Cows and calves, yet again...

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:48:42 +0100 (BST)


Apologies for yet another sojourn down this perennial off-topic path, I can only use the tried and tested "forced to respond" excuse.

BTW, in the face of some (understandable) complaints, I must say once more that the Official Response has been very good, and I can only hope that it continues in that vein. Once the entire list buys a piece of Issaries Inc, I hope the shareholders support this liberal policy! ;-)

David Dunham:
> But you're depriving the authors of the ability to sell it in the future.

Not necessarily, as has been pointed out several times in this discussion.

> I make my living off of intellectual property, so perhaps this is overly
> near and dear to my heart, but authors make a small enough amount as it is
> -- don't make it any harder on them.

Intellectual property and the computer biz is one of those Don't Get Me Started issues, but at least it's seldom the case that the vendor will effectively refuse to take your dosh, for something for which there's palpable demand. Though maybe this is something to do with lack of demand for 15-to-20-year old product...

> I concede it's very tempting, but consider this (in Pendragon terms) as an
> opposed roll of Love (Glorantha) vs Honor. I'd rather get the experience
> check in Honor, myself.

Hrmph. Honour is one of the more problematic virtues in Pendragon in its exact interpretation, and attempting to apply it glibly in the post-modern present is a little speculative, to put it mildly. Attempting to reverse-engineer Honour (or Morality) from Observe (Legalism) or Love (Ugly Commercial Reality) especially so.

For those of you who want to make this in a geas-keeping game, however, consider the following alternative: if the circumstance of being "forced" to copy something OOP arises, undertake to buy it anyway "when" it gets reprinted. If everyone did this scrupulously and zealously, the "demand for reprints argument" would be (further) negated. Doesn't make it any less illegal, obviously.

By the same token, resolving the same thing if you're just spent $150 on it in an auction might not be a bad idea either... And of course, don't it in France, as that'd be illegal, it seems (and hence immoral?).

> > Auroch

> I think of these as monster cows, mightier than even a Holstein

I think of 'em as being, well, aurochs, myself.

BTW, since we've had to suffer that hardy perennial of screeds of messages providing the "correct" english plural of an east asian word (d'oh), I'm compelled to point out to (original poster) that the singular of "aurochs" is "aurochs".

Simon Phipp:
> > As far as I know, you are permitted to photocopy a certain percentage of
> > a book for personal use.

I don't think this is necessarily your _right_ to do this. In the case of a RPG product, doing so is generally OK, but whether this is because this is a copper-bottomed case of "fair use", because the copyright holder has given you implicit (or sometimes explicit, which settles the matter) licence to do so, or simply because if it's a technical breach, it's a harmless and un-cease-and-desist-able one -- is very unclear.

DD again:
> But publication is not fair use!

That's not true. If it were, then doesn't this mailing list count as "publication" too, and hence by that logic the occassional excerpt from products Gloranthan or otherwise is a copyright violation? I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of this, but it seems that the intent of the excerpt is significant in determining fairness (not to mention the length), and both the medium being copied, and the attitude of the copyright holder are _certainly_ significant. (One thing that seems to be particularly slippery is where "fair use" ends, and "implicit licence" begins -- but that's another story...)

Publishing something in its _entirity_, piecewise or otherwise, would clearly be "unfair" use, all right, Morally, as well as legally, IMNSHO. Slainte,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail