Ian's Tortured Souls collection
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 11 of 15123 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12131415
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 17, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:10 pm 
 

Mars wrote:
You'd really have to check all the dates on these events.  I think the lawsuit happened before the product was released but TSR had spent enough to create the product and still wanted to release it so they paid for the rights in a settlement and then released it.  The Dragon Magazine Archive is not an illegal product.


Of course it was.  But these facts were smoothed over and payoffs were done to placate those. Just because settlements were made have no bearing on the fact that the product itself was illegal at the time it was completed.  Some threatened lawsuits (aka Kenzer/Jolly Blackburn) happened well after the archive was completed and sold.  There are many that say that Trampier had an excellent case had he chose to pursue it, regrettably he has had no interest in anything game related for many years. Anyway, I realize it sucks that you would be a liar and hypocrite if you thought any other way, but reality is that TSR published the archive without getting permission from Jolly beforehand  for KODT (which led to the sweetheart deal of Kenzer publishing Hackmaster).

On the Mickey Mouse legislation, I don't have any problem with this at least in the Disney case.  Why should a company who created the character, has used it for years, spent billions of dollars marketing it into one of the most recognizable characters in the world be forced to give it away for free so anyone can now use it to make money off it?  I'd like to hear your reasoning for it.


Because that's the way it's ALWAYS been done until 1998? I believe the legislation already in place was sufficient without the extension (life of the author plus 50-75 years); already, a creator's offspring to the 5th generation can continue to enjoy the fruits of the creator's labors that they themselves had no part of creating. The fact is that the law was changed to benefit corporations and not the individuals involved (Walt Disney has been dead for many years) and to keep wealth and their creations in the hands of a few. There are also numerous specific exemptions in the law to benefit specific lobbying groups who spent a lot of money to have things done a certain way. The fact is, huge amounts of money were paid by lobbying groups so that the new law would only benefit a few billionaire corporations and individuals.

I'd ask you, what do you consider a fair amount of time for copyright to expire on Mickey Mouse?  100 years?  200 years?  A millennium?  The fact is the world has gone on quite well without ridiculously extending the act for 95-120 years after death. I could give a fuck if anyone spent billions to market a character, when such beloved icons like Sherlock Holmes are public domain, why should Steamboat Willy be any different?  Hell, drug copyright is only five years!!!  I bet  you would be screaming yourself silly if a drug company dared to extend a copyright for another year or two on a successful cholesterol drug, but Disney can rake in billions in defiance of past tradition by paying more billions to congressmen and senators to change the law.  I'm actually pretty surprised to see you take the side of corrupt billionaire corporations over individuals, but frankly I guess I shouldn't be surprised by some of the opinions here anymore...

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 17, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:15 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:In the UK, a character created by an author, remains copyrighted by that author for 70 yeards after the author's death. Then it becomes public domain property, as it is deemed to be part of the national heritage of our country. There is only a single exception to that rule (Peter Pan) and that took a single special act of parliament to gift the rights to a Charity for the life of that charity's existence.


A much more logical and just way of dealing with the issue.

It seems ludicrous that US history and national heritage of it's culture can be controlled by lobby groups and money men long after the creators and his heirs are dead. But then it does respect the national culture of money and greed, and if any country is going to change the law to make greed more important than anything in the country, it was gonna be the US.

The problem with the US system is that the majority of people seem to neither agree nor support the laws of their country, but their parents and grandparents have already sold out the country they live in and removed their childrens rights to have a say in the way their country is run. I suspect Mike's opinion on the Copyright Extension Act is rep[resentative of the vast majority of US citizens.


Which is why the law disgusts me; it is purely a bought and paid for piece of legislation benefiting not the creators themselves but corporations that have bought the creations and had nothing to do with their creation.  Sort of what happened when the original creators of D&D were kicked to the curb after the Lorraine Williams takeover. But hey, they have their "millions" they made to take care of them, so it's all good.

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:45 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:Because that's the way it's ALWAYS been done until 1998?


This is a bit of strange opinion.  The arguments so far for PDFing everything etc is to update laws from the past to deal with modern society.  Now you are arguing to keep things as they were.  The same goes for copyright extension on characters like Mickey Mouse.  In the course of our history there has never been a character with such worldwide appeal, still actively being used, that others would benefit millions from at the expense of the creating company.

