RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Why...

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_9FTJXVB0mt6ped9VCDitBQjC_bcZCx4uBZgZzsM6znsCigra6HMP49ynK3E6Tv8w>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:37:15 -0800 (PST)

I don't think it is "aimed" at the former. It has to include the former because (a) the former often transmutes into the latter over time and (b) it reserves the right to decide when a particular situation falls within the latter scenario rather than the former (and this is *really* important: when I, as a lawyer, advise restraint in enforcing our rights, it is because we are unsure whether a court would see things the same way as we do).

> > As should we: we want II to succeed because
> > only II is in the position to build out
> > the lines of materials we all want.
>
> Really? You could have fooled me. The Unspoken
> Word, for instance, (and picking them simply as
> the producers of the first book I grabbed off the
> shelf) seem to be doing a pretty fine job of it
> from where I'm sitting.

They did indeed. But there can only be one. <ahem, sorry> Think about what would happen long term if UW continued to produce materials like the Char-Un, Troll, and Tarshite materials. Eventually, Issaries would find itself constrained on what it would build out either because the geographies that make the best business case have already been written on or because it spends resources on the less-compelling areas, thus accumulating insufficient assets to put out further publications.

> > I think II is only *secondarily* interested
> > in responding to the objections people have
> > raised over the last 12 months.
>
> Like the ones that say "that paragraph is badly
> worded, to have the effect you want you need to
> change it"? And draft 2 of the licence they
> sent me did get it changed.... But after a whole
> YEAR of pratting about, why hadn't it been fixed
> long ago?

I don't know but perhaps because "Issaries" is a couple of guys with day jobs who are having trouble making their own rent?

> > I would flip that around: The basic issue is the
> > conflation or confusion of (a) the legalistic
> > document necessary to counter to predatory
> > pirates that in fact exist with (b) what
> > Issaries will actually do in practice.
>
> Possibly because the legalistic attack (on
> US, remember, as the only visible targets) is
> all that they're making public?

You seem to discount years of permissiveness.

> Sneaking around playing secrets isn't any way
> to be popular. The FAQ needed to be out *first*,
> not as an afterthought.

Yes, but give them a break. They are amateurs at business.

> Interesting. When I was working for an outsourcing
> company, we had a charter that spelt out exactly
> that, in detail. Without it, we'd never have had
> any customers. Why *shouldn't* obligations
> go two ways?

I have worked for outsourcing companies my whole professional career. We wrote contracts that went both ways. There are so many differences that I don't know where to start. The fundamental transaction between you and Issaries is that Issaries spends its resources to write materials that it hopes you like and you get the option to buy them. That is already an unbalanced transaction in your favor. If you really wanted to have Issaries step up to commitments about how they run their business, you should offer some sort of subscription payment to them. Then it would be more like the outsourcing arrangements with which you are familiar: your clients arepaying regularly for your time.

> > First, I believe that what Jeff is working on
> > will be complex. It will just be closer to
> > plain English. I bet it will be long and have
> > lots of examples.
>
> Good. And good for him. So why wasn't it produced
> by Issaries, and out at the same time as the
> legalistic attack?

Because Greg needs his money to pay his rent and lawyers here charge upwards of $250/hour? Seriously, I think he's trying to do the minimum necessary to protect the business he wants to build. He's not the kind of person to want to spend anything on lawyers (wise man).

> > They can sell their rights. They cannot sell
> > yours unless you give them up (assuming you
> > had some in the first place -- what, you
> > expected a lawyer to give an unqualified
> > statement?).
>
> And the licences and policy appear to want us to
> give them up....

To ideas, not works of authorship. To works of authorship, it just asks for a right of first refusal.  For ideas, it is not much different from many open source licenses, which require you to give up your rights to works of authorship in favor of the public; here, it just asks you to give those rights to Issaries.

All IMO.

Chris Lemens

(Not an ad: If you have a little extra money to donate to a good cause, check out http://www.modestneeds.org/.)                 



Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs            

Powered by hypermail