Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...

[Bill Olander]

People are Stupid. People have done Open gaming development using the Player's handbook as their source material. People are stupid. People will claim, "How was I supposed to know that I wasn't to use the term beholder?" People are Stupid.   The SRD omits the beholder as a monster. The player's handbook does not. Having that declaration right in the legal section means that there is no excuse of saying 'oh I didn't realize'. Having that in there means that the lawyers can say 'look you jackass, it specifically states it right there!"   I repeat again, people are stupid. If they aren't explicitly forbidden from doing something then they'll do it... and even then they still might do it.   Legally however, declaring 'beholder' as PI isn't going to stop me from creating a beholder.. just my beholder better not be an orb with eyes..   One more time: People are stupid. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary... In a message dated 10/24/03 9:14:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <<That's a little black and white don't you think? I've always interpreted it to be a context driven thing. c) the "white out" method is not what WotC intended, the PI usage is a list of terms that you are reminded not to use in the same way that they are used in the same way they're used in the books. "Displacer beast" for example could refer to a variation on the Yeti who's attack teleports you 3 miles in a random direction. >> PI is not a reminder.  PI is a specific contractual exclusion on usage.  Now it either is excluded in the sense that it is merely unlicensed (i.e., the "white out" method) and you can use it if you could normally legally do so without a license, or it is explicitly forbidden.  I might even buy a suggestion that the phrase "forbidden terms" is overly narrow, as the PI list includes much more than terms, it certainly includes, in some cases, contextual usage. Including a list of PI that is not a forbidden items list and which is not a "white out" list, but which instead forbids usages which are, at best, interpreted as vague references to other unnamed products could only be interpreted as a violation of the requirement to clearly identify PI. Take the term "beholder".  If I weren't a long time D&D player there would be no way for me to even fathom that that was a reference to a multi-eyed monster based on its having been listed as PI in a work that doesn't likely even include the term. A white out list and a forbidden terms list could both exist as simply a laundry list of terms, however, a vague reference to other unnamed works would not clue the licensee in at all regarding the form and nature of the exclusion. I simply disagree. If that was WotC's intent and reading of the license, then they horribly botched management of clear PI designation. <<You'll notice though that most of the PI listed in things rather easy for WotC to defend. It doesn't list 'Hades' it lists 'The grey Wastes of Hades'... not Arcadia but the 'peacable kingdoms of arcadia'. etc. >> I'd like to see somebody protect under copyright law the phrase "Grey Wastes of Hades" without a trademark, and particularly when used to refer to a different vision of Hades than WotC's own. In my opinion that's tantamount to trying to defend: "The Flaming Inferno of Hell" Lee.