Personally, what I would like to see is a distinction between companies actively using their IP and those that don't and lower the time period to which it gets released if you are not "active".  I don't see any reason why a company or family that created icons such as Mickey Mouse and that are actively using them should not continue to be the ones to control the direction that the character takes.  Disney has the best intentions of keeping Mickey Mouse pure as a family character because to them it means money.  What happens if Mickey is release to the public domain?  You get Mickey porn, you'll have decals with Mickey Mouse peeing on a Ford or Dodge or Chevy logo for the back window of your truck (like Calvin & Hobbes characters now).  The innocence of the character is destroyed because people who want a free ride to make some money will be allowed to do it.  The "American dream" used to be to start from scratch, work hard and make a good living to support your family.  Now it seems like more people would prefer someone else to do all the dirty work and then make money on the backs of others.

Again as Ian said, I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive (and enjoyed same) totally unaware it is very much an illegal product, not imagining that TSR would not exercise due diligence in compensating copyright holders. If a digital or pdf or CD copy of TS became available, I would purchase same with the hope that by offering it for sale the publisher has done their job.


The main difference here is that TSR did it without really knowing what they were doing was wrong - possibly only one previous similar case (National Geographic photographic images).  With the TS! archive we now have the TSR example where they paid out the settlement and also White Dwarf, a UK example, where they felt they couldn't release their product because of the copyright issues.  It seems here that individuals are trying to find workarounds in copyright law to dismiss these examples where the large companies themselves who have lawyers on staff probably specializing in this area couldn't.  So, even if Ian created this product believing it to be okay, you have to know that it's most likely an illegal product.  You can't just be naive and pass the buck off to Ian when you know of these other cases that exist.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6425
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:42 pm 
 

Mars wrote:The main difference here is that TSR did it without really knowing what they were doing was wrong - possibly only one previous similar case (National Geographic photographic images).  With the TS! archive we now have the TSR example where they paid out the settlement and also White Dwarf, a UK example, where they felt they couldn't release their product because of the copyright issues.  It seems here that individuals are trying to find workarounds in copyright law to dismiss these examples where the large companies themselves who have lawyers on staff probably specializing in this area couldn't.  So, even if Ian created this product believing it to be okay, you have to know that it's most likely an illegal product.  You can't just be naive and pass the buck off to Ian when you know of these other cases that exist.

That's not exactly true. It's perfectly possible in the UK to publish a product that is legal and yet infringes on someone's IP. It happens all the time. If a bunch of people all say 'yes' and get together to publish theiur works, and somone later on disputes their right to do so, or to have included an article, image or advert, that does not mean the product ever was illegal. It only means that the product has a disputed IP infringement, and could be found to have infringed on someone elses IP at some later date.

Let's face it, base on that rationalle, every person on this forum has knowing bought and used illegal mobile phones. And everyone is willingly buying and supporting stolen software IP. We all know that every single mobile phone manufacturer, and every single OS publishers, has used, uses, and continues to use disputed IP from other companies.

Are we not saying that morally we should not buy mobile phones or use computer operating systems? Or is it okay to trust that the companies concerned have paid due diligence to the IP owners' rights? And where is the difference if you aregue in favour of supporting one form of IP infringement but not another?


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 96
Joined: Apr 05, 2011
Last Visit: Mar 09, 2020
Location: Oregon

Post Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:32 pm 
 

How existential do you want to go?
Realistically, depending on the level of morality one wants to characterize, a person could barely buy anything that could not be linked to some immoral or fringe-illegal action of some part by a corporation, business, or other entity.

~Scathaigh~

mbassoc2003 wrote:That's not exactly true. It's perfectly possible in the UK to publish a product that is legal and yet infringes on someone's IP. It happens all the time. If a bunch of people all say 'yes' and get together to publish theiur works, and somone later on disputes their right to do so, or to have included an article, image or advert, that does not mean the product ever was illegal. It only means that the product has a disputed IP infringement, and could be found to have infringed on someone elses IP at some later date.

Let's face it, base on that rationalle, every person on this forum has knowing bought and used illegal mobile phones. And everyone is willingly buying and supporting stolen software IP. We all know that every single mobile phone manufacturer, and every single OS publishers, has used, uses, and continues to use disputed IP from other companies.

