Intellectual property rights and larp

Community Larp discussion
#41

It’s entirely about the health of the public domain. The Quest rulebook is the product of time and effort and creativity. The writers probably enjoyed writing it, but regardless it took a whole bunch of their personal resources that they could have used elsewhere on some other creative project, or, you know, making a living. I don’t know what their reasons for not wanting it in the public domain are, and what I personally think of their reasons is entirely irrelevant, because access is their choice.

If the Quest writers feel unhappy about their creative product being ripped and posted for free when they don’t want it to be, they’ll start being cagey about information access when they can control it - asking for more money, only allowing people to read it in hardcopy, at the far unlikely extreme, they could retain possession of the hardcopy so that they’re players would have to visit a GM to find out the rules. None of those strategies would be good for their player base, and for the public domain as a whole, because everyone would be missing out on Quest’s creative input.

I love having a big open melting pot of ideas that I can sniff through looking for cool stuff. The converse side of that is that when I use other people’s ideas I respect the work they put in and only use it on their own terms. Your guy, Jonathon Lethem, made a gift, and he made it on entirely his own terms. What you’re talking about doing is coercion and theft. That ain’t healthy.

#42

My thoughts are:

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]

To answer your question Alista: NZLARPS doesn’t have a policy on this yet, but I for one believe that if the occasion arose the society would rise to your defense.[/quote]

Yes I agree with Ryan I am suwe would.

I personally think that if you had the players stuff for free as a .pdf you would spark more interest from people. I know some people who like creating characters, and the more interest the better.

#43

I’ll clarify that the “I” in my suggestion was not necessarily me, and certainly not NZLARPS (it would be absurd for the society to do that) - instead a theoretical person distributing the rules to your game without consent. What I was trying to figure out was, other than the $10 printing fee, what would actually be at risk, and how much of a panic there would be if you weren’t the only ones capable of distributing the rulebook.

#44

This whole issue is quite complex. However we do not have to justify why we want people to obey law. Let us just say it has to do with past experience. It is up to people to justify why they would break the law.

In direct response a couple of people

[quote=“Exquire”] What do you think the value of the infringement would be, say for my initial “media switching” (to electronic) and then for each download? Would you put a “damage” value on the fact that I had made it available online whether it is downloaded or not?
[/quote]
In the case of New Zealand copyright law it is the job of the court system to determine what the “damage” value would be. As several people on this site do law they can tell you that the damages would be for actual loss of earnings plus potential loss of earnings as well as a possible but not likely punitive damages section.

[quote=“Mike Curtis”]
How would QW feel about a soft copy, highly detailed treatise of their rules ? In other words, a document that is as useful in explaining the rules as the $10 hard copy rules. Sure, it would draw specific facts from the hard copy, but it would be reworded, reordered and likely include other observations, making it an agreeably equivalent yet distinctly separate document.[/quote]
Let me answer this question with a question. How would individuals in Auckland feel if we took the Mordavia rules ( or maybe Skirmish) changed the wording of the rules slightly, changed the name to 'Moredavia" and then started holding weekend games at $100 a pop?

We feel that we cannot claim intellectual monopoly over certain game mechanics, i.e. boffer weapons, spell balls, hit points and such like, however Quest Waikato has several features that to the best of our knowledge are unique. We would like to keep that uniqueness.

If you wish to become a distributer of Quest Rules inAuckland I am sure that we can come to some liscencing arragements, same as most of the other book publishers in the world do.

If you feel that all this type of property should be on line please feel free to ask TSR to place all of their publications on line for free download. I could do with a free set of 4th Ed D and D rules. We consider this as totally equivilent to the issue that we are currently discussing.

#45

That would be fine with me, and would make you very popular with some of the Mordavia players here who are missing their fix. Nice play on words in the name, too. I’m actively helping one dude in the USA to rip off Mordavia.

I agree with the comments Mike, Craig, Adam, and Steph have all made here regarding how some degree of sharing of ideas is good for the overall development of what we do. No-one is going to force anyone to share, but there’s a general recognition that if everyone just holds their stuff to their chests the hobby as a whole stagnates.

