A Long Talk with Rob Miracle

Hi Rob. I writing with respect to the Guildsman archive on MPGN which you took off greyhawk.stanford.edu. Originally, I had no problem with you doing this. As the Guildsman's editor, I kept a policy of allowing anyone to archive the magazine. However, given the recent TSR/copyright controversy, plus the fact that several Guildsman contributors have expressed reservations about their material being archived on MPGNet, I felt that I should contact you and that we should try to reach some sort of solution. Specifically, what my contributors have been objecting to is this notice you tacked onto the directory where the Guildsman is being kept on MPGNet. To be even more specific, the last part of the last sentence... where you say that the Guildsman "may not be published or distributors except through MPG-Net or TSR" has some of my contributors worried that TSR and MPG-Net may be attempting to assert sole distribution rights over their articles. A number of people on the Internet have posted research, attempting to show that TSR's position, and yours, is not legally defensible. So far, neither you, nor Rob Repp, nor TSR's legal advisor has made any comments on this research. You (MPGN and TSR) have basically taken a vast quantity of material from Greyhawk, including the six Guildsman magazines which total over 400 printed pages, and proclaimed yourselves as the sole distributor of this material. I think that, given this situation, you should be able to see clearly enough why people are upset at this unexpected turn of events. In any case, my contributors are telling me that they'd prefer that their material not be kept at MPGN under this sort of condition. The assertion you and TSR have made with respect to their work is not something they are willing to weakly give in to. TSR's legal advisor is on record as saying that a new "disclaimer" would be forthcoming by the first of the year. We have been waiting patiently for this, hoping that this outrageous assertion over sole distribution rights would be deleted. However, it is now the 28th, and so far all we have heard from TSR is silence. Please respond, as I would like for us to reach a mutually agreeable solution to this conflict as soon as possible.

Hi Jim. First, let me say that we took over Greyhawk so that it wouldn't die. We had lost other great sites and didn't want to loose probably the best site. We said from the get go that we were going to maintain a legal site. We used our understanding of Copyright Law (which is what is commonly referred to on the net) as a basis for what was legal or not. TSR came along and clarified their position. We reached an agreement with them that would permit Greyhawk to continue to exist. Most every work in the existing ADND tree are derivative works of AD&D which from our reading of the derivative works portion of copyright law violates TSR's copyrights. We had a choice, close our archive because of our goal to remain legal and lose all that work, or work with TSR to come up with an acceptable solution. Many people have disagreed with the disclaimer from what they see as valid concerns. I can tell you this, neither TSR or MPG-Net have any desire to procure the works. We just want to run a gaming archive site and TSR wants to protect their rights. We have worked with many people who have files that are on the archive (or had) to work out the best solution for the author. We have deleted several files at the request of the author/editor or moved them to a non-TSR area if we legally could. You, and your authors have full rights to request that the files be removed. I need specific file names and directories of what has to go. If they are not derivative works of a TSR product, I will be happy to move them elsewhere. At this time, MPG-Net (as an FTP site) and America Online as an online service are the only sites that derivative works of TSR products can be distributed. Like you, we are waiting on the new disclaimer, mirror sites and other issues as well. As I see it, there are three basic options for the Guildsman. First, you can do nothing, and hang loose for a couple of weeks until TSR releases their new disclaimer (which they are working on, we just haven't seen it yet). Secondly, we can lock the files or move them to a new download area until such time that you decide they have to be deleted, or moved back. Or finally, we can just remove them. I will do what ever you wish, because they are your files. Just let me know.

