is the entire *point* behind producing the modules that this performance be done.

Which brings us to theories of estoppel, I guess. But with WW having changed direction here, that might not have much continuing utility.

Re:Cross posting:

[yar]

I acknowledge that- I wasn't clear. I was assuming "commercial use" under trademark law, for-profit or not-for-profit, which is what I think WW is arguing. I agree, though. It's their license. They don't have to charge anything. Holy cow, a free license? Whoever heard of such a thing on Slashdot. ;)

Re:Cross posting:

[Godeke]

I think that brings me up to speed on the issue. As a last question: this change has been published on a website. Owners of the books who don't frequent the web would seem to be enjoying the original rights (the implied right to actually play the game as published, even if no actual license was included in the book). Since the books are sold at retail, it would appear that "the cat is out of the bag" as far as attempting to append a license to the product.

They can wrap future books in packaging that requires accepting a physical EULA to use the materials (although it would also seem off-putting to future sales to do so), but the existing users --- since the books were published at retail, how would they go about applying the licensing to those who are not part of the debate and are unaware of such changes? (There is nothing in the books such as "see our website for licensing information, you must accept any changed licenses, etc.")

I don't mean that they couldn't just sue a group, but since they have not communicated the changes (at it would be nearly impossible to do so in a meaningful way... anyone could claim not to have see the website) it appears that the first recourse would be a requirement of offer the license. Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer my inane questions. I didn't think this issue was quite this deep.

(And on the topic of software rental: no... not used PC software for rental, but it is ubiquitously available for purchase in large bookstore chains I mentioned. Not just games, but applications, graphics suites, etc. I have always avoided it, but mostly because the upgrade path becomes questionable for anything I would want.)

Re:Cross posting:

[Macgrrl]

How does the fact that they've adopted terms from folklore affect this? An obvious example would be the use of the word "Nosferatu", which most certainly pre-dates WhiteWolf in the entertainment industry.

Re:Cross posting:

[cpt kangarooski]

Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.

There's no reason you can't have breach of contract and copyright infringement in the same action, and the minimum statutory damages for copyright infringement in that situation are $750 per work.

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[MoodyLoner]

Hah. 5th edition HERO.

No, REAL men play Hackmaster. Or AD&D. And LIKE it.

Defiance

[Anonymous Coward]

After hearing about WW new policy, I will be starting a new WoD LARP. Only non-Cam-members allowed and the fee is $300US per night. This will mainly cover the costs for:

1) booze
2) bribes to local law
3) a pack of glow-in-the-dark condoms with the WW logo on them
4) an underage goth of the appropriate sex to pleasure you or take your place in a game that you didn't want to play anyway.(They won't be paid, they're doing it for the angst)

Patents?

[tepples]

Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies. There is absolutely no such thing in US copyright law as a "user license".

Tell that to anybody who has had a run-in with ASSCR^W ASCAP. You do seem to allude to this though.

but I think WW is going to have a very hard time making [a public performance] argument against any LARP group that isn't specifically using scripts/modules produced by WW.

True, a gameplay system itself isn't copyrightable, but does WW own patents?

Subconscious copying

[tepples]

IIRC, a federal judge found not too long ago that a five-note chord that was unconciously inseted into a song was copyrightable infringement.

Get the full story here.

Easy Solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

"The practical upshot is that technically the WW Stormtroopers could raid your house merely if everyone chips in a few quid for pizza."

"We don't need to pay you royalty fees."

WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "We don't need to collect their royalty fees."

"These aren't the sourcebooks you're looking for."

WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "These aren't the sourcebooks we're looking for."

"We can go about our roleplaying."

WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "You can go about your roleplaying."

"Move along."

WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "Move along. Move along."

RPGer: "I thought we were dead."

"The Kindred hold many powers over assholes and the weak-minded."

No-one told me ...

[NewStarRising]

Is this licence going to be printed in the front of each rule book/suppliemnt?
If I buy a rulebook without this licence in it, and they come after me for fees, where do I stand?
Can a company distribute a product with no restrictions noted in it, and then come after me for not abiding by a licence I never agreed to, never saw and was not even aware of?

Re:No-one told me ...

