RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Why...

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_8HVB-HEqxdUpkmU5GIxG0FD-SyW-0OT3XpYJM_A3WYAKmswI92ZPel5B7vqcZ5N4>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:22:20 -0700 (PDT)


Jane:

> 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!

Let me try an anlogy: The words are like a "metes and bounds" description of a fence line. The fence runs from the creek edge at the watrerfall to the old tree stump, with the dirt mound outside and the bluff on the inside, etc. There are always going to be more words spent on the stuff that is near the fence-line than the stuff that is well within it.

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

Yes. :-)

> 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....

Speaking from personal experience, the delay is not due to Greg or Stephen. :-(

> 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.

It would never end that way. The scenario to worry about is that Issaries publishes a dribble, UW publishes a dribble, Rick publishes a dribble, etc. I think we are better off having a thriving Issaries putting out official Glorantha stuff -- nothing against our good friends at UW.

> 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.

He has a lot of irons in the fire. He is not a businessman. He is hare-brained on occasion. I just ask that you not judge too harshly. I think he is well-intentioned, just administratively incompetent sometimes.

> > You seem to discount years of permissiveness.
>
> That's a different topic.

I agree it is. But you seem to be conflating what the document must say to respond to ptential legal problems with what he will do in response to real situtions. The best evidence of what he will do in practice is not what the legal document permits, but what he has actually done in the past.

> What's happening NOW, not in the past,

I would say that the past is the best predictor of the future.

> *appears* to be a legalistic (yes, it is) document,

Yes, it is.

> in aggressive tones (yes, by the standards of
> normal humans reading normal English, it is),

It is not normal English. It is a legal document. How many people say "shall" that often in a day?

> whose only APPARENT target is the fan base
> who've been supporting Glorantha (and to some
> extent Issaries) for decades.

Fiddle-de-dee. What possible motive would he have to target the fans? Now compare that to what possible motive he might have to prevent future legal problems?

> > 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!

Fair enough. Just don't forget that they are trying to make this a business.

> > 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.

It was certainly the one I was writing about, among the several that John raised.

> 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.

Look back at John's email and my responses. He first proposed a charter for customers and authors. I responded to them separately, saying that a charter for customers was a stupid idea and that the "charter" for authors was whatever separate agreement was struck between the author and Issaries, which would be impossible to make uniform and simple because each author woud have different desires -- from simple credit to cash payment. I would reiterate that.

> 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?

People have been militating for the policy to be published for months. The policy does handle a lot of grey area very sensitively. I do not think it was blindingly obvious which parts would need to be explained. In particular, I am very surprised at the level of distrust expressed towards Issaries in areas concernign things like the rule that you have to submit materials that may be formally published to Issaries and give Issaries first bite at the apple.

> > 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?

It does not. I was drawing an anlogy to open source licenses. (Apparently not very well.) The Fan Policy treatment of IDEAS is like an open source license treatment of WORKS. Did I clarify?

> 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."

Hm. I don't see this in the fan policy. Can you give me a section reference?

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!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/            

Powered by hypermail