Wormy from Dragon Magazine?
Ray Ciscon
Does anybody remember the comic strip 'Wormy' from Dragon magazine?
Some months it was the best thing in the whole mag.
Was there ever a collection of the Wormy strips published?
If so, is it available anywhere? I'd love to pick up a copy.
Thanks in advance.
--
Ray Ciscon | "Give War a Chance" -- P.J. O'Rourke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Earthdawn | "You cannot enslave a free man. The worst you can do is
ShadowRun | kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Battletech | +++ Fight the Hegemony - Choose Macintosh +++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' (TM) & (c) Hillary Clinton
Threshold Online RPG
In article <rcisconSPAMBEGONE...@dgr-il13-04.ix.netcom.com>, rcisconS...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) wrote:
>Does anybody remember the comic strip 'Wormy' from Dragon magazine?
>Some months it was the best thing in the whole mag.
Heh, That is pretty sad isn't it? But yes, that is true. I agree it got that
way sometimes =(
>Was there ever a collection of the Wormy strips published?
There was at least one collection published.
>If so, is it available anywhere? I'd love to pick up a copy.
I am sorry I am not aware of its location. I hate to suggest this, but have
you tried web searches? I know that is a far fetched suggestion but it might
be worth a shot.
Good luck!
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
BADMIKE3
There was at least one collection published.
>If so, is it available anywhere? I'd love to pick up a copy.
I am sorry I am not aware of its location. I hate to suggest this, but have
you tried web searches? I know that is a far fetched suggestion but it might
be worth a shot.
>>>
I understand that the collection was solicited, but never published. Payment
for a pre-order was returned to at least one guy I used to game with around 10
years ago...
Mike B.
StackMC
Yes, I will back Mike up on this, the mythical collection was never published
and was a subject of much discussion a couple of years back until it was
realized that NO ONE has a copy. There are numerous "I swear I saw a copy"
stories, but I have yet to see a real copy.
Mike
The Dragon's Trove
www.dragontrove.com
Ramhog
In article <199803261501...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sta...@aol.com (StackMC) wrote:
That's a damn shame, too, because I really liked Wormy a lot! I liked his
other work a lot, too, of course. I actually miss seeing his stuff. Ah,
well...
ps- I always thought his designs in Tomb of Horrors were the coolest!
--
-Later, R.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <199803261501...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sta...@aol.com (StackMC) wrote:
>Yes, I will back Mike up on this, the mythical collection was never published
>and was a subject of much discussion a couple of years back until it was
>realized that NO ONE has a copy. There are numerous "I swear I saw a copy"
>stories, but I have yet to see a real copy.
>
>Mike
Wow.
This is too bad. I am pretty surprised they never put it together because it
seems like such an easy project. You just take all the old strips and slap
them together in a book. They would probably have gotten a lot of pre-orders
which would eliminate the risk, and the artwork and stories were good so I
would think it would have sold ok (above and beyond all the pre-orders).
StackMC
>This is too bad. I am pretty surprised they never put it together because it
>seems like such an easy project. You just take all the old strips and slap
>them together in a book. They would probably have gotten a lot of pre-orders
>which would eliminate the risk, and the artwork and stories were good so I
>would think it would have sold ok (above and beyond all the pre-orders).
>
>
I think there were some issues as to getting permissions to reprint the strips.
I am not sure if it was Trampier or TSR who was being the pain in the ass, but
for whatever reason they canned it. I am not sure if the pre-orders would have
guaranteed the production, since if there really was that much pre-order
interest, it would have been produced. The Fineous Treasury didn't have a huge
print run, and it was only a few years ago that Phil and Dixie got reprinted.
I know Snarfquest had a good graphic novel done, but none of them seemed to
have been massively produced, so the profit margin was problem fairly small
when compared to other TSR products.
-Mike
Thomas McCambley
Threshold Online RPG (thre...@counseltech.com) writes:
> In article <rcisconSPAMBEGONE...@dgr-il13-04.ix.netcom.com>, rcisconS...@ix.netcom.com (Ray Ciscon) wrote:
>>Does anybody remember the comic strip 'Wormy' from Dragon magazine?
>>Some months it was the best thing in the whole mag.
>
> Heh, That is pretty sad isn't it? But yes, that is true. I agree it got that
> way sometimes =(
>
>>Was there ever a collection of the Wormy strips published?
>
> There was at least one collection published.
>
>>If so, is it available anywhere? I'd love to pick up a copy.
>
> I am sorry I am not aware of its location. I hate to suggest this, but have
> you tried web searches? I know that is a far fetched suggestion but it might
> be worth a shot.
>
Do a web search for the Yamara web site (I believe it has an io.com
location) on there you will find a fixed link to a site that is putting as
many of the old Wormy cartoons on the web so that i) as many people as
possible can see those fine old strips, and ii) that Dave if he is still
out there will come out of hiding and at least let gamers know for certain
that he is still alive.
Trust me, I came into Wormy late (around ish #72/74 of the Dragon) and I
loved being able to look at some of the earlier strips. I love that crazy
dragon. :^)
Cheers,
Tom McCambley
--
at...@freenet.carleton.ca -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= mcca...@algonquinc.on.ca
Tom McCambley B.Sc (Hons) NCF Babylon 5/Star Wars SIG Guru <*>
Babylon 5 "Zen and the Art of Procrastination" Whovian
Fan at large http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~at850/index.html Gearhead
Sean Reynolds
Thomas McCambley wrote:
> Do a web search for the Yamara web site (I believe it has an io.com
> location) on there you will find a fixed link to a site that is putting as
> many of the old Wormy cartoons on the web
Oh, yeah, THAT's legal....
> so that i) as many people as
> possible can see those fine old strips,
Yeah, because maybe nobody thought that Trampier DIDN'T want those
getting reprinted?
> and ii) that Dave if he is still
> out there will come out of hiding and at least let gamers know for certain
> that he is still alive.
Yeah, to slap a lawsuit on the idiot posting his work.
::sigh::
--
Sean K Reynolds http://home.earthlink.net/~skreyn/
To see how I would rule as a benign despot, see my web page.
"Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man."
- Mercutio
Matthew R Blackwell
On 26 Mar 1998 21:21:48 GMT, sta...@aol.com (StackMC) wrote:
>>This is too bad. I am pretty surprised they never put it together because it
>>seems like such an easy project. You just take all the old strips and slap
>>them together in a book. They would probably have gotten a lot of pre-orders
>>which would eliminate the risk, and the artwork and stories were good so I
>>would think it would have sold ok (above and beyond all the pre-orders).
>>
>>
>
>I think there were some issues as to getting permissions to reprint the strips.
> I am not sure if it was Trampier or TSR who was being the pain in the ass, but
>for whatever reason they canned it.
If I remember correctly, the TSR people lost track of where Trampier
was many years ago, and they can't get in contact with him to even
negotitate for the rights. Dave just disappeared off the face of the
Earth. Was this correct, Mr. Miller?
Ed bryan
Speaking of wormy... Does anyone have a copy of Eye of the Basilisk, board game?
(One of the most funny Wormy scripts, that I remember.)
In article <351b3705...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Thomas McCambley
Sean Reynolds (skreyn@no_spam_please.earthlink.net) writes:
> Thomas McCambley wrote:
>> Do a web search for the Yamara web site (I believe it has an io.com
>> location) on there you will find a fixed link to a site that is putting as
>> many of the old Wormy cartoons on the web
>
> Oh, yeah, THAT's legal....
>
He admits from the start that it is *highly* illegal.
>> so that i) as many people as
>> possible can see those fine old strips,
>
> Yeah, because maybe nobody thought that Trampier DIDN'T want those
> getting reprinted?
I see, have you heard from him lately? Otherwise I think you are trying to
prove a negative here. Although it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't
want the strips published, and that the law by default would defend his
rights by preventing the strips from being published to the web it still
doesn't address the fact that Trampier has disappeared and this is an
attempt to get him out of the woodwork.
>
>> and ii) that Dave if he is still
>> out there will come out of hiding and at least let gamers know for certain
>> that he is still alive.
>
> Yeah, to slap a lawsuit on the idiot posting his work.
That is actually the theory...and personally I can't fault him for
skirting the law. Yes it is illegal, and yes if Trampier is still alive
or someone from his estate finds out he will be in *very* big trouble.
But don't forget, Trampier has virtually fallen off the surface of the
Earth. *Nobody* knows where he is. This is just a very extra-ordinary
means of trying to find this man.
>
> ::sigh::
Don't hassle me with your sighs Chuck.
Sean Reynolds
Thomas McCambley wrote:
> > Oh, yeah, THAT's legal....
> >
>
> He admits from the start that it is *highly* illegal.
Wonderful. I hope this guy doesn't live in my town.
> I see, have you heard from him lately? Otherwise I think you are trying to
> prove a negative here. Although it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't
> want the strips published, and that the law by default would defend his
> rights by preventing the strips from being published to the web it still
> doesn't address the fact that Trampier has disappeared and this is an
> attempt to get him out of the woodwork.
Oh, the old "He's not here to say no, but if he cared, he'd say
something" defense? What if he continues to not respond? What if he
isn't online? Are you going to start killing his relatives next?
> That is actually the theory...and personally I can't fault him for
> skirting the law. Yes it is illegal, and yes if Trampier is still alive
> or someone from his estate finds out he will be in *very* big trouble.
> But don't forget, Trampier has virtually fallen off the surface of the
> Earth. *Nobody* knows where he is. This is just a very extra-ordinary
> means of trying to find this man.
Hmm, wasn't the copyright-violator's intent to "allow as many people as
possible to see his work?"
Threshold Online RPG
In article <351B4C62.417B@no_spam_please.earthlink.net>, skreyn@no_spam_please.earthlink.net wrote:
>> and ii) that Dave if he is still
>> out there will come out of hiding and at least let gamers know for certain
>> that he is still alive.
>
>Yeah, to slap a lawsuit on the idiot posting his work.
Well, that is one way to get him out of hiding =)
Maybe if he sees that he will realize there is demand for it and negotiate
with someone to reprint them.
I'm not saying this is a smart, ethical, wise, etc. method of getting someone
out of hiding, but it would be unique if it worked.
Giles Williams
In article <351B4C62.417B@no_spam_please.earthlink.net>,
Sean Reynolds <skreyn@no_spam_please.earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thomas McCambley wrote:
> > Do a web search for the Yamara web site (I believe it has an io.com
> > location) on there you will find a fixed link to a site that is putting as
> > many of the old Wormy cartoons on the web
>
> Oh, yeah, THAT's legal....
>
> > so that i) as many people as
> > possible can see those fine old strips,
>
> Yeah, because maybe nobody thought that Trampier DIDN'T want those
> getting reprinted?
>
> > and ii) that Dave if he is still
> > out there will come out of hiding and at least let gamers know for certain
> > that he is still alive.