[melikamp]

As one smart slashdotter noted above, they can spell their license out on the front cover, but it will not make it legally binding. When you are buying a book in the game store, that is all you are doing -- buying a book. The cover may say "By buying this book you agree to pay $20 per year to play" or "Top Secret, Burn Before Reading", but this cannot have any legal consequences for you. From what little I understood, the only sure way to enforce this license would be to have you sign a contract at the POS.

LARP not the only area covered

[NewStarRising]

"any LARP group "

Q. Which games fall under this license?
A. All White Wolf roleplaying games (traditional tabletop or live-action) regardless of setting. This includes all World of Darkness games, Exalted, Trinity, Scarred Lands and most anything else published by White Wolf, Arthaus Publishing or Sword & Sorcery Studios.

Re:LARP not the only area covered

[MrResistor]

I think they'll have an even harder time making it stick in a non-LARP scenario, but if they want to try, it's their funeral. I mean, look where this kind of behavior got TSR.

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[WWWWolf]

D&D? But... but... TSR is an eeeeeeevil company! And WotC is a very nice and eeevil company! ... ... ...where is the world coming to, if such traditions cannot be even trusted anymore, our formerly greatest enemies (WotC) paling in comparison to our trusted friends (SJG and WW)...

"These are the final days, the signs are clear..."

My parents' generation never believed Soviet Union would fall; My generation never believed Sega would make games for Nintendo. Or that White Wolf would Do Evil. =)

Ironic given the subject matter...

[GrnArmadillo]

Haven't looked at their stuff recently, but I remember that WW games used to focus somewhat on a coming apocalypse. Something tells me there are going to be a lot of cataclymic world-destroying final sessions of ongoing campaigns the night before this goes into effect. They *may* be within their rights to do this (debateable) but I can't imagine it's going to help sales any.

I am surprised...

[HeadCrash]

...that no one else came to the conclusion that this is a way for WW to milk more money out of the masses that do LARP and other WW tabletop games at conventions. Think about it. Say you've got ten WW sessions going every day for three days at SuperUberMegaCon. That's 30 sessions. Figure a minimum of five unique people per session (and I'm lowballing here because we know there are more than 5 people in any LARP) and you're looking at WW pulling a quick three grand for doing nothing more than having their name on the rulebook.

Con organizers are going to have to go through the administrative overhead of checking each person who registers for a WW event at a con. And they're going to have to go through the headache of charging everyone who has not already paid for their yearly license an extra $20. I see this as a death-knell for WW games at organized conventions everywhere...

Re:I am surprised...

[Gen. Rasputin X]

If you read it, Cons are excluded.

It's the death-knell for monthly non-camarilla games that need to rent a space to have room to play.

Though what defines a con is up for discussion.

Re:I am surprised...

[NecroPuppy]

Convention games are excluded if they don't charge anything in addition to the convention fee.

So convention based TT games are exempt.

Convention based TT charity games (which usually charge $2-$5+ extra for the charity) are not exempt.

Most convention LARPs, which charge a fee for their game on top of the convention entry fee, are not exempt.

Re:I am surprised...

[Gen. Rasputin X]

I stand corrected. I was not aware that convention based games charged extra.

Re:I am surprised...

[NecroPuppy]

Yeah, many of the indy-con based LARPS have to, to cover printing costs, props, and sometimes (but not always) a fee to the convention for space.

It usually isn't a large fee, but I have seen convention games, usually for charity, which were targetted towards 'high-end' or experienced players, where $5 got you into the game, and each additional dollar got you 10 additional XP on your character.

I've seen people drop $50 on one of these games to play the uber-godlike vampire with all the cool powers.

Of course, they still couldn't RP their way out of a brown paper bag, but that's a different issue.

Personal thoughts

[Kyrthira]

Having been a Cam member for almost six years ... it's not our fault. We had nothing to do with the decision. I personally don't like it, think it's a major mistake, and hope they just drop it. I also realize they're not likely to do that. I won't quit, but I very well might not renew if things don't get resolved.

Alienate the fanbase

[Lord_Dweomer]

You know, Whitewolf has time and time again shown that they are not in the least bit concerned about bending their EXTREMELY loyal and fanatic fanbase over and raping them for all they're worth.