Are we not saying that morally we should not buy mobile phones or use computer operating systems? Or is it okay to trust that the companies concerned have paid due diligence to the IP owners' rights? And where is the difference if you aregue in favour of supporting one form of IP infringement but not another?


~Scathaigh~
~Lord Nobody~

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:03 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:Let's face it, base on that rationalle, every person on this forum has knowing bought and used illegal mobile phones.


I have never bought or owned a cell phone and have only ever used one less than a dozen times - I for one do not want to be in contact 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week.  And the impact on always-connected kids is devastating.  It would be handy to have in case of emergencies but the plans offered in Canada are crap and I have never bothered to spend the time to figure out which one is best - but that is a whole other issue.  

The OS issues are all big money claims so will get settled in court and settlements paid out so in the end it will get taken care of.  But I'll agree that I'm sure everybody in some form is using something (knowingly or not) that infringes on someone else's copyright.  The main difference is scale and personal opinion on who you think it is okay to screw on the copyright breach.  I don't like to see anyone in the hobby, getting screwed like this even if they are a big fish in the pond - others have stated they disagree.

 WWW  


Verbose Collector

Posts: 1661
Joined: Sep 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Portown

Post Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:34 pm 
 

FormCritic wrote:
To be clear:  Every article and adventure submitted by freelancers and published by TSR was contract work for hire.

TSR made clear to writers that they did this in order to protect their proprietary control of the game and avoid complications for re-prints. Their emphasis was on control of the game and use of material from any one publication in another publication.  So, for instance, a monster, magic item, character or spell  from a magazine article could be used by TSR in a book or another module. They paid a fairly generous per-word price for all submissions, and they offered flat rate terms for editing work.


This is true for later on, but originally TSR only purchased "first" publication rights for Dragon magazine articles. Lew Pulsipher stopped submitting to Dragon when they required signing over "full" publication rights. He discusses this on his website here.

Pulsipher wrote:I stopped writing for The Dragon when they insisted on buying all rights to articles. That is, they wanted to pay me once, and thereafter I would not own my work, they would. No self-respecting writer will do this; often material can be used again later, perhaps even make money again later ... "Real writers don't sell all rights." Instead, they sell first world serial rights, a one-time right to use the material.


According to the DragonDex, Pulsipher had 20+ articles in Dragon. Most are in the 60s-70s range, with the last three being in issues 81, 89 and 97. So the cross-over from first to full publication rights prob happened sometime between issues 80-100 (~1984-1985). I do not know, but if I had to guess the problem with the Dragon archive arose from the early articles where they had only purchased "first" publication rights. TSR may have considered the Dragon archive to be a continuation of those "first" publication rights (sort of like just printing more copies of the original magazine) but the original authors did not agree because the articles were now being published in a different format (electronic).

BTW, a few weeks ago on his blog Lew indicated he is going to republish his early gaming articles:

I've decided to self-publish in electronic formats three (or more) books that are, for the most part, reprints of material I've written for magazines and the Web.

One will be RPG material, including everything from Dragon and White Dwarf as well as other magazines (I always sold only First World Serial Rights back then; in fact, I stopped writing for Dragon when they required all rights).  It will also include character classes I've used in my own First Edition AD&D campaigns since then.  I'll have to decide whether to include the "D&D Army" rules that I devised and used, as well.


Zenopus Archives website & blog: Exploring the Underworld of Holmes Basic D&D. Holmes Ref: Reference Sheets for Holmes Basic Referees, also compatible with OD&D plus the Greyhawk supplement

 WWW  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2160
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: Far Harad, Texas

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:40 am 
 

Mars wrote:I don't see any reason why a company or family that created icons such as Mickey Mouse and that are actively using them should not continue to be the ones to control the direction that the character takes.


Because without limits, IP law would overwhelm freedom of speech. Every technology or phrase of language or expression of art may be traced back to some kind of antecedent. If every concept from the beginning of time is assigned to an owner based on inheritance, no one could say or do anything without violating someone else's property rights.

The Mickey Mouse legislation applied not only to Disney but to everyone. Publishers of old, public-domain reprints suddenly found themselves beholden to newly enfranchised owners. Many went out of business, while reprints of old works became harder to find (thanks, magic-of-the-marketplace).