Hi Rob. I wrote you last Saturday regarding the Guildsman archive on MPGN, and more to the point, about the "disclaimer" you tacked onto the Guildsman's directory which several of my contributing authors took offense to. As I told you in my last letter, they were mainly offended by the statement "The items... may not be published or distributed except through MPG-Net or TSR." Looking at it again, this statement looks more like a release of distribution rights than a disclaimer, which is what you and TSR are calling it. You responded on this subject: > Many people have disagreed with the disclaimer from what they see as valid > concerns. I can tell you this, neither TSR or MPG-Net have any desire to > procure the works. We just want to run a gaming archive site and TSR wants > to protect their rights. I forwarded our discussion to several of the Guildsman contributors. The only response I got stated that you were polite but misguided. I tend to agree. Before you hit "q", however, I'd like you to finish reading this letter so you can understand why we feel this way. I think a large part of it has to do with the way people perceive TSR as a company. Granted, many gamers still like playing AD&D, but simply because they like the game doesn't mean they like the company. In fact, many gamers actually dislike TSR, and they have since before TSR was even on the Internet. I think a large part of the reason has to do with the way TSR deals with competition. The following story was emailed to me privately (this person wishing to remain anonymous), and I've been trying to find out whether or not it is true. One person on rec.games.frp.advocacy agreed that it is true, and so far, nobody has spoken out that it isn't. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I should tell you that I wasn't a party to the original SPI event. In fact, I only knew as much as any gamer until about a year ago. I was enlightened when the editor of the ancient roleplaying APA _The Wild Hunt_ gave me some back issues from the time of the incident. One of the zines was by an acquaintance of mine who happens to be reasonably well-known in the field (at least in some circles). At the time he was in a position to know, and his story shocked and horrified me. Unfortunately, I can't find that issue. Here's the story, as best I remember it (and I remember it pretty well): The legend: SPI was the second most popular game company in the hobby. They produced good RPG material, excellent boardgames, and outstanding magazines. They were respected and liked by most people in the industry. Unfortunately they took out a large loan. Somehow TSR managed to take over that loan from the bank, and immediately foreclosed. SPI couldn't pay, and so was terminated by TSR -- which then immediately stopped production on all SPI products, except for a single small printing every year to avoid losing the trademarks and copyrights for non-use. Rumor has it that three or four copies of DragonQuest appear in a small store in North Dubuque, Idaho every Saint Swithen's Day. 8^>} The real story: SPI didn't take out a loan from a bank -- they were negotiating with *TSR* for a loan (TSR was very solvent at that time). TSR asked for proxy votes for a majority of SPI's stock before agreeing to the deal, as a sign of "good faith" -- of course they wouldn't actually *use* the proxies for anything. Heaven forbid. SPI agreed (these were the innocent days before lawyers infested gaming -- except for TSR, of course) and gave TSR the proxies. They were very surprised to find TSR at their next stockholder's meeting. They were even *more* surprised when TSR used the proxies to vote out every SPI corporate officer and replace them with TSR people. At this point TSR was run by Gary Gygax and two brothers named Blume (they were financial people, not gamers). One of the Blume brothers was made president of SPI. SPI president Blume announced that SPI was being moved (from New York, I think) to Lake Geneva. Many of the original SPI folk quit. Some of those who didn't were fired. SPI President Blume (who was still a corporate officer of TSR) then negotiated with TSR corporate officer Blume for a $400,000 loan. Reportedly the terms were incredibly bad for SPI. If SPI missed a single payment they forfeited everything -- all their game products, all their copyrights and trademarks, and the right to publish all of their award-winning magazines (including Ares). SPI would still *exist*, but it would have no assets of any kind. However, SPI would retain all its debts and liabilities. This had the potential to affect a lot of gamers. SPI's magazines were extremely popular, and many hundreds of people had paid from $300 to $500 dollars for a lifetime subscription. Should SPI default, SPI would lose the right to publish those magazines -- but would still be responsible for those subscriptions. One month after the agreement was signed by the brothers Blume, SPI failed to make a payment. TSR lowered the boom. TSR announced that SPI's magazines would no longer be published, and that subscribers would have to talk to SPI for satisfaction (though SPI was soon in the process of going bankrupt). However, out of the generosity of its corporate heart, TSR would offer SPI subscribers the opportunity to subscribe to The Dragon for two years for the price of one. SPI customers were (to put it mildly) not happy. And that's what was in the zine I read, best as I can recall. If you find out any interesting information, I'd be interested in hearing about it... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rob, it is incidents such as these which make us (the gamers on the net) not want to make any deals with TSR. You have stated: > I can tell you this, neither TSR or MPG-Net have any desire to > procure the works. We just want to run a gaming archive site and TSR wants > to protect their rights. And you might even been saying this with every bit of honesty in the world. It's not you, personally, we don't believe. It's TSR. They've pulled shit in the past, and if the past is any indication of the future, they'll pull it again. The tragedy of all this is that you are unwittingly helping them. Wake up and open your eyes, Rob. TSR promised to amend their disclaimer by January. They're now a month late. Do you really believe they're going to come out with an amended disclaimer that revokes this "...may not be published or distributed except through MPG-Net or TSR" business? Given TSR's past, I've come to the conclusion (after considerable prodding by many Guildsman contributors) that TSR is _not_ doing this to protect its rights. If that was the purpose, TSR could have come out with a disclaimer like FASA's or Chaosium's (which netters have had no objection to). Allow me to demonstrate. Here is FASA's disclaimer: Shadowrun is a Registered Trademark of FASA Corporation. Original Shadowrun material Copyright 1994 by FASA Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Used without permission. Any use of FASA Corporation's copyrighted material or trademarks in this file should not be viewed as a challenge to those copyrights or trademarks. Note that FASA is making no attempt to restrict the distribution of fan- authored material. Nor are they attempting to imply that the fan-authored product is necessarily a derivative work (realizing that such a statement has potentially serious legal repercussions for the fan-writer). And now, here's Chaosium's disclaimer: Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and Nephilim are trademarks of Chaosium Inc. All original material for these games is copyright by Chaosium Inc, on various dates. All rights Reserved. This material is used without permission. Any use of Chaosium Inc's copyrighted material or trademarks in this file should not be viewed as a challenge to those copyrights or trademarks. Any commercial use of Chaosium Inc's copyrighted material or trademarks without Chaosium Inc's express permission is prohibited. Rob, what I am trying to show, is that though TSR has been saying that they're only trying to protect their rights, the fact is that their "disclaimer" goes way past the level of protection. Other companies aren't doing what TSR is doing. Ask yourself: Is this because the other companies are clueless about the necessities involved in protecting their copyrights, or is it because TSR is grasping for rights it doesn't legally have? Granted, if it were another company doing what TSR is doing, like Steve Jackson Games, for example, I don't think people would be quite so angry. They might allow SJG the benefit of the doubt. However, it wasn't SJG that massacred SPI. That was TSR's doing, and it's incidents like that which cause people to not want to give TSR the benefit of the doubt. Do they really deserve it? You seem to think so, but maybe you just don't know enough about TSR's past to be suspicious. Now you might argue that the TSR/SPI thing was a long time ago. That it involved the Blumes, neither of whom are in charge any longer. This is a fair enough argument, however, I would counter that the "deceive & demolish" mentality didn't leave with the Blumes. As late as 1993, concerning TSR's suit against Mayfair for violation of an agreement concerning use of trademarks, Illinois Senior District Judge Shadur writes in the court opinion: "Moreover, this opinion has twice commented on the apparent overreaching by TSR in one part of the Agreement: prohibiting Mayfair's truthful advertising of the fact that Role Aids products may be utilized by members of the consuming public in conjunction with rival role-playing games as well as with AD & D. That restraint inhibits not only Mayfair's market among consumers who have purchased (or might intend to purchase) role-playing games from TSR's competitors but (not incidentally) also tends to lessen the demand for those competitive games among purchasers of Mayfair's Role Aids products. And again those anti-competitive measures appear to find no rational support in TSR's legitimate goals for protecting the integrity of its own trademarks." What I am basically saying here, Rob, is that TSR has demonstrated a policy of either cajoling or bullying its competitors into signing these lop-sided agreements ("because our lawyers tell us we have to"), and then they turn around and use these agreements to squash the competition. Now, is the net a competitor of TSR? Certainly not in its present state. However, the net is something like doubling in size every year. What happens in ten years? That's what TSR is wondering. I've heard (and unfortunately, I don't have the exact quote) that TSR has described the Internet as a danger to the publishing business worldwide. My opinion, and the opinion of many gamers on the net, is that they are attempting to handle us in the same manner they have handled SPI and Mayfair. Their past is evidence. Their so-called "disclaimer" is further evidence. Their apparent unwillingness to modify their "disclaimer" to reflect that of other major RPG publishers is still further evidence. What evidence does TSR have to show us that for once in its history, it's being honest and up-front? So far, I haven't seen a shred. Rob, I don't know exactly where you stand. Either you've been blissfully unaware of the reasons many of us on the net refuse to accept TSR's policy, or perhaps you've been fully cognizant of all the facts and decided to play along anyway, either hoping that things would work out for the best in the end or that even if they