LARP has become a huge hit with the WW crowd, and part of the reason is because it is dirt cheap.

WW recently fucked up by introducing the new Vampire setting which the vast majority of players HATE, and now this? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big LARP groups like One World by Night (OWBN) drop WW like a bad habit and just go off on their own.

The fans already buy all of their ridiculously overpriced books and merchandise, but no...they have to milk them for more.

The sad thing is, if they hired better managers instead of lawyers, they might realize they have a KILLER movie franchise on their hands if they did it correctly. If done properly, they could make Underworld look like a children's movie, and they would rake in the cash hand over fist.

But no, they've chosen their path, and they will suffer accordingly.

Update to policy

[Dr Arbitrary]

They've made a clarification to address some concerns.

http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19702 &highlight=&sid=0a53b7694d3e1fadb446865c5f388f84/

"I understand that Storytellers regularly incur expenses during games (tabletop, LARP or what have you), and I understand the desire to recoup some of these expenses. I also realize that most of the people who have been charging for play in their games are doing so simply for that reason. We also have no intention of stopping a Storyteller from asking his or her players to chip in for pizza at a small game. This license does apply, however, when you are charging them a site fee or other standard fee and recruiting players far and wide"

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[Macgrrl]

I thought real men played RIFTS (and REEL men played Noir)

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[geminidomino]

Or that White Wolf would Do Evil. =)

Your generation never played V:TM 3rd Edition, huh?

No legal basis

[Twylite]

Here's a big finger for White Wolf and their bullshit posturing. There is no legal basis for the enforcement on these "rules", not to mention that they've phrased it as a request.

The only relevant law in this case is Copyright. By using their legal monopolgy, a Copyright owner can force you to agree to the terms of a license in order to use their products (or simply not sell you the product), BUT:

1. That only applies when the license is agreed up-front, as part of the contract of sale;

2. That does not apply when the purchaser does not have the opportunity to review and agree to the license before purchase (or to return the purchased item at no cost to themselves).

Here WW is attempting to apply new terms to copies they have already sold, and those copies are books where the purchaser does not have the opportunity to review the license.

In addition, courts apply the doctrine of first sale to books, which (for consumers) translates to doing whatever you want with it as long as you don't infringe the basic rights given to the holder under Copyright law: duplication, translation, derivation.

The only leg WW has to stand on is to claim that by role playing using their system and world you are creating a derived work. Since the book is sold explicitly for this purpose, that's going to get a whole lot of laughter.

Any arguments regarding commercial use are bullshit. Copyright doesn't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use. The right is either reserved by the holder, or not. Unless the books came with a "license" that forbade commercial use (they cite DVDs for example, which explicitly prohibit renting or public performance) then they have no basis to enforce these "rules".

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[WWWWolf]

Your generation never played V:TM 3rd Edition, huh?

Oh, they make rules nowadays? I thought they just licensed their stuff so that SJG would publish GURPS worldbooks =)

Ha!

[dR.fuZZo]

I love the fact that this was posted by White Wolf's Director of Marketing. I'm sure he was trying to figure out how to get more people to sign up for fan club membership, and, oh hey, there you go -- tell people that they have to. That will work great.

It's also great that they try to tell you that they're doing this in order to "maintain" a "consistent quality of product." Oh right. And yet, "Camarilla membership does not mean Camarilla oversight or management." But, you know, as long as White Wolf has more of your money, I'm sure your gaming experience will be better.

I really don't think this is enforceable. White Wolf is requesting that you follow their policy. They have a right to request that you follow their policy. As near as I can tell, though, you aren't breaking any laws if you just decide to ignore them.

Re:Ha!

[mink]

"It's also great that they try to tell you that they're doing this in order to "maintain" a "consistent quality of product." Oh right. And yet, "Camarilla membership does not mean Camarilla oversight or management." But, you know, as long as White Wolf has more of your money, I'm sure your gaming experience will be better."

Considering the attitudes and behavior of Camarilla in the games (computer, books, etc) it it at all a surprise?

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[mink]

Nah, ream men play F.U.D.G.E.

Re:And people wonder why I don't play Storyteller.

[mink]

LOLROF, I kill me, great typo. I meant real men.