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 17, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:04 am 
 

Mars wrote:
This is a bit of strange opinion.  The arguments so far for PDFing everything etc is to update laws from the past to deal with modern society.  Now you are arguing to keep things as they were.  The same goes for copyright extension on characters like Mickey Mouse.  In the course of our history there has never been a character with such worldwide appeal, still actively being used, that others would benefit millions from at the expense of the creating company.


You're still making an exception for Mickey Mouse and just Mickey Mouse, based on how Disney's lawyer's paid off politicians.  Why then not make exceptions for similarly beloved characters like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Bugs Bunny, you could go on and on. As Sauro says, where then does it stop?  Pretty soon copyright IP would simply overwhelm to the extent that nothing would be "original" anymore, based on who can pony up the most cash.  Ten generations later companies that had no connection to the original creator would continue making money based on their own idea of the "best interest". So much for Freedom of Speech at that point.  

Personally, what I would like to see is a distinction between companies actively using their IP and those that don't and lower the time period to which it gets released if you are not "active".  I don't see any reason why a company or family that created icons such as Mickey Mouse and that are actively using them should not continue to be the ones to control the direction that the character takes.  Disney has the best intentions of keeping Mickey Mouse pure as a family character because to them it means money.  What happens if Mickey is release to the public domain?  You get Mickey porn, you'll have decals with Mickey Mouse peeing on a Ford or Dodge or Chevy logo for the back window of your truck (like Calvin & Hobbes characters now).  The innocence of the character is destroyed because people who want a free ride to make some money will be allowed to do it.  The "American dream" used to be to start from scratch, work hard and make a good living to support your family.  Now it seems like more people would prefer someone else to do all the dirty work and then make money on the backs of others.


First, let me point out the Calvin and Hobbes logos are illegal...they have never been authorized in any way. And since when do porn merchants obey laws?  You can find blackmarket comics from the 70's with Archie and the gang messing with each other, Little Abner and his gang doing the same, etc (there are probably more but these are the only two I've ever seen).  And frankly, life plus 75 years is plenty enough time to get filthy rich off a product and collect a shit ton of money, enough to enrich your grandchildren's grandchildren.  And besides, who says the company that ends up owning the character has the character's best interest at heart?  Disney has been accused of lots of crap; Walt's own son left the company when Eisner was running it into the ground (so much for being a family business anymore). Another example: Lester Dent created Doc Savage; however, it was work for hire, and eventually the assets of Street and Smith were acquired by Conde Nast publishing. Did Conde Nast have the character's best intentions at heart when they refused to sell rights to Doc (and The Shadow, for that matter) for almost two decades because no one wanted to pay a million dollars for the rights?  Luckily, both characters (as well as other pulp characters like The Spider) have fallen into public domain and now, finally, another generation can actually purchase reprints of the original pulps. Imagine Conde Nast holding the publication rights to these for another 45 years with no intention of reprinting them or allowing anyone else to do so either.  And that's just one example.
         
Again as Ian said, I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive (and enjoyed same) totally unaware it is very much an illegal product, not imagining that TSR would not exercise due diligence in compensating copyright holders. If a digital or pdf or CD copy of TS became available, I would purchase same with the hope that by offering it for sale the publisher has done their job.


The main difference here is that TSR did it without really knowing what they were doing was wrong - possibly only one previous similar case (National Geographic photographic images).  With the TS! archive we now have the TSR example where they paid out the settlement and also White Dwarf, a UK example, where they felt they couldn't release their product because of the copyright issues.  It seems here that individuals are trying to find workarounds in copyright law to dismiss these examples where the large companies themselves who have lawyers on staff probably specializing in this area couldn't.  So, even if Ian created this product believing it to be okay, you have to know that it's most likely an illegal product.  You can't just be naive and pass the buck off to Ian when you know of these other cases that exist.


