RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Why...

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_pEwvfcfEhYDe11BPkcSZjNAEj-6cG6U50mnl6qA2NfQ-QrqC5AlBam61Aen3w>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:03:28 +0100

> > > Do you think they really give a damn about someone
> > > (frex) creating game aids and distributing them via a
> mail list to
> > > their players? No, of course not. But they do care
> about someone
> > > creating game aids and building a business out of
> distributing them
> > > via a mail list.
> >
> > Then why is their Policy apparently aimed mainly at the former?
>
> I don't think it is "aimed" at the former.

Well, it spends a lot more words on the former than on the latter. This would seem to be "aim". Then again, it may because the words spent on the latter almost boil down to "you can't", which does take less space!

> > > 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,...
> seem to be doing a pretty fine job of it from where I'm sitting.

> They did indeed. But there can only be one.

There can?

> 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.

But it looks far more as if they're got far more material than they've got the resources to publish? Just look at the amount of stuff currently "in the queue" - and almost all of it delayed, late....

And, if the logic were as you describe, and we ended up with the UW producing books and Issaries not - why should the end consumer be worried? All it means is that the people who produce the best products "win". Fine. Not that I'm convinced there's a conpetition - what we actually do is buy both, and wish there was more coming out to buy.

> > 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?

Like us all...

But since that problem had been pointed out to them long ago, why wasn't it fixed then? When I pointed it out to Greg this time, and wasn't going to sign until it was sorted, I got a "fixed" version within a few hours. It wasn't hard, it didn't take long. And I didn't need legal expertise, or charge $250 an hour, to point it out.

> > > 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.

That's a different topic. What's happening NOW, not in the past, *appears* to be a legalistic (yes, it is) document, in aggressive tones (yes, by the standards of normal humans reading normal English, it is), whose only APPARENT target is the fan base who've been supporting Glorantha (and to some extent Issaries) for decades. I'll take your word for it that the legalisms are necessary, and that the invisible enemy does in fact exist, but the public presentation hasn't been "we're really sorry to have to do this and we know most of you lovely people wouldn't dream of taking advantage anyway but...". Private, yes. But private doesn't help.

> > 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.

The business side isn't the problem I was looking at, it's the basic social interaction of keeping friends. Put HP into improving relationships, not into buying them off as if they were flaws. Especially when you're as dependent on those relationships as Issaries is!

> > 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.

Probably the main one being the difference in the use of the word "customer".

> 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.

No, that isn't the relationship between me/us and Issaries under discussion here. We're looking at the relationship where we, the fan base, write materials, not Issaries. And then they get published (somehow). And if anyone makes any money out of it at all, it's Issaries (since no-one else is trying to do more than break even!). So you using the word "customer" to describe that relationship, in either direction, is *very* odd.

> > > 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?

But if that document could have been produced, for free or even for cheap, by a superbly helpful and friendly Jeff (see what I mean about Issaries being dependent on Relationships?) why didn't they realise it was needed back when they started all this, and ask him nicely back then? Was the need not blindingly obvious enough?

> > 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.

I thought you just said that it *doesn't* ask me to give up my rights of authorship?

As far as I can see this does appear to be the case. Mainly. The tricky bit is this phrase, from the License:

"Issaries owns all right, title, and interest in and to the Proprietary Material, and to any material derived from or incorporating the Proprietary Material."

The second part. Given that almost anything worth publishing in any format about Glorantha will be derivative, that gives them "all right, title, and interest in and to" just about anything we produce. For me, that isn't a serious problem (though it means if a fanzine or a con fund-raiser asks to use something off my website, I can't give them permission, because I no longer own it!). I'll think harder before putting stories on-line, though. They'll need approval anyway, but I'm still not sure I want to give up copyright on major stuff.            

Powered by hypermail