They have, seven years ago.

TSR sold Dungeons and Dragons to Wizards of the Coast in 1999. WotC released 3rd Edition D&D. WotC also made the fundamentals of D&D3 free and available to everyone in the form of the d20 Standard Reference Document. You can find it here: opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html

While this isn’t all of their works online for free, it is the core rules and enough to create characters with, learn the system, and play the game. This is similar to what people were suggesting you might want to do, to get people interested in Quest.

I can’t give you a link for a 4th edition D&D though, because it doesn’t exist yet. The latest version of D&D is 3.5.

#46

[quote=“Alista”][quote=“Mike Curtis”]
How would QW feel about a soft copy, highly detailed treatise of their rules ? In other words, a document that is as useful in explaining the rules as the $10 hard copy rules. Sure, it would draw specific facts from the hard copy, but it would be reworded, reordered and likely include other observations, making it an agreeably equivalent yet distinctly separate document.[/quote]
Let me answer this question with a question. How would individuals in Auckland feel if we took the Mordavia rules ( or maybe Skirmish) changed the wording of the rules slightly, changed the name to 'Moredavia" and then started holding weekend games at $100 a pop?[/quote]
Just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting ripping off your game and setting one up for others to play. Instead, I wanted to know whether it would be cool for someone to make a soft copy document that explains how to play your game. i.e. the idea is to have a functional equivalent of your $10 hard copy document available so that people who are interested in playing the authentic QW game can download a soft copy document that explains how it works.

As Adam said, one vector for developing interest in a game is to do so via getting to know the rules. Hard copy (and $10) add friction to this vector. My question was to do with how you would feel about someone taking the initiative to reduce the friction associated with your current approach.

AFAIK, no one wants to rip off your game. But many of us like to learn about games via online media.

#47

Why would you change the name?

The value in Mordavia was not in the rules, even if they were a lot of work for a lot of people. The value in the larp was the larp itself - the people, the improvised direction of the game and the environment created by everyone showing up and playing. $100 pp for that at a weekend game is enough to operate at a safe level of profit to ensure you can fund what’s needed for the next game.

#48

I think Craig is doing a bit of shit stirring regarding posting the Quest rules on the web. He isn’t the type of person who would do something like that.

However, I see what he’s getting at.

Having the rules only available as a $10 posted hard copy is a hurdle to players.

The cold war is over and the military on all sides lost. Information wants to be free.

I’d strongly suggest looking at something like the GPL copyright statements if you want to have public but also protected knowledge.

The GPL has teeth big enough to scare MicroSoft :smiley:

#49

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]

They have, seven years ago.

TSR sold Dungeons and Dragons to Wizards of the Coast in 1999. WotC released 3rd Edition D&D. WotC also made the fundamentals of D&D3 free and available to everyone in the form of the d20 Standard Reference Document. You can find it here: opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html.[/quote]

Been there, done that. There is only an abstract of the rules. I cannot download the Players Handbook for free, just the teasers. Why can’t you get the Players Handbook in .pdf for free?

I know. The fact that NERO players have to pay US$35 for their rule books means that NERO is a total failure and nobody plays it.

Again I say, we do not have to justify why we want to retain our legal rights. Neither I nor any of the other copyright holders to Quest have seen any compelling reason to relinquish these rights. Nor can we see why any other author shopuld have to give up any of their rights of authorship. I realise that many of the positions stated in this thread have been based on incomplete information about Quest and we are partly to blame for this.

However the entire crux of this thread was the fact that one corespondant felt that it was an imposition that they should have to pay royalties if they used another persons work for their own personal profit. We have seen nothing here to say that we should overthrow the universally accepted belief that a person is allowed to benefit from their own work (Article 27, United Nations Universal Deleration of Human Rights, 1948).

#50

Alista, are you saying that your rights extend to the point where you can prevent someone writing their own document that explains your system ? Even if this document was to be used by people playing the authentic QW game (i.e. your one, the one run by yous guys down in the 'Tron)

Or maybe you haven’t answered me question yet. In which case, I am very interested to hear your position.