You are giving TSR (who had access, presumably, to superior legal advice and knowledge than Ian) the benefit of the doubt, but if Ian publishes anything it must be illegal. I don't know why I have to assume Ian's product would be illegal just because you have worked out a little scenario in your mind where it is so no matter what he does.  Just because you said so, and frankly from these discussions here I think that's just your opinion (and you are welcome to it)  not backed up with any sort of solid legal expertise, but I find your stand on most of these issues is purely speculation and supposition.  I really don't think your examples or positions are convincing and I disagree with them wholeheartedly in most cases.  So we are apparently not going to agree on this issue. I think the best thing would be if you didn't purchase any product that Ian puts out at any point due to your own reservations, nor any NTRPG con related merchandise just in case we missed something here or there, and let those of us who want to purchase or publish this product go ahead and do so, and unless you have some kind of solid evidence this is illegal and can get the project shut down, you should be more discerning about who you call despicable and dishonest. I don't even see who you are fighting for at this point as it doesn't appear to be a real person, unless it's some sort of nebulous concept.  I will support Ian's project and any similar reprinting projects 100% unless proven otherwise they are totally illegal, and I don't apologize for this stand.

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 315
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Last Visit: Jul 04, 2020

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:46 am 
 

Hi,

I do know my friends in the UK RPG publishing industry were extremely unhappy with what Ian was doing.

But then, they dont make a huge amount of money, and any "potential stealing" of future revenue would make them unhappy.

Cheers,
KAL


.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6425
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:57 am 
 

Versimilitude wrote:Hi,

I do know my friends in the UK RPG publishing industry were extremely unhappy with what Ian was doing.

But then, they dont make a huge amount of money, and any "potential stealing" of future revenue would make them unhappy.

Cheers,
KAL

Who? And I would only imagine 'stealing' occurs when you take something without the author's permission? Without the author's permission, or permission from the authors' designated agent in law, I would not be intending to do anything. Are they also concerned when when they send something to their printers? Or do they give permission for that printing to occur and see it as different if another company prints in a different manner? I don't quite get why companies see other publishers products as a threat, but I suppose if they are finding it hard to produce products people want to buy in the current market, anyone who is able to sell product is a threat to them.

The whole problem in the UK is that publishers refuse to publish in a user friendly manner. They don't get that they have to sell the buyer what he wants to buy, at the correct price and at a suitable quality in order to be successfull. For too long companies (particularly in the UK) have been publishing low quality sh!t written by unimaginative cannon fodder, and editted and typeset by some of the most illiterate and poorly educated publishing staff they can find.

The games industry has been stagnent in the UK for more than a decade now, with practically zero emerging tallent. Wereas, in the US you have writers and publishers identifying tallent in one another and collaborating pretty successfully to bring products to market at a profit.

So, I suppose if someone from the past who has been a success, wants to publish a product again and profit from the work they did in the 80's, that's gonna p!ss off a lot of struggling dullards who just don't understand why some authors succeed when they seem to spend their lives banging their heads against a wall, living one paycheck to the next, in search of that penny drop moment that may very well never happen for them.

It'll take something special for the UK games industry to emerge from its mire, but I suspect there are a lot of buyers out there willing to look back at the old days and buy those gems if the IP owners can be helped to polish them up and present them in a sparkly new package.

Retarding the market will always kill an industry if those involved cannot learn about new technology and don't have the brains or the balls to face the future.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:28 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:You're still making an exception for Mickey Mouse and just Mickey Mouse, based on how Disney's lawyer's paid off politicians. Why then not make exceptions for similarly beloved characters like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Bugs Bunny, you could go on and on. As Sauro says, where then does it stop? Pretty soon copyright IP would simply overwhelm to the extent that nothing would be "original" anymore, based on who can pony up the most cash.


No I'm not making an exception for MM.  If these other characters have been in active use by their copyright holders then they should be covered too.  Just so I'm clear on your reasons why someone else should be able to profit off the work of others, these are your reasons:

1) You don't like how your government works.
2) The creator's grandchild/great grandchild/great great grandchild is too far removed from their relative that they should have no rights to their family heritage.
3) When a company changes owners, it should lose rights to its IP.
4) The company has made enough money so others should be able to take their work and profit from it without remuneration of the expense that it cost to create/develop/market the work.
5) If you can't think of anything original so should be able to use/profit from existing characters/work.

Badmike wrote:Ten generations later companies that had no connection to the original creator would continue making money based on their own idea of the "best interest". So much for Freedom of Speech at that point.


Yep, what a novel idea.  When you buy a company and all of its assets, you now get the right to decide what to do with those assets that you paid for.  I know, completely unfathomable.  I can't say I know all the intricacies of "Freedom of Speech in the US" but could you clip out the part of the constitution that states you have the right to take and use someone else's work without compensation?