>
> Yeah, to slap a lawsuit on the idiot posting his work.
>
> ::sigh::
So?..
Publish and be damned! I say, I loved Wormy and was delighted to find it
being placed on the web. If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy
is still alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered.
After all, it's *his* work and it's up to him to defend it. Everyone else
is just shouting into the void.
Giles.
James Wallis
In article <B143A948...@otranto.demon.co.uk>, Giles Williams
<gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Publish and be damned!
No, no, no. If you're breaching copyright, that's "Publish and be sued".
>I say, I loved Wormy and was delighted to find it
>being placed on the web. If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy
>is still alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered.
Yeah, yeah. And Dickens was so flattered to find that there were
unauthorised American printings of his books, too.
>After all, it's *his* work and it's up to him to defend it.
It may be his work, but not necessarily his copyright. Does anyone know
for certain if the rights to Wormy are Trampier's or TSR's?
>Everyone else
>is just shouting into the void.
So if you saw a man kicking a child, you'd think it'd be the child's
responsibility to defend itself, and you'd do nothing? No. Breach of
copyright is unethical: you are using someone else's work for your own
gain (not necessarily financial gain). If Dave Trampier wants to make
Wormy available for free on the net, then that's his decision. Nobody
else has the right to make that decision for him.
--
James Wallis, Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Publishers of WARHAMMER FANTASY ROLEPLAY (wf...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Warhammer is a registered trademark of Games Workshop PLC, used with permission
Company motto: "Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo"
Giles Williams
In article <8ceoDeAv...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <B143A948...@otranto.demon.co.uk>, Giles Williams
> <gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Publish and be damned!
>
> No, no, no. If you're breaching copyright, that's "Publish and be sued".
And your point is?...
>
> >I say, I loved Wormy and was delighted to find it
> >being placed on the web. If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy
> >is still alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered.
>
> Yeah, yeah. And Dickens was so flattered to find that there were
> unauthorised American printings of his books, too.
>
Dickens didn't go AWOL. False analogy.
> >After all, it's *his* work and it's up to him to defend it.
>
> It may be his work, but not necessarily his copyright. Does anyone know
> for certain if the rights to Wormy are Trampier's or TSR's?
>
> >Everyone else
> >is just shouting into the void.
>
> So if you saw a man kicking a child, you'd think it'd be the child's
> responsibility to defend itself, and you'd do nothing? No.
Come ON! Are you saying Trampier is defenseless? This is rot James. Who's
been stealing YOUR work for you to get so upset?
> Breach of
> copyright is unethical: you are using someone else's work for your own
> gain (not necessarily financial gain). If Dave Trampier wants to make
> Wormy available for free on the net, then that's his decision. Nobody
> else has the right to make that decision for him.
I'm not arguing. But it's noone else's duty to defend his copyright either.
What are you going to do? Sue on his behalf - or just keep arguing
pointlessly on usenet?
Giles.
Sean Reynolds
James Wallis wrote:
> It may be his work, but not necessarily his copyright. Does anyone know
> for certain if the rights to Wormy are Trampier's or TSR's?
It's Trampier's. TSR has always used a "use it once" contract for
comics in Dragon.
It seems like you and I are the only ones that feel that posting his
stuff is wrong. I am considering a "boycott Yamara" campaign because
they're openly encouraging posting of his work.
To those of you that think that posting his stuff is OK, what if the guy
is dead? He'll never know, and you'll be violating his rights. Or do
you care? Maybe you just want your free comics.
Bruce Baugh
To Giles Williams:
You, sir, are demonstrating exactly why so many creators of prose, art,
software, and other sorts of work dislike the net, and are playing into
the hands of those who wish to impose draconian solutions to the problem
on us all.
Copyright law rests on a moral assumption, that the creator of a work
should be able to decide its fate for quite a while. Creation is not
effortless; it takes time, thought, and effort. When you deny the
creator the right of decision-making over his creation, you steal from
him. What you steal is something of unknown value: the future profits he
might make from a given deal versus the considerations he might make to
turn down a given offer. You steal from him the power of choice, which
is the distinguishing characteristic of free men and women.
You do not gain all rights over another's work merely because you have
bought a copy. You buy the rights to that copy - to read, view, enjoy,
share with friends, archive, the whole deal. The rights of publication
are not sold to you, either by the creator or by the publisher who
brings the work from creator to you.
Those of us unaffiliated with either Mr. Trampier or The Dragon are not
suing you because we lack what the courts call "standing". That is, we
are not the ones suffering a loss from it. It is not _our_ right of
choice you have violated, but theirs.
What we can do, and what we are doing, is condemning the morality of
your actions. Some of us are also addressing the underlying moral issue
to explain it to others.
It is a fact of life that more people consume others' creations than
create works to be sold to others. So most people reading this thread
won't have known the thrill that comes from seeing their labors
culminate in their name in print, attached to a piece of work of which
they're proud. But many readers will _hope_ for that, and contain some
capacity for imagination.
So the Golden Rule comes into play. Is this how they would want their
own works handled? Appropriated for distribution as another sees fit,
simply becaue the other can't be bothered to make contact with the
creator? Or would they wish their right of control to remain respected,
even though they might not be the easiest people in the world to reach?
Wrong does not become right merely because the right is inconvenient,
Mr. Williams.
I _have_ been published commercially in recent years, with my first few
pieces appearing in works unlikely to ever be reprinted because of legal
complications flowing from awesome incompetence on the part of the
publisher. Still, this doesn't mean that I want you or anyone else to
spread copies of those books across the Internet. I sold my pieces to
the publisher, and it's the publisher's prerogative, just as it would be
mine if I'd retained the rights myself, to make that decision. No
thieves wrapping their works in clever justifications need apply.
--
Bruce Baugh, bruce...@mindspring.com
Et in Tela Ego: http://brucebaugh.home.mindspring.com
New science fiction by S.M. Stirling, rolegaming, writers' tools
James Wallis
In article <B14446FA...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8ceoDeAv...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
>James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <B143A948...@otranto.demon.co.uk>, Giles Williams
>> <gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Publish and be damned!
>>
>> No, no, no. If you're breaching copyright, that's "Publish and be sued".
>
>And your point is?...
...pretty obvious, I'd say.
Also, you clearly don't know where "Publish and be damned!" comes from.
The Duke of Wellington is supposed to have written it across a letter
sent to him by Stockton, who was attempting to blackmail him. In other
words, it wasn't intended as friendly encouragement.
>> >I say, I loved Wormy and was delighted to find it
>> >being placed on the web. If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy
>> >is still alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. And Dickens was so flattered to find that there were
>> unauthorised American printings of his books, too.
>
>Dickens didn't go AWOL. False analogy.
Irrelevant. If someone leaves their car in a car-park and goes away, does
that give you the right to drive it away? If someone paints a picture and
leaves it hanging on a wall, does that give you the right to take it away
and hang it in your own home, or make copies and distribute them? If
someone has their work published in a magazine, does that...? Of course
it doesn't. Copyright is copyright. Wormy belongs either to Trampier or
to TSR (an unclear point right now), and nobody else has the right, moral
or legal, to use it without his (their?) permission. Not until Tramp's
been dead seventy years, anyway.
You don't know Dave Trampier, so how can you possibly begin to guess that
he'd be "flattered" that someone has appropriated and re-published his
comic strip which -- judging by the few signs we've had -- he wants to
forget? There could be a reason why nobody can contact him these days,
you know.
>> >After all, it's *his* work and it's up to him to defend it.
>>
>> It may be his work, but not necessarily his copyright. Does anyone know
>> for certain if the rights to Wormy are Trampier's or TSR's?
>>
>> >Everyone else
>> >is just shouting into the void.
>>
>> So if you saw a man kicking a child, you'd think it'd be the child's
>> responsibility to defend itself, and you'd do nothing? No.
>
>Come ON! Are you saying Trampier is defenseless?
Of course he's not defenceless: he's got the law of copyright on his
side. But he's not around to take part in this argument, and he's
probably unaware that people are planning to steal his work.
>This is rot James. Who's
>been stealing YOUR work for you to get so upset?
So you admit that re-using someone's work without permission is stealing?
Nobody's been stealing my work. Thank you so much for trying to take this
argument from the general to the personal: I won't rise to your bait.
>> Breach of
>> copyright is unethical: you are using someone else's work for your own
>> gain (not necessarily financial gain). If Dave Trampier wants to make
>> Wormy available for free on the net, then that's his decision. Nobody
>> else has the right to make that decision for him.
>
>I'm not arguing. But it's noone else's duty to defend his copyright either.
Copyright is a law, let's remember. Breaching copyright is breaking the
law. It's theft. You admit that above. So if I understand you, you're
saying that it's okay to steal something if the owner's not around to
protect it in person?
I loved Wormy; for a long time it was the only reason I read the Dragon.
I have huge respect for Dave Trampier and his work. And I utterly fail to
understand how anyone else who claims to love the strip can think that
re-publishing it without Tramp's knowledge or permission, and without him
receiving any control over that republication or benefit from it -- in
other words, stealing Trampier's work -- is a good thing.
>What are you going to do? Sue on his behalf - or just keep arguing
>pointlessly on usenet?
As long as there are spoiled pratts arguing that copyright law should be
broken because it doesn't happen to fit in with what they want to do, I
will be there arguing against them.
Anyway, you don't need to sue over breaches of copyright on the Web. In
my experience, contacting the breaching page-owner's ISP and using the
phrase "breach of copyright" will get 99.9% of accounts pulled fairly
sharpish.
Giles Williams
In article <6fmcqg$368...@news.mindspring.com>,
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
> To Giles Williams:
>
> You, sir, are demonstrating exactly why so many creators of prose, art,
> software, and other sorts of work dislike the net, and are playing into
> the hands of those who wish to impose draconian solutions to the problem
> on us all.
>
> Copyright law rests on a moral assumption, that the creator of a work
> should be able to decide its fate for quite a while. Creation is not
> effortless; it takes time, thought, and effort. When you deny the
> creator the right of decision-making over his creation, you steal from
> him. What you steal is something of unknown value: the future profits he
> might make from a given deal versus the considerations he might make to
> turn down a given offer. You steal from him the power of choice, which
> is the distinguishing characteristic of free men and women.
Mr Baugh, Sir, I humbly beg to point out the issues that inform my opinion.
(Now can we drop the faux politeness?)
He *has* his choice. If he disapproves he may say "Cease, and desist", he
may back it with the law. He wouldn't even have to make his reasons known.
James Wallis argues that this is analogous to stealing an abandoned car.
But you don't generally advertise the fact that you've stolen a really
great car, and that people should come and look at it, nor ask the owner to
reclaim it anytime he wants.
I'm seeing a web-copyright-kneejerk effect here I think.
>
> You do not gain all rights over another's work merely because you have
> bought a copy. You buy the rights to that copy - to read, view, enjoy,
> share with friends, archive, the whole deal. The rights of publication
> are not sold to you, either by the creator or by the publisher who
> brings the work from creator to you.
>
> Those of us unaffiliated with either Mr. Trampier or The Dragon are not
> suing you because we lack what the courts call "standing". That is, we
> are not the ones suffering a loss from it. It is not _our_ right of
> choice you have violated, but theirs.
Woah there! It's not just that *you* can't sue, you would have no case
against *me* for visiting (and applauding) the Wormy site - unless you want
to take the draconian approach that a browser page download constitutes a
breach of copyright. Something I believe, from your first paragraph,
you're against.
>
> What we can do, and what we are doing, is condemning the morality of
> your actions. Some of us are also addressing the underlying moral issue
> to explain it to others.
You are going off half-cocked! I am not publishing Wormy - I understand I
am enjoying an illicit publication. Morally dubious? Yes. Worthy of this
degree of attention? (I almost said Get A Life, I shall say..) I don't
think you read the original posts.
>
> It is a fact of life that more people consume others' creations than
> create works to be sold to others. So most people reading this thread
> won't have known the thrill that comes from seeing their labors
> culminate in their name in print, attached to a piece of work of which
> they're proud. But many readers will _hope_ for that, and contain some
> capacity for imagination.
True, and it's a pleasure I have enjoyed. It doesn't change my opinion.
>
> So the Golden Rule comes into play. Is this how they would want their
> own works handled? Appropriated for distribution as another sees fit,
> simply becaue the other can't be bothered to make contact with the
> creator?
Read the post, visit the site (with load images off, if you're being
prissy), then argue from an informed position. The guy *is* attemping to
contact Trampier.
> Or would they wish their right of control to remain respected,
> even though they might not be the easiest people in the world to reach?
> Wrong does not become right merely because the right is inconvenient,
> Mr. Williams.
>
> I _have_ been published commercially in recent years, with my first few
> pieces appearing in works unlikely to ever be reprinted because of legal
> complications flowing from awesome incompetence on the part of the
> publisher. Still, this doesn't mean that I want you or anyone else to
> spread copies of those books across the Internet. I sold my pieces to
> the publisher, and it's the publisher's prerogative, just as it would be
> mine if I'd retained the rights myself, to make that decision. No
> thieves wrapping their works in clever justifications need apply.
Bully for you. I'm certainly as discouraged from stealing your work as I
was before your post.
I'm no Proudhon, I don't believe that what the guy putting Wormy on the web
is doing is legally right. But I believe he has made a moral decision, he
has thought through the possible consequences, and he has gone ahead
because of his appreciation of Dave Trampier's art.
Until Trampier himself complains I shall continue to applaud that.
Giles.
Giles Williams
In article <KGLvUYA5...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Also, you clearly don't know where "Publish and be damned!" comes from.
> The Duke of Wellington is supposed to have written it across a letter
> sent to him by Stockton, who was attempting to blackmail him. In other
> words, it wasn't intended as friendly encouragement.
>
I got educated at a comprehensive, not Eton, and therefore stand (if not
corrected) better educated. Thank you.
Publish and be sued, then.
[snip]
I wrote..
> >Dickens didn't go AWOL. False analogy.
>
> Irrelevant. If someone leaves their car in a car-park and goes away, does
> that give you the right to drive it away? If someone paints a picture and
> leaves it hanging on a wall, does that give you the right to take it away
> and hang it in your own home, or make copies and distribute them?
Two more false analogies. Didn't anyone teach you to argue any other way?
> If
> someone has their work published in a magazine, does that...? Of course
> it doesn't. Copyright is copyright. Wormy belongs either to Trampier or
> to TSR (an unclear point right now), and nobody else has the right, moral
> or legal, to use it without his (their?) permission. Not until Tramp's
> been dead seventy years, anyway.
>
> You don't know Dave Trampier, so how can you possibly begin to guess that
> he'd be "flattered" that someone has appropriated and re-published his
> comic strip which -- judging by the few signs we've had -- he wants to
> forget? There could be a reason why nobody can contact him these days,
> you know.
>
I said he *might* be flattered, because under such circumstances (vague as
they are) I might be. You know his reasons as poorly as anyone else, and
you are *as* entitled (and no more) to speculate on what he might feel.
[snip]
I wrote
> >I'm not arguing. But it's noone else's duty to defend his copyright either.
>
> Copyright is a law, let's remember. Breaching copyright is breaking the
> law. It's theft. You admit that above. So if I understand you, you're
> saying that it's okay to steal something if the owner's not around to
> protect it in person?
You are right of course. But like visitors to the British Museum, I can
still appreciate stolen art. I'd feel sad if the Wormy site were taken
down, but I'd be outraged if anyone who had no legal claim to the art was
reponsible for that happening.
> I loved Wormy; for a long time it was the only reason I read the Dragon.
> I have huge respect for Dave Trampier and his work. And I utterly fail to
> understand how anyone else who claims to love the strip can think that
> re-publishing it without Tramp's knowledge or permission, and without him
> receiving any control over that republication or benefit from it -- in
> other words, stealing Trampier's work -- is a good thing.
Dave Trampier's art is a good thing. His disappearance is a sad thing.
Someone illicitly republishing his work is a bad thing.
In as much as one can measure emotions - I'm happier to see the art, than I
am unhappy at the means by which I have seen it.
>
> >What are you going to do? Sue on his behalf - or just keep arguing
> >pointlessly on usenet?
>
> As long as there are spoiled pratts arguing that copyright law should be
> broken because it doesn't happen to fit in with what they want to do, I
> will be there arguing against them.
I would rather regard you as an artist than a lawyer. I am spoiled in that
I can now enjoy a comic strip I thought was lost with the piles of Dragon
back issues. And while I would not break copyright law myself, I cannot
bring myself to say that this site should be taken down until a holder of
that right complains.
>
> Anyway, you don't need to sue over breaches of copyright on the Web. In
> my experience, contacting the breaching page-owner's ISP and using the
> phrase "breach of copyright" will get 99.9% of accounts pulled fairly
> sharpish.
True. And sad in its own way.
Giles.
Giles Williams
Because of this, and the nature of other posts on this thread I want to
make a few things clear.
1. I AM NOT THE PERSON PUBLISHING DAVE TRAMPIER'S WORMY ON THE WEB.
2. I DO USE COPYRIGHT MATERIALS ON MY WEB SITE, WITH THE WRITTEN
PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
3. NO, I WILL NOT TELL YOU THE URL FOR THE WORMY SITE.
So please, check the facts before you contact anyone's ISP.
Giles.
Bruce Baugh
>Mr Baugh, Sir, I humbly beg to point out the issues that inform my opinion.
>(Now can we drop the faux politeness?)
That's not faux politeness, at least for me. That's the way I talk when
I dela with someone I don't respect or feel comfortable around.
>He *has* his choice. If he disapproves he may say "Cease, and desist", he
>may back it with the law. He wouldn't even have to make his reasons known.
Silence is not consent. This is a general principle of law. You have to
have permission before proceeding, and if you can't get permission than
the assumed answer is "no". The exceptions to this in law are just that:
exceptions. None of them apply, to the best of my knowledge, to the case
of material whose publisher is readily accessible and active.
>I'm seeing a web-copyright-kneejerk effect here I think.
You're seeing creators, those who respect the creative process,
publishers, and those who respect the concept of copyright versus you.
>Woah there! It's not just that *you* can't sue, you would have no case
>against *me* for visiting (and applauding) the Wormy site - unless you want
Which is to say, we can't sue. The courts wouldn't let us. We don't have
standing. That's what I said the first time.
But you are engaging in what Mary Baker Eddy called, in one of her
better moments, "deliberate ongoing ignorance as a way of life." My kill
file can handle the rest.
James Wallis
In article <B1450C4D...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <KGLvUYA5...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
>James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The Duke of Wellington is supposed to have written it across a letter
>> sent to him by Stockton, who was attempting to blackmail him. In other
>> words, it wasn't intended as friendly encouragement.
>
>I got educated at a comprehensive, not Eton, and therefore stand (if not
>corrected) better educated. Thank you.
Hang on a moment -- you've got something on your shirt. [Brushes chip off
Giles's shoulder]. That's much better.
>Publish and be sued, then.
>
>[snip]
>I wrote..
>> >Dickens didn't go AWOL. False analogy.
>>
>> Irrelevant. If someone leaves their car in a car-park and goes away, does
>> that give you the right to drive it away? If someone paints a picture and
>> leaves it hanging on a wall, does that give you the right to take it away
>> and hang it in your own home, or make copies and distribute them?
>
>Two more false analogies. Didn't anyone teach you to argue any other way?
Calling something "false" doesn't make it false. Please explain why those
analogies are false. You've already admitted that you accept that using
copyrighted work without permission is stealing.
>> If
>> someone has their work published in a magazine, does that...? Of course
>> it doesn't. Copyright is copyright. Wormy belongs either to Trampier or
>> to TSR (an unclear point right now), and nobody else has the right, moral
>> or legal, to use it without his (their?) permission. Not until Tramp's
>> been dead seventy years, anyway.
>>
>> You don't know Dave Trampier, so how can you possibly begin to guess that
>> he'd be "flattered" that someone has appropriated and re-published his
>> comic strip which -- judging by the few signs we've had -- he wants to
>> forget? There could be a reason why nobody can contact him these days,
>> you know.
>>
>
>I said he *might* be flattered,
You said nothing of the kind. You've thoughtfully trimmed your exact words
out of said: "If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy is still
alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered."
Looking at that again, it's an interesting statement which breaks into two
interesting halves: firstly that you believe Trampier's going to be
flattered by seeing his copyrighted works devalued by being effectively
placed in the public domain; and secondly that he may not still be alive.
That latter acknowledgement rather puts the lie to your argument that he's
free to come and defend his work, doesn't it?
>because under such circumstances (vague as
>they are) I might be. You know his reasons as poorly as anyone else, and
>you are *as* entitled (and no more) to speculate on what he might feel.
The only assumption that I think we can make right now is that wherever he
is, he has no idea that his work has been posted on the Internet.
>[snip]
>I wrote
>> >I'm not arguing. But it's noone else's duty to defend his copyright either.
>>
>> Copyright is a law, let's remember. Breaching copyright is breaking the
>> law. It's theft. You admit that above. So if I understand you, you're
>> saying that it's okay to steal something if the owner's not around to
>> protect it in person?
>
>You are right of course. But like visitors to the British Museum, I can
>still appreciate stolen art.
The Elgin marbles are unique: there is only one place in which they can be
viewed. "Wormy" was published in tens of thousands of copies of each issue
of the Dragon, and can still be seen there it utter legality. You could
make the point that one could look at pictures of the Elgin Marbles, but
it wouldn't be quite the same as the original. I could make the counter-
point that looking at a bitmapped, reduced-colour version of Wormy isn't
nearly as fulfilling as seeing it in the format it was intended for: the
magazine page.