didn't, at least MPGN would gain public awareness for being closely associated with TSR. In either case, if you've bothered to read this far, you now know the reasons behind why many netters simply don't trust TSR. And that was my first goal in this letter. To inform. Now here's the second goal. I've already told you why we feel the way we do about TSR. Now I want to give you an option. Something you can do to help us. To help all sides, in fact. I have put together a program called MEG3.ZIP (Monster Encounter Generator, version #3). The program is for use with 1st edition AD&D. It basically creates monster encounters. Inside the help file, I've included a disclaimer which really is a disclaimer. It gives TSR nothing, but at the same time, it makes sure that nothing is taken away, which is the natural purpose of a disclaimer. I want you to take a look at the program. Then forward a copy to your contact at TSR. See if they will allow you to archive a copy of MEG3, not using TSR's disclaimer, but using the one which I provided in the program. If they say no way, then find out specifically what it is they object to, and forward that information to me. I think that what I am asking you to do here is fair and reasonable. If they accept the disclaimer that I have proposed (or one like it insofar as distribution rights are not seized) then perhaps the Guildsman will be able to stay online at MPGN. If not, however, then I cannot in good conscience allow you to continue archiving the Guildsman. I look forward to hearing from you. =============================================================================== Here's the disclaimer I put together which had been incorporated into MEG3 (which is incidentally available via email). It's sort of a TSR/FASA/Chaosium hybrid containing what I feel are the best features each company's disclaimer has to offer. As an aside, I wonder if a disclaimer similar to this should be used for our own legal protection once an ftp site pops up that has the huevos to challenge TSR's policy. TSR, AD&D, Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, and Fiend Folio are trademarks of TSR Inc. Any of TSR Inc's AD&D material which is used within this program has, of course, been previously copyrighted by TSR Inc (All Rights Reserved), and is used here without TSR Inc's permission. Any use of TSR Inc's copyrighted material or trademarks in this program should not be viewed as a challenge to those copyrights or trademarks. Any commercial use of TSR Inc's copyrighted material or trademarks without TSR Inc's express permission is prohibited. This program is not authorized or endorsed by TSR Inc, and TSR Inc cannot be held liable for any damages resulting from its use. ===============================================================================

Hi Jim. BTW: I read it all :-) I am very familiar with the arguments on both sides. When you look at the disclaimer as a whole, TSR states that an item incorporating the disclaimer is unauthorized and unsupported. If they were to try to grab the files as their own, that phrase then becomes your protection. The "who can distribute and publish" phrase is saying that derivative works have to go through a licensed site or they can't be distributed at all. It is there to prevent mirroring and from BBS's grabbing the files and making them available. At this time, we are waiting on the new disclaimer to come out, and we will re-evaluate the situation when it does. But our intent here at MPG-Net is to provide the best gaming archive that we can that is free and in the same spirit as that of the Greyhawk archive while staying within the legal requests of the various companies. If you notice, we have the FASA disclaimer on our site already. FASA wanted it there, so we obliged. We are working with GDW on a similar issue, so that we can archive more Traveller products. Am I blinded or blissful about this? No, I don't think so. Have been around the net for 10 years or so, and I have seen it evolve from a small little home for the net surfer where people didn't have a clue to its existence to this massive snarling monster of people who are just getting a grasp on the scope of the net and the legal problems that it imposes. I know exactly where you are coming from. I know TSR's position with regards to these issues, and we are trying to make the people happy while keeping within TSR's position on their rights. We have worked with the authors to help them add their own more restrictive disclaimers (as long as it doesn't contradict the TSR disclaimer), or move appropriate files to non-TSR areas. We are here for you, the author/consumer. >Now here's the second goal. I've already told you why we feel the way we do >about TSR. Now I want to give you an option. Something you can do to help us. >To help all sides, in fact. In all honesty Jim, your submission, since it is a derivative work of AD&D, has to have the TSR disclaimer. However you are free to add your own disclaimer after the TSR disclaimer as long as it doesn't contradict the TSR disclaimer. For instance, we have allowed a similar secondary disclaimer such as: "This item is for free, personal use, and may not be published or distributed for profit without permission of the author." or other similar things. You have just as much rights to protect your work as does any one else. Please go back and read the disclaimer as a whole, and not just one line. If you feel a need to add a more protective secondary disclaimer to the submissions, the please do so. You can resubmit the Guildsman issues with the more restrictive disclaimer (as long as you also add the TSR disclaimer, since it is technically a new submission which requires the submission to have the disclaimer in the archive).