Badmike wrote:First, let me point out the Calvin and Hobbes logos are illegal...they have never been authorized in any way


Thanks for furthering my point.  Is this done for "historical preservation" or "the good of the brand" or "to get it out there for the fans"?  The majority of people who oppose stricter copyright laws are the greedy bastards who want something for nothing - the leeches of society.  The guys who want to make a quick buck by taking someone else's work without compensating them.  Think about what happens if MM is released?  What happens to the value of the Disney company?  It plummets.  Disney is doing everything that it legally should be doing to protect their business.    

Badmike wrote:And besides, who says the company that ends up owning the character has the character's best interest at heart?


Who says every fan, or Joe Blow on the street that wants to pump out merchandise has the "best interest" at heart?  You are not going to get a consensus on who has the "best interest" so who should decide what happens?  How about the people who spent the money to create/develop/market?  If they want to screw it up then its their right to do so.  If they want to take the character/work in a different direction than the fans want, they should be allowed to do so.

Badmike wrote:Did Conde Nast have the character's best intentions at heart when they refused to sell rights to Doc (and The Shadow, for that matter) for almost two decades because no one wanted to pay a million dollars for the rights? Luckily, both characters (as well as other pulp characters like The Spider) have fallen into public domain and now, finally, another generation can actually purchase reprints of the original pulps.


As I said earlier:

Mars wrote:and lower the time period to which it gets released if you are not "active" (in using the copyright character).


Again thanks for supporting my point.  These characters were not being actively used and would have fallen into the public domain earlier under what I proposed.  This is very different from a company that is actively using the character.

BadMike wrote:You are giving TSR (who had access, presumably, to superior legal advice and knowledge than Ian) the benefit of the doubt, but if Ian publishes anything it must be illegal.


I find you do a lot of double talk.

BadMike wrote:I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive totally unaware it is very much an illegal product


Do you believe it was an illegal product when it was released or not?  This was your statement a couple message ago.  You know that the problem was with getting permission from all the authors/artists or producing the contracts that show TSR had the rights and changing the format from print to electronic.  Ian has been clear on the process he has followed:

1) Did all of the authors/artists die over 75 years ago?  NO
2) Did Ian get the permission from all the authors/artists involved to use their work? NO
3) Can Beast Entz produce the contracts that show they have permission to use the works of others?  NO
4) Did Ian get permission from the authors/artists to change the format of their work from print to electronic? NO

So let me summarize your opinion:
*  YOU believe the TSR Dragon Magazine Archive was illegal when it was released, and YOU know what the problems with it were.
* YOU know Ian has not resolved any of those problems.
* If Ian produces the product YOU will believe unquestioningly that it is a legal product.

I can't argue with "head in the sand" logic.  I'm not asking you to believe me or Ian or Games Workshop lawyers or TSR lawyers.  I'm asking for a common sense opinion on what you believe.

BadMike wrote:I think that's just your opinion (and you are welcome to it) not backed up with any sort of solid legal expertise, but I find your stand on most of these issues is purely speculation and supposition. I really don't think your examples or positions are convincing and I disagree with them wholeheartedly in most cases.


The lure of profit clouds many peoples vision of common sense.

BadMike wrote:I think the best thing would be if you didn't purchase any product that Ian puts out.


Thanks for your concern for my well being but unfortunately, I'm hoping to get some other projects underway with Ian.

BadMike wrote:nor any NTRPG con related merchandise just in case we missed something here


Glad my $400+ of support could help you guys out in the con's infancy. Now that its up and going I guess its easy to be kicked aside.  No worries, I probably can't afford the inflation on NTRPG merchandise this year ($10 first year, $20 second year, $30 this year?)

BadMike wrote:let those of us who want to purchase or publish this product go ahead and do so, and unless you have some kind of solid evidence this is illegal and can get the project shut down, you should be more discerning about who you call despicable and dishonest.


Yes, yes "at any cost" for "historical preservation" with "100 copies at $20 a pop" for the "good of the hobby" ;)

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:29 pm 
 

Badmike wrote: I will support Ian's project and any similar reprinting projects 100% unless proven otherwise they are totally illegal, and I don't apologize for this stand.


One simple question.  If Ian released this project today, would you buy it?

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 161
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Last Visit: Feb 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:07 pm 
 

Any sane person would

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6425
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:09 pm 
 

Mars wrote:1) Did all of the authors/artists die over 75 years ago?  NO
2) Did Ian get the permission from all the authors/artists involved to use their work? NO
3) Can Beast Entz produce the contracts that show they have permission to use the works of others?  NO
4) Did Ian get permission from the authors/artists to change the format of their work from print to electronic? NO

You're changing the goalposts of the arguement here, by virtue of a single time lapse. When this thread was first started, and certainly when I first began work on putting together the percieved product, all rights remained with the principle owner of Beast Enterprises Limited (With Basil Barrett, and with Simon Forrest if, and only if, Basil confirmed his rights to the works.

At the initial time of proposal, Basil had a window of opportunity when he could have okayed a project and or developed a project on his own, and that has now elapsed. Ergo, project died with no publication.

If you had asked the same questions at the time if inseption, Basil's okay, a contract of some form giving the goahead, would have been all that was required under UK law. There is clearly a difference between a project that was in developement then (and it's legality) and a dead project now. Arguing over a dead project that has been killed by the rights holder is fairly moot IMO.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:50 pm 
 

There are 2 things going on at once here.  One is Ian's project and another is a general argument on requirements for republishing someone else's work.

if, Basil confirmed his rights to the works.


That is a very big IF and a very difficult thing to hang on him.

nn wrote:Any sane person would


And since Ian stated he didn't get permission to do it, you know you are buying something illegal - so get it now before someone catches up with him! :)

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6425
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:38 pm 
 

Mars wrote:That is a very big IF and a very difficult thing to hang on him.

Not really. If you go to someone and ask them for permission to republish a product they published in the past, and you ask them if they have the rights to grant that permission, and what terms they would apply to such permission, and for what fee/percentage; They either say, "Yes, and these are my terms and conditions." Or, "No, I cannot or will not give you permission." Its really that simple. In this case Basil said, "No", but not in so many words, and that is why there is no TS! Archive.

But, hypothetically speaking, if Basil had said, "Yes, I have the rights and I give you permission, and here are my terms and this is my price." I'd have costed the project, determined whether it was viable or not, and proceeded on that basis. I was, and still am, prepared to accept that when I speak with an author about their works (or in this case an author/publisher), I am prepared to accept their statements as truthful in regard to their rights to act and administer their own works, and those to whom they are the designated agent, for the given copyright term.

I don't see any conflict or moral dilema here at all.

Now, Basil he say 'no' and 25 years have elapsed, so his 'yes' would now only cover his own penned works and unattributed works which he originally published. So the whole thing is a little messier now, but at the time this project was conceived, it was a far simpler case.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2160
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: Far Harad, Texas

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:49 pm 
 

Mars wrote:could you clip out the part of the constitution that states you have the right to take and use someone else's work without compensation?


'Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."'


The key phrase being "for limited Times," which originally was just a few years for an author's copyright.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6093
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:50 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:They either say, "Yes, and these are my terms and conditions." Or, "No, I cannot or will not give you permission." Its really that simple. In this case Basil said, "No", but not in so many words, and that is why there is no TS! Archive..


From your standpoint it is easy.  From Basil's it is not - I don't think he knows if he has the right to give permission for other people's work or not or to change the format etc.  He is someone who was (still is?) in the industry and throwing around copyright permission which is questionable is not something he is likely to do as easily as some here.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6425
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:00 pm 
 

Mars wrote:From your standpoint it is easy.  From Basil's it is not - I don't think he knows if he has the right to give permission for other people's work or not or to change the format etc.  He is someone who was (still is?) in the industry and throwing around copyright permission which is questionable is not something he is likely to do as easily as some here.

Which no doubt is why he refused to permit the project to go ahead. But of all the people I have been in contact with while trying to get something off the ground, he seems to know more than most where his rights lay (hense the unequivical, 'no, not ever' when it came to the CDM boxed sets). I trust he weighed up his rights and responsibilities and made the correct decision, and I'll respect that decision.

That said, if someone comes to me and says, "I've bought myself a copy of TS! 5, could I employ you as to produce a PDF backup copy for my own personal use, I'd have to see how that sits with UK Copyright Law, and that is something none of the author's or publishers have a right to stop. We are permitted to copy magazines and books for our own use, to play with and to protect out investments.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 11 of 15123 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12131415