>I'd feel sad if the Wormy site were taken
>down, but I'd be outraged if anyone who had no legal claim to the art was
>reponsible for that happening.
Sod the legal angle: it's one you've harped on for far too long, despite
the fact that you've already admitted that in any legal argument your side
is already in the wrong. What about the ethics of the situation? What
about the moral argument? What gives anyone the moral right to use someone
else's work without their permission?
>> I loved Wormy; for a long time it was the only reason I read the Dragon.
>> I have huge respect for Dave Trampier and his work. And I utterly fail to
>> understand how anyone else who claims to love the strip can think that
>> re-publishing it without Tramp's knowledge or permission, and without him
>> receiving any control over that republication or benefit from it -- in
>> other words, stealing Trampier's work -- is a good thing.
>
>Dave Trampier's art is a good thing. His disappearance is a sad thing.
>Someone illicitly republishing his work is a bad thing.
So why are you defending it?
>In as much as one can measure emotions - I'm happier to see the art, than I
>am unhappy at the means by which I have seen it.
That's gibberish. That's the voice of a guilty conscience knowing it's
done wrong and desperately trying to excuse itself. It doesn't wash.
>> As long as there are spoiled pratts arguing that copyright law should be
>> broken because it doesn't happen to fit in with what they want to do, I
>> will be there arguing against them.
>
>I would rather regard you as an artist than a lawyer.
I would like to regard myself that way as well: I get little enough time
to do any creative writing these days, what with my day-job and then
having to run a games company in the evenings and at weekends. Sadly if
you're going to continue being an idiot, then I'm going to continue
wasting my time making it clear that you're an idiot, _pour_encourager_
_les_autres_.
>I am spoiled in that
>I can now enjoy a comic strip I thought was lost with the piles of Dragon
>back issues. And while I would not break copyright law myself, I cannot
>bring myself to say that this site should be taken down until a holder of
>that right complains.
But what if he's dead, Giles -- a point you have already conceded? Or
would the complaint of a next-of-kin do? Executor?
>> Anyway, you don't need to sue over breaches of copyright on the Web. In
>> my experience, contacting the breaching page-owner's ISP and using the
>> phrase "breach of copyright" will get 99.9% of accounts pulled fairly
>> sharpish.
>
>True. And sad in its own way.
I don't call it "sad" if it means that talented artists and writers can
continue to earn some kind of living from their work, without small-minded
self-centred twerps ripping off their effort. God knows they earn little
enough as it is.
James Wallis
In article <B1450C4F...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
>make a few things clear.
>
>1. I AM NOT THE PERSON PUBLISHING DAVE TRAMPIER'S WORMY ON THE WEB.
>
>2. I DO USE COPYRIGHT MATERIALS ON MY WEB SITE, WITH THE WRITTEN
>PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
>
>3. NO, I WILL NOT TELL YOU THE URL FOR THE WORMY SITE.
>
>So please, check the facts before you contact anyone's ISP.
Can you please switch off your Capslock and show me where I said I was
going to be contacting YOUR ISP and asking them to pull YOUR web-site?
A few posts back you accused Bruce Baugh and myself of knee-jerking. An
apology would be nice.
James Wallis
In article <B1450C4F...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Because of this, and the nature of other posts on this thread I want to
>make a few things clear.
>
>1. I AM NOT THE PERSON PUBLISHING DAVE TRAMPIER'S WORMY ON THE WEB.
>
>2. I DO USE COPYRIGHT MATERIALS ON MY WEB SITE, WITH THE WRITTEN
>PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
Out of interest, does that include the dragon from the card-game "Once
Upon a Time" which appears twice on your index page?
Ken McKinney
>
>But you are engaging in what Mary Baker Eddy called, in one of her
>better moments, "deliberate ongoing ignorance as a way of life." My kill
>file can handle the rest.
>
>
I think you're overreacting here, Bruce. I've enjoyed your posts here and come
to respect you over the years, but killfiling this guy just for defending the
act of saving Wormy from oblivion is a little over the top.
Wormy isn't just a comic strip -- it's an early part of gaming community pop
culture which should not be lost. All Tramp has to do is ask for it's
removal. That's not such a burden.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>To those of you that think that posting his stuff is OK, what if the guy
>is dead? He'll never know, and you'll be violating his rights. Or do
>you care? Maybe you just want your free comics.
>
I think that society shouldn't worry about the rights of the dead, until we've
managed to secure the rights of the living.
Ken McKinney
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <6fp5hn$i5t$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken McKinney) wrote:
>In article <6foobg$2ao...@news.mindspring.com>, bruce...@mindspring.com
> (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>
>>
>>But you are engaging in what Mary Baker Eddy called, in one of her
>>better moments, "deliberate ongoing ignorance as a way of life." My kill
>>file can handle the rest.
>>
>>
>I think you're overreacting here, Bruce. I've enjoyed your posts here and come
>to respect you over the years, but killfiling this guy just for defending the
>act of saving Wormy from oblivion is a little over the top.
>
>Wormy isn't just a comic strip -- it's an early part of gaming community pop
>culture which should not be lost. All Tramp has to do is ask for it's
>removal. That's not such a burden.
>
post unless told otherwise;you assume NO permission to post unless told
otherwise.
Art belong to the artist, not to the 'community'. For whatever reason,
Trampier has decided to vanish. Let him be.
Ken McKinney
In article <6fp729$a...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>In article <6fp5hn$i5t$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken
>>
>Sorry, but that's not the way the law works. You don't assume permission to
>post unless told otherwise;you assume NO permission to post unless told
>otherwise.
OK, call it civil disobedience, then. I think that if Mr. Trampier doesn't
want his work disseminated, he needs to say so, and take responsibility for
his position. I'm more inclined personally to think that he couldn't care
less whether that web page exists, and I guess we're going to find out, aren't
we?
>
>Art belong to the artist, not to the 'community'. For whatever reason,
>Trampier has decided to vanish. Let him be.
The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
future generations when they've changed their mind later. I think that
engaging in a little civil disobedience to dramatize the issue of Wormy being
lost to future generations of gamers, who might want to look at early comics
that influenced gaming, is a fine idea.
Ken McKinney
jeff...@skaldheim.com
k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken McKinney) wrote:
> The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
> their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
> future generations when they've changed their mind later.
Sorry, that's completely off base. The purpose is to make sure that
artists have CONTROL over the fate of their work. Money and
compensation has nothing to do with it. If I write a book, and I decide
I want it to never be published, that right is also protected by
copyright. If I decide to vanish off the face of the earth after
writing a book and allow no further printings, that right is protected
by copyright. My decision to NOT publish does not mean that I have
given up my rights to it.
The issue is the artist's right to choose the fate of his own work. No
other party has any say over it, unless the artist has signed over
rights via a legal contract.
Mr. Trampier had an agreement with TSR to publish each installment of
Wormy once. I doubt his contract obligated him to "future generations"
in any way.
I think that
> engaging in a little civil disobedience to dramatize the issue of Wormy being
> lost to future generations of gamers, who might want to look at early comics
> that influenced gaming, is a fine idea.
The proper and ethical way to ensure that Wormy is available to "future
generations of gamers" is for concerned parties like yourselves to find
Mr. Trampier and convince him to allow his work to be disseminated.
Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to do that.
Jefferson Krogh
Shannon Appel
In article <6fparq$i5t$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com> k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken McKinney) writes:
>The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
>their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
>future generations when they've changed their mind later.
That is absolutely 100% false. Copyright exists to allow an artist to
CONTROL his art. That means that I can decide that something I wrote
10 years ago was crap and then insure that it doesn't get distributed
again while I'm still alive to be embarassed by it. No ifs, ands, ors,
or buts. The public has zero right to demand access to an artist's
work just because it was available at one time, at least not till he's
long dead and buried.
No matter how much you try and rationalize that you're doing the right
thing, violating copyright is theft, pure and simple. In the case of
Wormy you're violating the right of Trampier and/or his estate to earn
future profits from the cartoon, and you also violating their right to
choose whether that work is distributed or not.
Shannon
Bruce Baugh
>I don't call it "sad" if it means that talented artists and writers can
>continue to earn some kind of living from their work, without small-minded
>self-centred twerps ripping off their effort. God knows they earn little
>enough as it is.
And this is the key thing. For those of us who write, draw, program, or
whatever on a freelance basis, retaining clear and uncontested title to
our works is essential. Publishers publish when they perceive value in
it, and if a product is already freely and widely available, its printed
form has less value. The creator can earn less, or nothing at all.
(There are special cases, like FUDGE, where one is paying for
typography, binding, and so on, but these are exceptions to a
generalization which remains valid.)
Anglo-American law runs on precedent. So we have to be concerned about
each instance of a problem, because if (God forbid) we ever have to go
to court, the court will look at how similar cases have been handled in
the past. So all those who seek to profit by the sale of their creations
have a shared concern here.
And that's quite apart from the moral issue of just not liking theft.
Bruce Baugh
>I think you're overreacting here, Bruce. I've enjoyed your posts here and come
>to respect you over the years, but killfiling this guy just for defending the
>act of saving Wormy from oblivion is a little over the top.
In practical terms, the guy who's posting Wormy is helping _decrease_
the chances that TSR or anyone else will publish a good collection.
Bottom-line-oriented corporate lawyers will say "this will reduce our
customer base". It's happened before, it'll happen again. (It'd take me
time I don't have right now to hunt up discussion of the problem with
regard to sf genre fiction, but e-publication is already proving a
thorny problem.)
And as I noted in my previous post, it's theft. Doesn't matter if it's a
teeny theft.
>Wormy isn't just a comic strip -- it's an early part of gaming community pop
>culture which should not be lost. All Tramp has to do is ask for it's
>removal. That's not such a burden.
Silence didn't become consent just because people would like it to. If
Trampier does not say "yes", the answer must continue to be assumed to
be "no", until the work passes into the public domain.
In trademark law, mark holders have to run around showing vigorous
diligence in protecting their marks. This is why corporate entities are
often such a pain about fanfic and the like: they have to be. Copyright
law, fortunately, doesn't work that way. The copyright is assumed in law
to retain all rights not specifically relinquished.
So it's very simple: no explicit permission, no validity.
I don't know about James, but I'm heated up about this because of the
rhetoric about doing the creator a favor. I'm here as a creator to say
it's _not_ a favor. Just the opposite.
Bruce Baugh
>I think that society shouldn't worry about the rights of the dead, until we've
>managed to secure the rights of the living.
And that's why creators are here saying "this sets a bad precedent." We
are, precisely, attending to our right to earn an income from our labor,
and those who insist on a right to decide on the fate of our creations
for us deny us the opportunity to do so.
Rupert Boleyn
gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk (Giles Williams) wrote:
>Publish and be damned! I say, I loved Wormy and was delighted to find it
>being placed on the web. If/when Trampier finds out (assuming the poor guy
>is still alive) my feeling is that he'll be flattered.
>
>After all, it's *his* work and it's up to him to defend it. Everyone else
>is just shouting into the void.
So if I, hypothetically, were to break into your home and swipe some
stuff while you were out, you'd be OK with that? After all you didn't
defend your home, so it's your look out.
--
R. Boleyn <rbo...@clear.net.nz>
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This weak, degenerate generation - even their sins are watered down.
The old pirates of my father's day could have eaten them all for
breakfast and digested their bones before lunch."
_The Warrior's Apprentice_, by Lois McMaster Bujold
Rupert Boleyn
gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk (Giles Williams) wrote:
>I would rather regard you as an artist than a lawyer. I am spoiled in that
>I can now enjoy a comic strip I thought was lost with the piles of Dragon
>back issues. And while I would not break copyright law myself, I cannot
>bring myself to say that this site should be taken down until a holder of
>that right complains.
I'd bet that in some juristictions going to that site and looking at
those cartoons, which means that you've made a copy, is breaking
copyright.
Bruce Baugh
>I'd bet that in some juristictions going to that site and looking at
>those cartoons, which means that you've made a copy, is breaking
>copyright.
It wouldn't surprise me - intellectual property law for the net is an
incredibly loathsome horror from the sewers of hell. Beyond the very
simplest basics - like "ask before reposting" - it's a real mess.
Giles Williams
In article <GPxW39As...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <B1450C4F...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
> XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Because of this, and the nature of other posts on this thread I want to
> >make a few things clear.
> >
> >1. I AM NOT THE PERSON PUBLISHING DAVE TRAMPIER'S WORMY ON THE WEB.
> >
> >2. I DO USE COPYRIGHT MATERIALS ON MY WEB SITE, WITH THE WRITTEN
> >PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
>
> Out of interest, does that include the dragon from the card-game "Once
> Upon a Time" which appears twice on your index page?
>
Oh cripes, I just checked and you're right. I'm sorry, I had this image
from a friend and didn't know its origin. I've taken it down this a.m.
(08.11) and put the following apology in its place.
I want to offer sincere apologies to the holders of copyright of the image
that previously appeared on this page, the artist Eric Hotz, and the
publishers of the first edition of Atlas Games' Once Upon a Time, the image
was used mistakenly without their permission.
Thanks for pointing this out. Once more I'm sorry if I've caused any
offence.
Giles.
Giles Williams
In article <gwevI2As7$H1E...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I wrote..
> >Because of this, and the nature of other posts on this thread I want to
> >make a few things clear.
> >
> >1. I AM NOT THE PERSON PUBLISHING DAVE TRAMPIER'S WORMY ON THE WEB.
> >
> >2. I DO USE COPYRIGHT MATERIALS ON MY WEB SITE, WITH THE WRITTEN
> >PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
> >
> >
> >So please, check the facts before you contact anyone's ISP.
>
> Can you please switch off your Capslock and show me where I said I was
> going to be contacting YOUR ISP and asking them to pull YOUR web-site?
>
> A few posts back you accused Bruce Baugh and myself of knee-jerking. An
> apology would be nice.
>
Bruce Baugh was of the impression that I was publishing the Wormy material,
I am not. I *really* don't want anyone else to form the same, wrong,
impression.
Likewise, although I know you are sane enough not to contact my ISP, I am
aware hat r.g.f.m. is a broad forum and that some else might. I certainly
don't want that to happen.
I "shouted" because I *really* want to make this clear.
I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of a knee-jerk reaction. I know
you would not post without first reading the previous material.
As Bruce has kill-filed me, I cannot apologise to him. Nor him to me for
his mistake.
Giles.
Giles Williams
Folks of r.g.f.m.
In my over excitement at rediscovering Dave Trampier's Wormy I've attracted
more attention for my applause for his illegal republisher than I ever
expected.
I've upset people who's opinion I value and respect.
And I've given the impression that I support a position on breaking
copyright law that is unsupportable.
I'm sorry. This was wrong.
I'd like to withdraw now.
I do not support the breaking of copyright.
Giles.
Sean Reynolds
Ken McKinney wrote:
> I think that society shouldn't worry about the rights of the dead, until we've
> managed to secure the rights of the living.
Then how about I kill you, then? Being dead, we won't have to worry
about your rights any more, and you would no longer be posting such
rubbish to this newsgroup.
Rubbish! The living (people who make their living via publishing
copyrighted works) _are_ on this newsgroup defending their rights.
Sean Reynolds
Ken McKinney wrote:
> OK, call it civil disobedience, then.
Copyright violation as civil disobedience? Who are you - Joe Dimech?
> I think that if Mr. Trampier doesn't
> want his work disseminated, he needs to say so, and take responsibility for
> his position.
And you're assuming that he even knows about this. This isn't a
victimless crime where nothing wrong has happened until someone involved
complains. You are encouraging _stealing_ something from a man who
probably doesn't know you're doing it.
> I'm more inclined personally to think that he couldn't care
> less whether that web page exists,
When did your personal opinion become a basis for law?
> and I guess we're going to find out, aren't
> we?
Unless Trampier's dead, or he doesn't have net access, or he's been in a
terrible car accident and can no longer communicate, or any of a number
of other reasons why he won't post here.
> The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
> their work,
Nope. It's "copyright," not "compensationright." Copyright means an
author has a RIGHT to decide how his work is COPIED. Try looking up the
actual meaning of a word before making up your own definition of it.
NUELOW
Ken McKinney wrote:
<< OK, call it civil disobedience, then. >>
Oh please. Are burglary and shop-lifting are civil disobedience?
It's theft, pure and simple.
<< I think that if Mr. Trampier doesn't
want his work disseminated, he needs to say so, and take responsibility for
his position. I'm more inclined personally to think that he couldn't care
less whether that web page exists, and I guess we're going to find out, aren't
we? >>
Hopefully.
<< The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
future generations when they've changed their mind later. >>
"Future generations"?
The purpose of copyright is, in party, to allow the creators to control the
disemination of their work, compensation is merely a by-product. You don't have
a firm grasp on this stuff, do you?
<< I think that
engaging in a little civil disobedience to dramatize the issue of Wormy being
lost to future generations of gamers, who might want to look at early comics
that influenced gaming, is a fine idea. >>
You can't possibly be serious.
Steve Miller
NUELOW
Bruce Baugh wrote:
<< I don't know about James, but I'm heated up about this because of the
rhetoric about doing the creator a favor. >>
And it's the same crap that a certain type of 'netter have been spreading for
years. We've seen the "civil disobedience" nonsense. Has the "free and open
exchange of information" line shown up yet? (If not, I'm surprised. Usually,
that's the first thing out of the mouth of Net-bandits.)
<< I'm here as a creator to say it's _not_ a favor. Just the opposite. >>
I'll second that. Unless the creator uploads something, or grands express
permission for the upload, no one has any right to do so. And Bruce is correct
in the potential harm it might do to a market. According to some surveys, 80%
of gamers have 'net access. Gee, the sales on the "Perfect Wormy Collection"
just dropped from 1,000 copies sold to 200 copies sold.
Steve Miller
Aaron Pound
NUELOW wrote:
>
> Ken McKinney wrote:
>
> << The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
> their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
> future generations when they've changed their mind later. >>
>
> "Future generations"?
I just want to point out that copyright law as written does not allow a
work to be denied to "future generations" simply because there is a time
limit on how long an author and his estate can control his work. In the
United States and all countries that adhere to the Berne Convention for
copyright law that time limit is life of the author plus fifty years for
works created by an individual. Therefore, Wormy will not be denied to
future generations, but merely controlled by Mr. Trampier and his
descendants until sometime in the latter half of the next century. If
people still want to publish Wormy without permission then it would be
fine.
Until then it is intellectual theft no matter how fancy it is said.
Publishing an author's work without proper authorization is wrong,
morally and legally. It is stealing no matter how you dress it up with
pretty words like "civil disobedience".
I would also like to point out that the actual meaning of civil
disobedience is that someone is willing to break the law to make a point
*and then suffer the legal consequences*, not get off scott free. When
civil rights marchers were arrested they were punished, and the
advocates of civil rights reform accepted this as a neccessary cost to
their cause. Are you really willing to take the legal consequences of
publishing an unauthorized work? If so, then you are being civilly
disobedient. Otherwise, you're just a thief saying you shouldn't be
punished.
Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
Ken McKinney
In article <35211EB2.652E@no_spam_please.earthlink.net>, skreyn@no_spam_please.earthlink.net wrote:
>Ken McKinney wrote:
>> I think that society shouldn't worry about the rights of the dead, until
> we've
>> managed to secure the rights of the living.
OK, I'll explain this to you slowly, since you seem to be having a problem
with the concept. I'm not dead now. Not being killed is one of the rights of
the living, not a right of the deceased.
>
>Then how about I kill you, then? Being dead, we won't have to worry
>about your rights any more, and you would no longer be posting such
>rubbish to this newsgroup.
Please don't threaten me on this newsgroup, OK? And let it be noted, that I
was not the first person to make a personal attack on this thread.
>
>Rubbish! The living (people who make their living via publishing
>copyrighted works) _are_ on this newsgroup defending their rights.
>
No right exists in a vaccuum. I believe in the right of an artist to be
fairly compensated for his work. I also believe in the public's right to not
have parts of it's culture dissappear because an artist can't be bothered to
either assent to it's publication, or deny it. I think my position is a
reasonable compromise between the rights of the public, and the rights of the
artist.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>
>Unless Trampier's dead, or he doesn't have net access, or he's been in a
>terrible car accident and can no longer communicate, or any of a number
>of other reasons why he won't post here.
>
So, have you tried contacting Trampier's family or anyone connected to him
regarding this site? I doubt it. Why don't you do so, so his rights can be
defended?
>
>Nope. It's "copyright," not "compensationright." Copyright means an
>author has a RIGHT to decide how his work is COPIED. Try looking up the
>actual meaning of a word before making up your own definition of it.
Violation of copyright in America is a civil offense. Damages are assessed
based on the monetary losses sustained by the owner of the copyright. If
there are no losses, there is only token compensation. Seems pretty much
like it's about money, to me.
Ken McKinney
>
Ken McKinney
>I would also like to point out that the actual meaning of civil
>disobedience is that someone is willing to break the law to make a point
>*and then suffer the legal consequences*, not get off scott free. When
>civil rights marchers were arrested they were punished, and the
>advocates of civil rights reform accepted this as a neccessary cost to
>their cause. Are you really willing to take the legal consequences of
>publishing an unauthorized work? If so, then you are being civilly
>disobedient. Otherwise, you're just a thief saying you shouldn't be
>punished.
First of all, I didn't publish any of this stuff, so I'm neither civilly
disobedient, nor am I a thief. I haven't even looked at the web page, since I
own all the Dragon magazines involved.
Secondly, as a lawyer, you know that the legal consequences of this particular
case are trivial. No one is going to go to jail, and no one is going to be
fined any huge amount of money, over Wormy. So, it's entirely possible that
the web page owner _will_ "suffer the consequences", although I doubt that any
lawyer would bring a case against him unless he refused to remove the web site
when asked to by owners of the copyrighted work.
Ken
>
>Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
Bruce Baugh
>No right exists in a vaccuum. I believe in the right of an artist to be
>fairly compensated for his work. I also believe in the public's right to not
>have parts of it's culture dissappear because an artist can't be bothered to
>either assent to it's publication, or deny it. I think my position is a
>reasonable compromise between the rights of the public, and the rights of the
>artist.
I don't, because I think you're using a definition of "right" that adds
up to something incoherent. So let's talk about "rights" first.
I use "right" influenced by Jan Narveson's usage - a claim on others
that they do something, or refrain from doing something, so strong that
you are justified in using any means necessary to enforce it. If you're
not prepared to use any means necessary, but to stop at some point short
of enforcing the claim, then what you have is not a right but a virtue
or moral good.
In this usage, all genuine rights are negative. That is, they can be
wholly honored if others don't do something. My right to continued life,
for instance, is honored as long as nobody does me in; my right to
security of my belongings is honored so long as nobody robs me; and so
on.
I as consumer have no claim upon the creators I enjoy that they let me
do whatever I want with their works. I know that Howard Waldrop regrets
the out-of-print nature of many of his stories as much as I do, or more
- but that doesn't give me the right to do something about it, and
particularly not to do something that will interfere with future chances
of a good reprint deal.
The public cannot force creators to create in the first place. Nor, once
a work is created and made available, can the public rightfully demand
that they always be available. The creator - or those to whom the
creator assigns rights - always retains the right to decide that the
work should no longer be available. The rest of us may importune, argue,
or plead, but it's _not our work_.
Cultural heritage is the sum of what individuals and groups contribute.
But they do not become the slaves of the whole once they decide to
contribute.
Ken McKinney
>I use "right" influenced by Jan Narveson's usage - a claim on others
>that they do something, or refrain from doing something, so strong that
>you are justified in using any means necessary to enforce it. If you're
>not prepared to use any means necessary, but to stop at some point short
>of enforcing the claim, then what you have is not a right but a virtue
>or moral good.
So, you're saying that you'd kill to defend a copyright? I don't believe
this. I wouldn't kill to defend my right to eat salmon, or most of the other
things that I consider to be my rights.
>
>In this usage, all genuine rights are negative. That is, they can be
>wholly honored if others don't do something. My right to continued life,
>for instance, is honored as long as nobody does me in; my right to
>security of my belongings is honored so long as nobody robs me; and so
>on.
Sure, but so what. "My right to eat salmon is honored as long as no one
stops me". What does this statement mean? It's almost circular. I really
don't know what you're getting at here.
>
>I as consumer have no claim upon the creators I enjoy that they let me
>do whatever I want with their works. I know that Howard Waldrop regrets
>the out-of-print nature of many of his stories as much as I do, or more
>- but that doesn't give me the right to do something about it, and
>particularly not to do something that will interfere with future chances
>of a good reprint deal.
The difference here is that Howard Waldrop is taking responsibility for the
ownership of his work. This is what David Trampier should do. If David
Trampier sends, or his lawyer sends, or his estate sends a notice to the owner
of that web page, or it's ISP, asking them to remove the stuff, then I will be
completely on your side. I think that the burden _should_ be on David
Trampier to do that. I don't think it's in society's best interest to
enforce the rights of absentee, disinterested copyright owners.
>
>The public cannot force creators to create in the first place. Nor, once
>a work is created and made available, can the public rightfully demand
>that they always be available. The creator - or those to whom the
>creator assigns rights - always retains the right to decide that the
>work should no longer be available. The rest of us may importune, argue,
>or plead, but it's _not our work_.
That's true. Has David Trampier asked that Wormy not be made available? No.
He has just abandoned it.
The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way. I
think the opposite, in this narrow case.
>
>Cultural heritage is the sum of what individuals and groups contribute.
>But they do not become the slaves of the whole once they decide to
>contribute.
Of course not! I never suggested we put Trampier's nose to the grindstone and
make him churn out more Wormy, or remove his ability to demand enforcement of
his copyright.
Ken McKinney
>
>
John Rudd
That's the damages part. You can also be served with a 'cease and decist'
order, which if you don't comply can get you thrown in jail for contempt of
court.
Thus, violating a copyright _can_ lead to imprisonment if you continue to do
it after being told by a court of law not to.
And, frankly, this is as it should be. Unless an artist/creator has given up
their rights to a work (ala a GPL or similar situation), the artist should be
able to recover damages from your abuse of their property, and have assurance
that you will not be allowed to continue abusing their property. Creations
are the property of their creator, not some vague entity as a "culture".
They can be passed on to an individual or nation or the public domain or even
to their own governorship, but as much as they may be important to a culture
they never _belong_ to the culture.
--
John "kzin" Rudd jr...@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~jrudd
=========Intel: Putting the backward in backward compatible.============
"The hardest thing about being you isn't what you can do, it's living
with still not being able to do all of the things you can't" - Lois Lane
liz...@mrlizard.com
>No right exists in a vaccuum. I believe in the right of an artist to be
>fairly compensated for his work. I also believe in the public's right to not
>have parts of it's culture dissappear because an artist can't be bothered to
>either assent to it's publication, or deny it. I think my position is a
>reasonable compromise between the rights of the public, and the rights of the
>artist.
>
There is no 'public'. There are only people. And all people have the same
rights.
If 'the public' has a right to an artists work, then, it has a right to
enslave the artist and force him to create, when he does not wish to. How DARE
Shakespeare retire when he could have written more plays? By what right does
he 'deprive' the public of the works he never created.
You're a socialist, aren't you?
I suppose I had better report to the re-education center myself. For the past
year, I've hardly written any fiction. How dare I deprive the public of my
art? I am a poor citizen-unit. I will report to the termination center
immediately.
Joseph M. Saul
Ken McKinney writes:
>Violation of copyright in America is a civil offense. Damages are assessed
>based on the monetary losses sustained by the owner of the copyright. If
>there are no losses, there is only token compensation.
Ever hear the phrase "statutory damages?" If the work is registered, the
owner can receive substantial monetary awards even if the owner cannot
prove a loss.
Joe Saul
jms...@umich.edu
Joseph M. Saul
(And while we're at it, there's such a thing as criminal copyright
infringement as well -- and it just got a whole lot easier to charge
someone with it.)
Joe Saul
jms...@umich.edu
Bruce Baugh
In article <6frp5q$c33$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken McKinney) wrote:
<snip>
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Someone else better take
over from here; I'm getting angry enough that it's distracting from
actual paying creation. (And if I ever go AWOL, I sincerely hope to have
no fans like those of Trampier in this thread.)
Ron Jarrell
Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
: In article <6frjg7$16o...@news.mindspring.com>, bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
: The difference here is that Howard Waldrop is taking responsibility for the
: ownership of his work. This is what David Trampier should do. If David
: Trampier sends, or his lawyer sends, or his estate sends a notice to the owner
: of that web page, or it's ISP, asking them to remove the stuff, then I will be
: completely on your side. I think that the burden _should_ be on David
: Trampier to do that. I don't think it's in society's best interest to
: enforce the rights of absentee, disinterested copyright owners.
Whoa!
You don't know that David Trampier isn't so completely full of loathing
for those strips that he'd do anything, including mortal combat, to
prevent their being published again. He might well, as far as you know,
be sitting at home right now, as I type this, thinking, you know,
I'm really glad that probably no one will ever see those things
again - I'm really embarrassed by them. Thank god I own the copyright.
You have to admit that it *is* possible that that's indeed (assuming
he's still alive) what he's thinking.
What if he doesn't own a computer? He could be one of the vast majority
of people who don't use email, don't surf the net, and don't really want
to, because they have enough to do in their lives. Heck, he might
not own a TV, Radio, or a phone, and might live in a cabin someplace
deep in the woods where he paints, hunts, and chops wood for his
fire, and only comes into civilization once every couple of months
to stock up.
So you're saying in that case he's lost his right to control the
copying of his work just because he isn't spending ever minute of
his time hunting the world for people who might be copying his
old works?
What utter garbage! You've completely reversed the law, and declared
that you think any theft of my creative works is just fine and dandy,
especially if they're real good, and other people might really
like seeing them, as long as I don't catch you and stop you! And if
I never happened to stumble across your web site, in my day and
night search for such people, well, it's my own damn fault. In fact,
when I go to a publisher and say, "hey, this stuff is really good,
will you pay me for it?" and they say, "You're right, it is, but it's
been available for free on the web for a year now, in fact, we all
have copies in the office as our screensaver - sorry, we're not going
to risk that people might not pay for it because they already
have it" that it's *my* fault, for not having *caught you* stealing
my work??
: That's true. Has David Trampier asked that Wormy not be made available? No.
: He has just abandoned it.
You have no proof of that. He sold it to TSR - that was an active
act. He then moved on, and reached a point where TSR was no longer
able to contact him. That's not abandonment, that's not leaving
a forwarding address. He might have absolutely no idea that anyone
would possibly be interested in paying him again to print his work -
he certainly hasn't demonstrated any form of abandonment, just being
hard to find. If I write a short story that you want to print in your
magazine, is it ok for you to do so without my permission if I've since
moved to Kuala Lampur, and you can't find me? Or do I abandon my
copyright unless I leave a forwarding address with every publisher,
literary agent, and webmaster in the country?
: The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
: presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
: artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way. I
: think the opposite, in this narrow case.
Well, he probably thinks that way because that's the way the law is...
In fact, under the new electronic copyright laws, if the value of
the cartoons currently posted is more than $250 it's quite likely the
person posting them is now guilty of a felony, something the
record industry takes a great deal of delight in threatening our
students with when they catch their mp3 web pages...
Doesn't matter if the person with the web page ever makes a cent, or
every INTENDED to make a cent.
: Of course not! I never suggested we put Trampier's nose to the grindstone and
: make him churn out more Wormy, or remove his ability to demand enforcement of
: his copyright.
No, you just suggested that he have no right to complain unless he managed
to FIND the violation of his copyright, and failing to find it and
complain means abandonment.
You're literaly saying, (I'll point out in advance that no, this
is not a false analogy, and anyone who claims it is is trying to
defeat the argument by handwaving it out of existence) that if you
steal something from me, unless *I* catch it, and charge you with the
crime, it's not a crime, and it doesn't matter how many other
people might catch you, so long as I don't.
James Wallis
In article <B146572F9...@otranto.demon.co.uk>, Giles Williams
<gi...@XX-nospam-XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <GPxW39As...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>,
>James Wallis <Ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <B1450C4F...@0.0.0.0>, Giles Williams <giles@XX-nospam-
>> XXotranto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >PERMISSIONS OF THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
>>
>> Upon a Time" which appears twice on your index page?
>
>Oh cripes, I just checked and you're right. I'm sorry, I had this image
>from a friend and didn't know its origin. I've taken it down this a.m.
>(08.11) and put the following apology in its place.
>
>
>I want to offer sincere apologies to the holders of copyright of the image
>that previously appeared on this page, the artist Eric Hotz, and the
>publishers of the first edition of Atlas Games' Once Upon a Time, the image
>was used mistakenly without their permission.
>
>
>Thanks for pointing this out. Once more I'm sorry if I've caused any
>offence.
One-nil to our side.
--
James Wallis, Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Publishers of WARHAMMER FANTASY ROLEPLAY (wf...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Warhammer is a registered trademark of Games Workshop PLC, used with permission
Company motto: "Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo"
James Wallis
In article <351EA083.3713@no_spam_please.earthlink.net>, Sean Reynolds
<skreyn@no_spam_please.earthlink.net> wrote:
>James Wallis wrote:
>> It may be his work, but not necessarily his copyright. Does anyone know
>> for certain if the rights to Wormy are Trampier's or TSR's?
>
>It's Trampier's. TSR has always used a "use it once" contract for
>comics in Dragon.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I still have a few early Dragons,
but I have around a thousand RPG mags, and no filing system for them, so
checking wouldn't have been easy.
>It seems like you and I are the only ones that feel that posting his
>stuff is wrong. I am considering a "boycott Yamara" campaign because
>they're openly encouraging posting of his work.
How about encouraging a "repost Yamara freely and without asking the
creators first" campaign instead? That ought to get the message across
pretty fast that violation of copyright is not a victimless crime.
I know, I know, two wrongs don't make a right. But I'd like to help cook
Yamara's goose here... and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,
after all.
Frank Sronce
>
>To those of you that think that posting his stuff is OK, what if the guy
>is dead? He'll never know, and you'll be violating his rights. Or do
>you care? Maybe you just want your free comics.
Dead people don't have rights, I'm afraid. Only the living. In short,
our system of morality finds nothing wrong with digging up an ancient
gravesite for "archeological value" provided that there are no living people
who are going to get upset about it.
And if he's dead, *I* for one would not like to see any artist's work
die with him.
Kiz
Jerry Stratton
In article <352049...@skaldheim.com>, jeff...@skaldheim.com wrote:
>k...@adaptivemedia.com (Ken McKinney) wrote:
>
>> The purpose of copyright is to make sure that artists are compensated for
>> their work, not to allow them to publish their work, and then deny it to
>> future generations when they've changed their mind later.
>Sorry, that's completely off base. The purpose is to make sure that
>artists have CONTROL over the fate of their work. Money and
Actually, you're both wrong :*)
The purpose of copyrights is "to promote the progress of science and
useful arts," and the current assumption is that the best way to do this
is "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries".
This is a topic that's near and dear to me heart, mates. I'm somewhat
lucky, being a writer: people are willing to look at pictures on-line and
say they've been there, but they still, for the moment, prefer printed
copies of books, and it's still cheaper to buy a book at a bookstore than
to print it out on your printer. Until I provided links to Amazon.Com, one
of the most common requests I've gotten on my web site was where people
could buy the books that I've put on-line. The craziest was actually just
recently, someone was overjoyed at seeing the Man in the Iron Mask on my
site and had this great idea for a huge virtual library where people could
read tens of thousands of books for absolutely free and, by the way, could
you print out a copy and mail it to me.
This preference will change as today's children become the mainstream.
One of the problems is that people have, in general, never believed that
copyright law applies to them--unless they happen to be a creator
themself. People have always believed that *their* copying is fine, after
all, no one's making money on it; "fair use" is used as a magic talisman,
especially by educators.
This belief hasn't been as big a problem in the past as it could be,
however, because for most purposes it has been easier to follow copyright
law than to break it. The photocopier changed this slightly, but only for
specialized, usually educational uses. It became easy to take a reference
work and copy the parts you wanted for your class, rather than requiring
everybody to buy a copy. But for entire books, taking a book from the
library and photocopying each page is a lot more work, and generally more
money, than just going to the bookstore and buying a copy yourself. Music
is an entirely different matter. Unless it's changed recently, you pay a
copyright tax on every blank cassette you buy, whether you're using it to
break copyright or not. It is very easy to break copyright law on music,
and I dare say that most people have done it at some time or another,
including other creators. They're worried about the net as well. I was at
a copyright seminar at InternetWorld a few weeks ago, and the industry rep
from the music industry basically said that the only way to combat this
was if ISPs were to immediately give out the names and addresses of any
web site owner at the slightest hint of industry disapproval. This guy
wanted to be able to call up the ISPs with a list of web sites, get the
names of the owners, and have them shut down--with only his say so that
they're copyright violations. Otherwise, he says, the industry is not
going to come onto the net.
The net changes the equation mainly because there have always been nuts
with enough free time to actually do stuff like that. It only takes one.
And you can tell people that they should buy it at the bookstore rather
than view it for free on-line, but most people don't care. They never did
before, and they aren't changing.
And, it isn't just easier and cheaper. Breaking the copyright provides
added value. I may be old-fashioned enough to occasionally prefer the
paperback to the on-line copy, but when I want to know where
Henrietta-Maria appeared in Iron Mask, I don't even attempt to flip
through the book, I use the on-line search on Negative Space. I've come
very close to sitting down and scanning some of my favorite
still-copyrighted books just so I can do stuff like that. I already have a
database of most AD&D spells. (Before you even think about it, anyone who
e-mails me asking for it, you get a picture of Rush Limbaugh naked. No,
just kidding, but you will be entirely ignored.) I think that it is legal,
but I could be wrong--and all it takes is one person who has done the same
thing, putting theirs on-line, and every AD&D player on the net is going
to want a copy, legal or not. It is far more useful than the player's
handbook.
Add in international considerations and it becomes an even bigger mess.
I've got Peter Pan on-line. Perfectly legal for me, I'm in the United
States. England passed a special law extending Peter Pan's copyright
forever to benefit poor l'il orphans. Do my electrons stop at the English
Channel? Not bloody likely!
I strongly encourage you to continue yelling at people who break copyright
on the net, but only as a psychological measure, to make you feel better.
If this sort of thing really bothers you, (and it does me), we need to
come up with a way that either (a) changes people's attitudes towards
copyright, or (b) changes the means of compensation for creators. I don't
see either happening.
For better or for worse, the net is going to drastically change creator
compensation, especially for text-based works. (Everyone else has already
been up shit creek due to either cameras, tape recorders, or VCRs. They're
probably laughing at us.)
Jerry
je...@hoboes.com
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/ e-mail he...@hoboes.com
What Your Children Are Doing: http://www.hoboes.com/html/NetLife/Children/
C. Lee Graham
<major editing to keep the size of the message down>
>The difference here is that Howard Waldrop is taking responsibility for the
>ownership of his work. This is what David Trampier should do. If David
>Trampier sends, or his lawyer sends, or his estate sends a notice to the owner
>of that web page, or it's ISP, asking them to remove the stuff, then I will be
>completely on your side. I think that the burden _should_ be on David
>Trampier to do that. I don't think it's in society's best interest to
>enforce the rights of absentee, disinterested copyright owners.
You are entitled to your opinion of how the law *should work*... if you
have any illusion that it actually DOES work that way, however, you are
quite incorrect.
Intellectual Property is a very sticky wicket at best... lots of people
make lots of money trying to explain and enforce it, but at its base level
what it says is that the copyright holder <artist, publisher, estate,
etc.> is allowed to determine how said copyright is used, or not used.
Period. If the copyright holder says you have to pay to use the copyright,
you have to pay... If you do not follow the requirements for the use of
said copyright, the holder is entitled to damages.
Copyright is not trademark... a trademark must be used and defended to
avoid the loss of a trademark. Marvel ceased publication of a comic called
The Champions, and then left it for many years. Many years later another
company (wish I could remember the name) started publishing a comic named
Champions (based loosely on the RPG, or rather from characters from the
campaign). Marvel tried to sue them, but they had, in the eyes of the
court, abandoned the trademark, and therefore lost the use of the name.
Ever wonder why Marvel and DC published those 'Marvel Universe' type
comics... beyond sales dollars, it also helps to protect their trademarks
on character names that they otherwise might not use.
Copyright, on the other hand, does not need to be defended. Unlike
trademark, it *is* a right. Once you create something, it is yours
*unless* you transfer the rights, or declare it public domain. You don't
even have to file for copyright, or mark it as such... it just is, and
remains so for *75* years beyond your death (I think, not exactly sure on
the time).
Now, having said that, filing for copyright is a good idea... much easier
to prove that something is in fact yours. Otherwise I could write a
story... awhile later my (soon to be ex-) roommate finds my story and
publishes it under his name. Now it is unfortunately my burden to prove
that I am indeed the author.
>>The public cannot force creators to create in the first place. Nor, once
>>a work is created and made available, can the public rightfully demand
>>that they always be available. The creator - or those to whom the
>>creator assigns rights - always retains the right to decide that the
>>work should no longer be available. The rest of us may importune, argue,
>>or plead, but it's _not our work_.
>
>That's true. Has David Trampier asked that Wormy not be made available? No.
>He has just abandoned it.
Or so we've been told second hand... we can't know for sure if that's the
case, or if perhaps he's just unaware
>The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
>presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
>artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way. I
>think the opposite, in this narrow case.
I guess that's the real difference here, I actually obey the laws of this
country rather than pick and choose the ones that I feel like obeying.
On the other hand, if the copyright holder (either Trampier or TSR)
doesn't pursue the person infringing on their property there's nothing the
public can do about it... other than point out that it's both illegal
*AND* immoral
<snip>
--
C. Lee Graham
Email: cl...@nospam.best.com
Public key can be found at <http://www.pgp.com/keyserver/pks-lookup.cgi>
Sean Reynolds
Ken McKinney wrote:
> So, have you tried contacting Trampier's family or anyone connected to him
> regarding this site? I doubt it.
You're right - becasue I respect the man's right to privacy. He has
made his decision about the comics - and he didn't want them published.
And neither I nor anyone else here has to contact him to hear his denial
- his permission is what is needed, not his denial.
> Why don't you do so, so his rights can be
> defended?
We are defending his rights and trying to do it in a way that keeps
anyone from getting sued. But legally and ethically, those comics
belong to him and you should ASK him before doing anything with them.