Hi again, Rob. I just wanted to thank you for the time you took to respond (and for responding so quickly) to my emails. You've been very polite and have stuck to your position admirably (if one can consider it admirable, sigh). I only wish I could honestly share your view that what TSR is doing is actually within its legal rights (as opposed to being a stomping of the rights of amateur writers on the Internet). If, in the end, it turns out that you are, in fact, correct, and that I and other netters have been wrong all along, then I will be happy to play by the rules set forth by the courts and to archive my AD&D-related material at MPGN, adding whatever disclaimers TSR and MPGN deem appropriate. However, until a decisive verdict is issued with respect to this matter, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to continue to stand by, silent and acquiescent, as you and TSR persist with this very questionable policy. As I have told you previously, I have already received numerous emails from Guildsman contributors, each of them expressing discomfort about their work being archived at MPGN. Some people were annoyed by the thought of TSR drawing licensing fees from MPGN (an issue to which neither you nor TSR has ever answered). Others are simply angry that TSR, with the help of MPGN, would erect a policy which at its heart asserts that amateur authors on the Internet may not publish, as freeware, their own AD&D-related works except when granted specific permission. At the core of TSR's contention, as you know, is the proposition that all works which are related to AD&D (i.e. which make use of game terminology) are legally derivative (that is, "derivative" in the legal sense of the word). Many of us on the net reject this proposition. Several have posted research disputing it. Though some people have argued in favor of the legality of TSR's policy, none of those people have ever posted any research backing up their claims. Meanwhile, TSR has remained silent, opting to extricate itself from this debate, perhaps realizing that it couldn't possibly convince us to abandon our rights in light of the legal research that's been posted. And you, while you've been both polite and responsive (and I thank you again), have at the same time neglected to answer the key questions I've put to you: Isn't the disclaimer really a release? Why does TSR, given its sordid past, deserve our trust? Do you honestly believe TSR is ever going to let us know whether or not it will amend this disclaimer, as it promised to do by the first of this year, or will we be left perpetually hanging? Is TSR getting any sort of compensation for the licensing arrangement it has with MPGN? If you really and truly believe that TSR is doing all this just to protect its legitimate rights under intellectual property law (that it is not, in fact, grasping for rights that it doesn't legally have), do *you* have any evidence to support your belief, or are you allowing yourself to be swept into its policy simply because you think it's to your long-term economic advantage to do so? I admit, these are not nice questions, and being a nice guy, you have, so far, conveniently chosen to ignore them. You have been so charming, in fact, that I am reminded of a quote by John Adams: Be not intimidated, by any terrors, from publishing with utmost freedom... Nor suffer yourself to be wheedled out of your liberty with a pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice. I don't know whether or not this quote applies to this particular conversation we've been having. I certainly hope it doesn't. However, to be perfectly honest, I cannot help but wonder. Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. Perhaps I'm being a bastard by going on like this. Or maybe I'm just trying to jolt you enough that you actually begin to think about the long-term effect your support of TSR's policy will have not only on the gaming community but on the Internet in general. Whether we like it or not, this sets a precedent that others will follow. We owe it to the future to make certain that our actions in this matter are as fair and reasonable and (most of all) as selfless as can be imagined. TSR has made its decisions by looking at its bottom-line, its profit-margin. But on the Internet, the bottom-line isn't money. It's freedom. And freedom is losing ground, day by day, to those who have money and wish to get more of it. You are in the rare position to make a difference if you choose to do so. I know it may not be in your personal best interests. But sometimes, that's the way it is. For myself, I've been against this policy of TSR's ever since I first became aware of it, even before I learned that their legal ground is rather shaky, to say the least. However, by temporarily allowing you to archive the Guildsmans on MPGN, I was going along with it, hoping that they'd come back to their senses. Well, they haven't. And of my contributors, some are just annoyed, others are fuming. It can't go on like this. I'm afraid I have to ask you to remove all six issues of _The Guildsman_ from MPGN. We despise the "disclaimer", and we reject any company's policy whereby we can't even publish our own work (though it make reference to a popular roleplaying game). It's like Microsoft saying that Lotus has to pay a licensing fee in order to publish its spreadsheet for DOS. What else is an adventure module if not an application for an operating system, in this case a system that operates a game? Anyway, it's clear that neither you nor TSR wish to become engaged in this sort of discussion, and if, after all is said and done, the courts rule that TSR was well within its rights, then I take it all back. But if it turns out the other way, don't believe for a second that any of us will ever forget how TSR tried to tread on our rights, and how you helped them... how you, in effect, turned your back on us when you had the rare opportunity to make a positive difference to a whole lot of people. That isn't meant to scare you, by the way. Or maybe it is. I don't know. It's just... Trent Fisher had to delete some 70 megs from Jove. That's a lot of work, 70 megs. I don't know how much of it you've got. I don't suppose most of those amateur authors are even on the net any longer. But the short of it is that a lot of people invested a lot of time. If you're in the right, then there's no problem. But if you're in the wrong, then you're screwing them over... putting that statement over their work just as though they'd agreed to it. Anyway, I'm sure this is pretty boring for you, so I'll shut-up now. Just wanted to give you something to think about.