#51

The d20 Standard Reference Document contains all of the mechanics from the Player’s Handbook, apart from how to roll stats and the XP charts. It contains stats for all the monsters in the MM, and stats for all spells and magic items. It’s hardly a teaser, it’s 99% of the system.

You have entirely misread what I wrote. I clearly stated that what I was discussing was the law.

I said that you have every right to ask for royalties for borrowed mechanics, but that you would have no legal recourse to expect it. The only legal mechanism to protect game mechanics is a patent. Copyright doesn’t do it.

I also pointed out that the entire roleplaying industry is based on people borrowing each other’s mechanics. Nobody has ever been successfully sued for it. The vast majority of game designers accept it as the nature of the industry, including the biggest RPG publisher.

NERO selling their rulebook and not making it available online has not prevented most of the other live-combat larps in the USA basing their mechanics on the NERO system. It’s true that they haven’t made their rules available for free online, however they become popular across the USA long before the web came around. Newer large larp groups like Curious Pastimes and Maelstrom in the UK make their rules available for free. Either way can work, it all depends on the variables.

I have a general preference for open sharing of ideas, but I don’t specifically mind what you do with your rules. I just wanted to make the legal realities clear to everyone, and to point out what common practice in the roleplaying industry is. RPG mechanics are not protected by the law, and borrowing of rules with or without attribution is the norm.

#52

NERO was formed in 1989. I don’t know about you but I was using the internet before that date. Of course it looked different then…

#53

As has been pointed out;

You cannot copyright an LRP system

You can copyright a book.

Therefore we will retain the copyrights on the book.

Thank you.

#54

The web was conceived in 1990. By 1991 NERO had 1,300 members across the USA. At that time the World Wide Web was just a few text pages on enthusiasts’ servers. CERN did not make the WWW free to everyone until 1993, and the first graphical web browser Mosaic was released the same year. When I first accessed the web in 1994, it was almost entirely text, with hardly any graphics or file attachments. I also accessed a live action rpg newsgroup, and there were no attachments there.

My point stands that NERO gained its popularity before free distribution of commercial larp rules over the internet (specifically on the web) was widespread. Also, other large games now give their rules away for free online. NERO hasn’t done this, but they could. I doubt it would damage the spread of NERO and might do it some good. Clearly it’s possible to get players either way, but I have a preference for sharing.

As I said I’m not really fussed what you do. I’m not convinced of the logic you’re using to come to your conclusions, but then again I don’t know what your plans are.

#55

Dude, by default you retain the copyright on the book whether you publish it for free on the internet or not.

#56

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”][
The web was conceived in 1990. [/quote]

It was labelled the “Internet” in 1990. The concept of sharing files through modems and servers definately predates this event. I know, I used it while working at the University of Waikato in the 1980s and that is why The UoW was the New Zealand internet portal for several years.

#57

I don’t want to go into Internet and World Wide Web history, but I suggest you read here for a primer on the invention of the World Wide Web (which runs on the Internet, along with many other things) in 1990: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wide_web

My point is that almost nobody was sharing their rules online when NERO was becoming widespread in the USA. So it’s hardly surprising they suceeded without doing so, they got in before it became commonplace.

#58

Dude, by default you retain the copyright on the book whether you publish it for free on the internet or not.[/quote]

perhaps this would be better worded as “…we will continue to protect the copyright on the book”.

#59

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]I don’t want to go into Internet and World Wide Web history, but I suggest you read here for a primer on the invention of the World Wide Web (which runs on the Internet, along with many other things) in 1990: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wide_web
[/quote]

If you are going to correct me, please have the courtesy of actually reading what my statements say and then get your facts right. I’ll try to do the same. I said I was on the net in the 80s, not the web. Thank you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

#60

Alista, are you having trouble formulating a response to my question ?

To me, this kind of document falls into a similar category as a reference book that discusses a copyrighted work. e.g. a book on how to use Excel.

Assuming it is correctly written (does not plagiarise) , I don’t think such a document would infringe against your copyright.

Which leaves this question: would QW visit social sanction on someone who produced a non copyright-infringing document i.e. would you still let them play ?