Busman wrote:As we know from early editions of D&D, EGG and even TSR until later weren't fans of hard copyrights
Rakeesh sah Tarna wrote:not so at all where do you get that idea?? tsr especially gary very very protective of ipr right from start + threatened to sue others even for taking idea of any other rpg
Busman wrote:And I don't recall the Cease and Desist orders coming until well later.
Busman wrote:One could argue his treatment of Dave and the creation of AD&D are signs to the contrary.
Busman wrote:Again, I didn't know the man, personally, only met him at a con on a couple of occasions when he was out living in LA. And maybe money or a hit changed his ideas, but his and TSRs actions at the beginning were of people who didn't put a lot of value on copyright
Busman wrote:Which is, are those who have some of the last remaining copies taking preservation procedures to insure they aren't lost for all time.
Busman wrote:And secondly, has anyone contacted Mrs. Gygax about getting permission to reprint or republish his articles from the Domesday book, which seem to comprise the majority of historically relevant articles that were in that book (again, from Frank's account, since I haven't seen them).
Rakeesh sah Tarna wrote:agreed but wont be lost as stormber has copies + no need for any more using ians line of debate which you agreed
mbassoc2003 wrote:...........So, copy and preserve for the future. But take responsibility as a historian for the rights and concerns of the author. Preserve, but do not share. Do not publish. Guard the works and make sure it lives on, because whilst no one here has a right to see these rare works, everyone has a right to expect them to be preserved and safeguarded.So
Aneoth wrote:And as far as I know, NONE of the many works created by EGG were meant to sit forever more in a dark vault...........
Aneoth wrote:Even more relevant: This is also a game after all, not just art.
mbassoc2003 wrote:This thread has a danger of slipping into one about the politics of collecting and ownership.If there were a collective body and that body raised capital and invested its capital in rare items, then it's fair to ask for some level of access to those items by members of the collective body. But when an individual ponies up the dough ant takes on the responsibility of custodian, it is a little perverse for the 'have nots' to then ask for access or even sit judgement on those individuals who collect. I am sure that all collectors, given the right circumstances, are willing to share the delights of their collection with fellow collectors, but that should never be 'expected'. After all, if the community as a whole desired a community 'library' or 'museum' of rare works, then let us start the Acaeum Museum Project, raise capital and start buying documents as community property.
serleran wrote:It is my opinion that, for anything to have value, it must be known.
serleran wrote:Of course, I am not beyond the desire to have a museum... except I can't afford the extremes that others can (lucky wealthy people.)