I would hope nobody gets confused about this being an opinion; that's why I said "my contention". The problem with what you said about the publication "line" is that while you are correct about the MZB example, that is only because there is a very definite line between "talking" about a world and publishing a short story about it. This demarkation does not exist in RPGs, where people don't sit around and talk about it; they play (generally, at least). As Michael Morrison pointed out, the definition of what constitutes "published" in RPGs is very vague. By the MZB example you gave, you would seem to be implying that a GM is in copyright violation the moment they hand their scenario to another GM to run; but, RPGs have allowed this practice to go on for 20 years, and have effectively given up the right to prosecute on this basis. So when does distribution from GM to GM become "publication"? If I put it on the web for my friends to download, it that "published"? What if I make a statement on that web site that implies that anyone who wishes to should download it? It that case different? What if I don't allow download from the web, but merely state on a web page that a scenario is available to interested parties if they mail me? Is that a different case?
Anyway, enough rheatorical questions...my point is that this area is very grey.
> The whole issue seems pretty nonsensical to me in any case. Chaosium
> has very liberal policies regarding web sites and periodicals for
> Glorantha, and simply requires approval of non-periodical
> publications. You'll be hard pressed to find another professional game
> in the industry so open about others publishing in its world.
>
> As one other quick comment: you're wrong in saying that Chaosium is
> applying its approval standard irregularly to its favorite
> publications. Only one publication meets the 2/year requirement right
> now: ToTRM, and that only just barely. It's expected that Trade Talk
> will as well when it gets rolling. The Book of Drastic Resolutions
> most definitely does not, and indeed the second issue required
> approval before it went to press.
I believe that I took great pains to avoid saying that Chaosium is currently applying double standards since I have no details of such. I merely pointed out the potential of it based on the one paragraph policy Chaosium released on the subject.
> With that said, this is another topic where I say: can we *please*
> move this off the Digest. Feel free to have a last word if you'd like
> Brian, but if you have a genuine concern you'd do much better to raise
> it with Rob Heinsoo at Chaosium. He is available via email at
> robmh_at_chaosium.com. If you'd prefer to send a more official letter,
Thanks, I had already planned to do so. As I said when I started this thread awhile back, though, I merely feel that this area is worthy of discussion. Now that we've had one, I'd be happy to take it off the digest; although I reserve the right to reply to interesting points made :).
> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 97 05:32:23 -0400
> From: "Peter Donald" <neurolab_at_psyc.queensu.ca>
> Subject: Legalities redux
>
> Granted that I'm not a big fan of first-person shooters, and
> granted I could be wrong on this, but since when does Quake *require*
> you to distribute derivative material in order to play the game?
Sorry, rephrase that section to say something like: "Mike, I believe Quake is an even closer-to-home example. Getting back to RQ, ...". I was referring the RQ on everything after the first sentence. I'll also point out here that I accidently repeated myself in my first post and I also said "for profit" when I meant "not for profit" in another post. See what happens when you try to hurry up and reply to issues after a hiatus :).
>That's my point. RPGs have always encapsulated worlds within them >
> As a sometime owner of the original Dungeons & Dragons
> (three-book box edition), 1st editions ofTraveller and Tunnels &
> Trolls, and assorted other pre-Dawn RPG relics, I can assure you that
> this is by no means the case. Indeed, even some modern stuff (GURPS
> Basic, frexample) doesn't encapsulate a world.
A semantics issue. Saying "RPGs have always..." is not the same as saying "All RPGs have always...". I have the plenty of the old stuff, too, thanks. The point is that during the history of RPGs, many, if not most, encapsulate worlds.
> About the only way this issue is ever going to be resolved is
> if somebody with *very* deep pockets and a good team of intellectual
> property lawyers publishes a Blatant Derived Work, gets sued and wins
> in court (emphasis here on *wins in court* - yet another out of court
> settlement either way wouldn't be worth much). Win or lose, such a
> person would probably gain the neverending gratitude of many RPGing
> 'netizens (hell, rec.games.frp.dnd's volume alone would drop by half if
> the Never-ending Copyright Flamewar were finally resolved one way or
> another).
I was unaware that this issue was being so tortured in another forum. For those of you here who also read that stuff, I apologize for what must be re-hashing, but I also take some comfort from the fact that there are obviously lots of people who feel this issue for RPGs as a whole is not a clear cut issue.
Since I'm now planning to close out this issue (for my part) except for the occasional counterpoint where needed, let me restate what I said in my original message weeks ago that started this thread: just because I may disagree with a handful of policies or business decisions or whatever regarding RQ/Glorantha does not diminish my feelings for Runequest or Glorantha, nor my admiration of those who have dedicated their efforts to expanding and improving this RPG...
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #17
Powered by hypermail