One would have to assume though that it is only worthwhile to put copyright notices on items that you actually need to/want to protect. Q&A answers would not seem to qualify (at any reasonable level, at least).
>Issaries
> >retains rights to the "session" with Greg, but the person that paid for
> >the session doesn't?
>
> In other words, normal copyright laws are followed. If you receive
> a letter from someone, you do not normally receive copyright to the
> contents. Its an analagous situation. If you have a conversation with
> someone, that does not give you a general right to redistribute the
> contents of that conversation. That you have paid for it is unusual, but
> does not change the fundamentals. If you don't think the benefit is worth
> it, don't invest.
So your argument is that copyrighting a conversation falls under the category of "normal"? Let's see, by your reasoning, once I buy a $1 answer at the next Gloranthan Lore auction, I cannot tell anyone what Greg said in response, because it's a copyright violation. Alright, I'm being absurd here, but no more absurd than the notion that these sessions could not/should not be publishable. It's like an interview, from my perspective. You're sure as heck paying enough for it...
> And yes, the cost benefits do not really weight up. Thats because
> they are trying to raise money. Through donations. And then sweetening the
> donation with a few benefits. Its simple really. If you don't like it,
> remain a customer.
I believe I already stated my intentions to do just that...as for the cost benefits, you're saying they don't add up as if it's ex cathedra; however, Issaries is not portraying it the way you're reporting it (yet somehow it's supposedly understood by all?). That's the issue. Company spokemen have already pointed out to us how these benefits are worth *more* than the donations tendered.
The bottom line seems to be that Issaries wants it all: money to start up a new product line, little or no personal or corporate risk for them, all incidental costs covered by the "investor", rights to change and/or control every benefit they're offering to the N-th degree, etc. I consider this unreasonable; and if enough people feel the same way, then this effort is futile. As I said before, I don't want this effort to be futile, so I'm urging Issaries to evaluate where things stand by posting concerns. I guess I'm just a altruist :)...
> >the primary reason Issaries was split into its own company
> >was to
> >insulate everyone (but the loyal fans) from the highly risky strategy
> >you're undertaking.
>
> The primary reason it was split into its own company was, simply to
> keep Glorantha publications and Chaosium separate. It works both ways -
> Issaries is insulated from Chaosiums risks as well as the other way round.
> Its separate so Glorantha is not the same business as Lovecraft book
> publishing, Arthurian RPGs, CCGs, Wizards Attic or all the other Chaosium
> stuff. Sounds fine and sensible to me.
Fine and sensible if you're on the Issaries side of the deal, perhaps. Dangerously risky if you're contributing a Rune Master or Hero level donation.
As for Issaries needing to be insulated from Chaosium's risks...let's try to remain serious here, shall we?
Powered by hypermail