Hi Jim. First, let me say this. MPG-Net is striving to be a neutral party in this situation. We honestly want to be the net's gaming archive, but if we don't abide by the perceived law of those companies that are represented by our site, then we open ourselves to a situation where we cannot be an archive site for a given company. For some reason, people on the net think that we are in daily contact with TSR. In fact, we have probably had less contact with TSR than many of the people on the net. > Isn't the disclaimer really a release? I am not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the differences between a disclaimer and a release. > Why does TSR, given its sordid past, deserve our trust? How you feel about TSR is your feelings. If you don't want to trust them, then don't. If you do then do. > Do you honestly believe TSR is ever going to let us know > whether or not it will amend this disclaimer, as it promised > to do by the first of this year, or will we be left perpetually > hanging? I don't know if they will "change" the disclaimer or not. I hope they do. But they will either restate the existing disclaimer or issue a new one soon. > Is TSR getting any sort of compensation for the licensing > arrangement it has with MPGN? The anonymous ftp archive at MPG-Net is a free service. > If you really and truly believe that TSR is doing all this > just to protect its legitimate rights under intellectual > property law (that it is not, in fact, grasping for rights > that it doesn't legally have), do *you* have any evidence to > support your belief, or are you allowing yourself to be > swept into its policy simply because you think it's to your > long-term economic advantage to do so? MPG-Net has nothing to gain from offering this service other than the satisfaction that there is a net home for gaming material. >I admit, these are not nice questions, and being a nice guy, you have, so far, >conveniently chosen to ignore them. You have been so charming, in fact, that I >am reminded of a quote by John Adams: The questions were not evil. I however have been asked by our management, out of business etiquette, to not disclose elements of the license agreement that TSR has not previously released. I would love to answer them in detail, but I can't. There is no conspiracy. MPG-Net has no hidden agendas and as far as we know, TSR does not have a hidden agenda. >I'm afraid I have to ask you to remove all six issues of _The Guildsman_ from >MPGN. Done. They were deleted this morning.

> First, let me say this. MPG-Net is striving to be a neutral party in this > situation. We honestly want to be the net's gaming archive, but if we don't > abide by the perceived law of those companies that are represented by our > site, then we open ourselves to a situation where we cannot be an archive > site for a given company. I understand your position, Rob. And I'm sorry that you've been sandwiched in the middle like this. You seem like a nice enough person (demonstrated by the fact that you've continued replying to my emails :-) The thing is, because of TSR's policy, MPGN has been forced to make a very crucial decision. Either: (a) Archive material for every popular game system but AD&D, and hence allow a huge amount of work related to AD&D to fall into the bit bucket, or... (b) Go along with TSR's policy, saving all that material from being lost, but at the same time legitimizing a very legally and ethically questionable policy, hence encouraging other game companies to follow suit. You guys chose the second option. And, I grant you... during the short term, you're doing AD&D enthusiasts a favor by providing this archive. However, in the long-term, you may be doing all gamers a disservice. Don't you think I wanted to keep the Guildsmans publically available? Don't you think any fan-writer wants their work to be as widely available as possible? Of course we do. But not if it means caving-in to a policy that over the long-term will hurt us all. That is why people have asked you to remove their work from MPGN. That was a big reason why my contributors asked me to do likewise. There are many people out there opting for the first option, and maybe, if you folks at MPGN are sincerely concerned with doing us, the gamers on the Internet, a service, you should consider opting likewise. If you don't believe me, post to the rec.games.frp.* newsgroups, and ask the gamers which option they prefer. I honestly don't know how they would vote in the end, but if what you are doing is a service for us (not for you), then don't you owe us the right to decide which option is best, rather than you choosing it for us? >The questions were not evil. I however have been asked by our management, >out of business etiquette, to not disclose elements of the license agreement >that TSR has not previously released. I would love to answer them in >detail, but I can't. There is no conspiracy. MPG-Net has no hidden agendas >and as far as we know, TSR does not have a hidden agenda. Tell that to SPI.