Scripts and Sales

Will there be any way for script writers to sell their scripts, much as token/map creators can currently sell artwork?

From my experience with modding other games where your code for the mod is easily accessible, things tend to end up in a s*** storm of people calming plagiarism and similar things the second money gets involved. I'm not totally against it as it would be nice to put some of my more complicated scripts on a shop  of some sort for a very nominal fee (ie pennies) but its going to be crazy hard to regulate and involve a lot of drama.

Interestingly enough, any scripts dealing with game mechanics/adjudications for automating processes or identifying specific game situations, are already copyrighted. This is because code algorithms are simply the rewriting of game rules/processes/methods/algorithms which, of course, have been presented in the game's write-up/books and hence are covered under copyright law. We see this often in the gaming industry where companies are not granted license to incorporate, say D&D 4e rules into their fantastic and new MMO/computer game, but rather need permission to do so and usually must pay royalties. On the other hand, making up your own rules and writing your own algorithms for said rules is perfectly legal, just don't infringe on existing intellectual property, even OGLs. Roll20 Virtual Tabletop is already treading on thin ice by allowing/turning a blind eye to posts which promote breach of copyright. If money becomes involved the situation becomes the same as with the file-sharing scandals of MegaUpload and the like, although I hardly think it would be of the same magnitude. While it is strictly not allowed as defined within Roll20 Virtual Tabletop's policies and rules of use/conduct, players/GMs are currently making connections to each other (via Roll20's website) with intent on supplying/sharing electronic copies (either scanned books or Original Electronic Format (OEF)/ebooks) of commercial rules systems. By way of example: being a new, free user of Roll20 Virtual Tabletop within the last few hours, I am interested in the types of campaigns currently running. On reading the posts of the very first campaign that interested me, I noticed the GM offering illegal electronic files of scanned rulebooks to his/her players - naughty naughty! Yes the gaming system is an older one, but the rules are still obtainable through Amazon and Ebay, let alone my own local gaming store from which I make purchases. But I digress.

Game rules aren't protected by copyright - only the exact wording used to express those rules.

Yeah, Robert... that's totally wrong. As Nick said, game mechanics are specifically not copyrighted. Only the expression of said mechanics. I could totally write a computer rpg that uses D&D 4e mechanics as long as I don't use any of the fluff from the books.

And even if they were, the OGL, at least (IIRC), explicitly mentions computer software in the things you are allowed to do with the content.

HoneyBadger said: Yeah, Robert... that's totally wrong. As Nick said, game mechanics are specifically not copyrighted. Only the expression of said mechanics. I could totally write a computer rpg that uses D&D 4e mechanics as long as I don't use any of the fluff from the books. HoneyBadger, I agree with what you say based on Nick's post link regarding the mechanics alone, but you have missed my point regarding the "adjudication for automating processes or(of *) identifying specific game situations". I know I could have worded it better and not misspelled 'of'- my bad. I am referring to using a copied mechanic (that's fine), but then applying the mechanic (that's fine too) in an adjudicative process based on "identifying specific game situations" (that's not fine!). More explanation: the mechanic of the rules acts as a judge (no problem using that) while a lookup table determines the judgement handed forward, that's the implementation of the mechanic (no problem doing that either). The breaching of copyright occurs at the point of declaring judgement, that is, the outcome of a specific game result (no can do!). This is what I am referring to, as does the link in Nick's post. It is important to read the whole article, although it does say early on at the end of the 2nd paragraph "... and completely reword it..." HoneyBadger, you have identified exactly what I was referring to, but using different words, viz. "don't use any of the fluff from the books". The "specific game situations" as I describe them are exactly that fluff you describe. My reference to coding algorithms does appear, on the surface, to be incorrect, but it is not wrong when taken as a whole. An algorithm will incorporate a lookup table to obtain an outcome, but if that lookup table is a reference to a specific game situation, a D&D 4e table, say, then it really is in breach of copyright law.  Just look at what happened to the Dangerous Journeys RPG system, written by Gary Gygax and published by GDW. TSR  filed suit  and it was settled out of court with GDW selling Dangerous Journeys to TSR - all that copying from D&D 1st Ed tables - naughty Gary!. The fourth paragraph below identifies what I refer to here and you as fluff. Copyright Office Letter The U.S. Copyright Office has a  form letter  with instructions for copyrighting games, form FL108. The first three paragraphs of this letter (from June 1999) are quoted below in full:   The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.   Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.   Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the game-board or container, may be registrable. Cheers.

Robert A. said: (. . .)  Roll20 Virtual Tabletop  is already treading on thin ice by allowing/turning a blind eye to posts which promote breach of copyright. (. . .) players/GMs are currently making connections to each other (via Roll20's website) with intent on supplying/sharing electronic copies (. . .) of commercial rules systems. Um, I don't see this in the same way. As I understand what you're saying about Roll20, it's like stating that IRC clients, Google+ Hangouts, desktop sharing apps, other VTTs, any  software enabling or encouraging role playing . . . all of them are on that thin ice because the way many people uses the Internet, sharing and syncing files for many purposes via e-mail, Dropbox, Wuala, GoogleDrive, SkyDrive, Mega, Box, etc. If you want to focus the issue to certain Roll20 forums posts with users openly speaking of sharing electronic copies of books —FWIW I haven't seen none of these so far, only hints at most!—, I believe the Moderators can't read everything and, even if they can, the responsibility ultimately falls on the users' side. Just imagine if each time a Moderator believes that someone arranging a game at the Roll20 forums is willing to illegally share books with his players, he automatically closes the thread and/or bans the involved users from the community: it would be terrible, completely disrupting its natural flow. I think that closing threads and such should be reserved for cases of clear violation of the norms; in any case, during the last weeks I've been unable to read the forums so much as I used to, so I ignore if you have seen many posts here with people openly speaking of sharing copies of copyrighted books; I would agree in that it would be certainly an issue, but it could be remedied —as much as possible— by disabling threads openly violating the norms. Be as it may, in the quoted paragraph above, I'd just substitute Roll20 for the Internet.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Axel. My example at the end of the post was a clear violation. I had only joined the Roll20.net site just minutes before running into a clear and obvious example. The outright, blatantly obvious violations, when caught by the moderators , should be immediately closed down and those involved sent a stern warning not to promote the infringement of copyright laws using the Roll20.net site. I know it will go on whether Roll20 likes it or not and so do they. The point is, however, that Roll20.net must be seen to be active, just in case something happens in the future where they are pulled up for the promotion of breach of copyright law, simply because they chose to turn a blind eye to those clear violations you describe. Any promotion of copyright infringement outside of Roll20.net is not their concern and as you say, Axel, it is already Internet-wide. I don't expect anything to happen. I hope nothing happens. It is only a precautionary thing to do to protect their business. A simple cease and desist email is all that is needed - no dismissal of members involved, unless they continue to ignore Roll20's requests. Roll20 can determine just how many such requests an individual member can ignore before they receive their final warning and then, poof, goodbye member. You are also correct about SkyDrive, DropBox, etc and they too have the same mandate to try and prevent the breaking of the law via use of their sites. A simple statement in an acceptable use policy is not enough these days, one must be seen as active - just in case. I remember having backup files in cloud storage deleted by the storage vendor due to supposed copyright violations. The interesting thing in my case was that the files were zipped and 256-bit encrypted with a very long, strong password. The vendor didn't know what was in the files, they just assumed they were in breach of copyright because of the filenames. I learnt my lesson and so changed the filenames to be nondescript, problem solved. The vendor was, however, doing the right thing - protecting themselves in the sight of the law.