> >Nope. It's "copyright," not "compensationright." Copyright means an
> >author has a RIGHT to decide how his work is COPIED. Try looking up the
> >actual meaning of a word before making up your own definition of it.
>
> Violation of copyright in America is a civil offense. Damages are assessed
> based on the monetary losses sustained by the owner of the copyright. If
> there are no losses, there is only token compensation.
Wrong. Compensation for victims of copyright violation is significant,
and it's MORE significant when a loss of revenue is involved.
> Seems pretty much
> like it's about money, to me.
Again, your ignorance is showing,
--
** Boycott Yamara! Their creators condone stealing artwork from **
** "Wormy." artist D.Trampier! Complain to yam...@earthlink.net **
*******************************************************************
To see how I would rule as a benign despot, see my web page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~skreyn/
Sean Reynolds
Ken McKinney wrote:
> OK, I'll explain this to you slowly, since you seem to be having a problem
> with the concept. I'm not dead now. Not being killed is one of the rights of
> the living, not a right of the deceased.
Yes, but AFTER I kill you, we won't be worrying about your rights,
because you'd be dead, and we should secure the right of the living
first.
Or did you miss teh episode of Sesame Street that explained the
difference between BEFORE and AFTER?
> Please don't threaten me on this newsgroup, OK?
Oh, it's not OK to threaten you, but it's OK to threaten Trampier's
potential at ever making money with his Wormy book, should he choose to
do so?
> And let it be noted, that I
> was not the first person to make a personal attack on this thread.
Suggesting that I kill you to test your hypothesis is not a personal
attack. Calling you a clueless idiot baout copyrights _is_ a personal
attack.
> No right exists in a vaccuum. I believe in the right of an artist to be
> fairly compensated for his work.
And how is he being fairly compensatied if you make it so that nobody
needs to PAY him for the comics?
> I also believe in the public's right to not
> have parts of it's culture dissappear
75 years after he's dead, it'll go public domain.
> because an artist can't be bothered to
> either assent to it's publication, or deny it.
Can't be bothered? I don't see anyone trying to contact him about this
situation ... I see people ripping him off while he's unawares.
The man was sent payment for the work and it was SENT BACK. Sounds like
a refusal to me.
> I think my position is a
> reasonable compromise between the rights of the public, and the rights of the
> artist.
It's nice for you to think that, but it's not.
James Wallis
In article <6frp5q$c33$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, Ken McKinney
<k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>>I as consumer have no claim upon the creators I enjoy that they let me
>>do whatever I want with their works. I know that Howard Waldrop regrets
>>the out-of-print nature of many of his stories as much as I do, or more
>>- but that doesn't give me the right to do something about it, and
>>particularly not to do something that will interfere with future chances
>>of a good reprint deal.
>
>ownership of his work. This is what David Trampier should do.
You still don't get it, do you?
There is no need to take "responsibility" for ownership. If you own
something then it's yours, and that's that. Control is implicit in
ownership; it does not have to be made explicit -- not until a bunch of
twerps with no respect decide they know better, of course.
>If David
>Trampier sends, or his lawyer sends, or his estate sends a notice to the owner
>of that web page, or it's ISP, asking them to remove the stuff, then I will be
>completely on your side. I think that the burden _should_ be on David
>Trampier to do that. I don't think it's in society's best interest to
>enforce the rights of absentee, disinterested copyright owners.
Who says he's disinterested? It's entirely possible that he is now
embarrassed by Wormy, and wants to keep it away from public view. Why is
not important. What is important that it's his right to do that if he
wants.
>>The public cannot force creators to create in the first place. Nor, once
>>a work is created and made available, can the public rightfully demand
>>that they always be available. The creator - or those to whom the
>>creator assigns rights - always retains the right to decide that the
>>work should no longer be available. The rest of us may importune, argue,
>>or plead, but it's _not our work_.
>
>That's true. Has David Trampier asked that Wormy not be made available? No.
>He has just abandoned it.
He hasn't abandoned it. Hw still owns it, and all rights to it. If he
had "abandoned" it, he would have placed it in the public domain.
"Abandoning" something and not doing anything with it are not the same
thing.
Until Dave Trampier says what can and cannot be done with Wormy, then
nobody else may do anything with it. That is the truth: legally,
ethically and morally.
>The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
>presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
>artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way.
You still don't get it. It's very simple. Pay attention. Copyright law
means that Trampier doesn't have to give any instructions at all. He
owns the work. It is his. If he does nothing, then he still owns the
work. It is still his. If he dies, it becomes the property of his heirs.
They too do not have to do anything to retain control of it.
>Of course not! I never suggested we put Trampier's nose to the grindstone and
>make him churn out more Wormy, or remove his ability to demand enforcement of
>his copyright.
So Trampier, who seems to have cut himself off from the gaming community
for over a decade and who does not seem to have an Internet account, is
supposed to (a) find out somehow that his work his been posted on the
WWW; (b) spend time and probably money finding out what he can do about
it; (c) make contact with the web-site's owner, which may require the
use of a medium he's not familiar with -- email; (d) reveal to the
gaming community that he's still alive, thus leaving himself open to
appeals to republish his work or re-start his strip.
That seems like a lot of work to defend something which legally he
shouldn't have to protect because he already owns all rights to it.
I have no idea where Dave Trampier is, but I hope he's happy there. Why
can't you leave him and his property alone?
Ken McKinney
>If 'the public' has a right to an artists work, then, it has a right to
>enslave the artist and force him to create, when he does not wish to. How DARE
>Shakespeare retire when he could have written more plays? By what right does
>he 'deprive' the public of the works he never created.
Oh please, you're drawing all sorts of ridiculous inferences from the narrow
case we're dealing with here. Of _course_ I don't think that society has the
right to enslave the artist. Geez.
>
>You're a socialist, aren't you?
No, as a matter of fact I am not.
>
>I suppose I had better report to the re-education center myself. For the past
>year, I've hardly written any fiction. How dare I deprive the public of my
>art? I am a poor citizen-unit. I will report to the termination center
>immediately.
You're the one equating publishing abandoned creative works on the web with
enslaving people, not me. Want to compare me to Hitler next?
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>That's the damages part. You can also be served with a 'cease and decist'
>order, which if you don't comply can get you thrown in jail for contempt of
>court.
That's the whole point of the web page! They want a 'cease and decist'
because they think it will help them locate David Trampier, and at least make
his intentions clear regarding his work.
>
>Thus, violating a copyright _can_ lead to imprisonment if you continue to do
>it after being told by a court of law not to.
Yes, and if they are told to remove the web page by a court or even by David
Trampier or his family, I am sure they will do so. I would certainly not
defend them if they did not.
>
>
>And, frankly, this is as it should be. Unless an artist/creator has given up
>their rights to a work (ala a GPL or similar situation), the artist should be
>able to recover damages from your abuse of their property, and have assurance
>that you will not be allowed to continue abusing their property. Creations
>are the property of their creator, not some vague entity as a "culture".
>They can be passed on to an individual or nation or the public domain or even
>to their own governorship, but as much as they may be important to a culture
>they never _belong_ to the culture.
Agreed. What are we arguing about, really? All I am saying is that if David
Trampier wants distribution of Wormy restricted, he should ask for it.
Ken McKinney
>
Ken McKinney
In article <zReU.114$3C1.6...@news.itd.umich.edu>, jms...@toastman.us.itd.umich.edu (Joseph M. Saul) wrote:
>(And while we're at it, there's such a thing as criminal copyright
> infringement as well -- and it just got a whole lot easier to charge
> someone with it.)
Really? Could you elaborate on this, and on whether the Wormy stuff would
qualify?
Ken
>
>Joe Saul
>jms...@umich.edu
Ken McKinney
In article <oQeU.113$3C1.6...@news.itd.umich.edu>, jms...@toastman.us.itd.umich.edu (Joseph M. Saul) wrote:
>Ken McKinney writes:
>
>Ever hear the phrase "statutory damages?" If the work is registered, the
>owner can receive substantial monetary awards even if the owner cannot
>prove a loss.
Yes, I know what statutory damages are. What are they for copyright
violations? Does the law indicate that they would apply in the Wormy case? Is
Wormy's copyright registered? Some more information would be useful to the
debate here.
Ken McKinney
>
>Joe Saul
>jms...@umich.edu
Bruce Baugh
There's been talk of what rights people _don't_ have in law, but not
much discussion of the business considerations that net plagiarism and
the like raise. So, I'd like to talk a bit about how publishers handle
things.
There are, basically, two ways for a publisher to deal with creators:
1. Purchase of all rights.
2. Purchase of just some rights.
1 is what's often called "work for hire", though work-for-hire deals can
include other terms. Most gaming writing is done this way - once I
finish a piece and send it off, by terms of the contract it's White
Wolf's, not mine, for all questions of ownership.
When the publisher owns the work, then the questions surrounding reprint
are relatively simple - is there enough demand to warrant it? If a work
is widely accessible some other way, then the usual assumption is that
there isn't enough untapped demand to make it worthwhile. This is true
even if "widely accessible" only applies to part of the audience, which
means that unauthorized publication on the Web may well screw over the
non-Web-accessible part of the market.
2. There are lots of kinds of rights that a creator may sell. First
serial rights is the biggie, where most of the money is. This is the
right to print the work before anyone else does, and to retain control
of it until the print run lapses. For magazines that's a few months
after the issue appears; for books it's longer, but usually not more
than a couple of years.
(There are complicating cases involving first serial rights in the local
language versus first serial rights worldwide, but let's not get into
that.)
Each successive reprint pays less; the assumption - a demonstrably valid
one in almost all intances - is that the more copies are floating around
one way or another, the fewer bucks will be made this time around.
Net publication counts as an instance of printing. If I put something up
on the Web when I finish it, publishers won't pay for first serial
rights; at best I'll get an offer for second serial rights. If a work
has a regular print run then gets pirated to the Web, the creator won't
get better than third serial rights after that.
Publishers like to make money, and don't like to face rights questions.
For printings after the first, it's critically important that the
creator establish clear title to (ownership of) the rights he's
proposing to sell now. Standard contracts are usually pretty clear about
that. But unauthorized editions can _really_ complicate the picture;
depending on the circumstances, the pirate may actually have some claims
that get in the way. This kind of thing can scuttle the possibility of
_any_ future reprinting.
So what do you do if you like a work that's not for sale? Praise it.
Share your copy with friends. Write to the publisher and creator, urging
them to see about reprinting. But _don't_ take reprinting into your own
hands - you may actually reduce the feasiblity of the very thing you
want to see!
Lance Purple
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The creator - or those to whom the creator assigns rights -
> always retains the right to decide that the work should no
> longer be available.
No, they don't. We currently give authors of print and video works
the authority to limit production of new copies, on the theory that
this right will ensure they are fairly compensated for their effort.
But at some point, the work falls into the public domain; and the
author ceases to have any sort of control over publication.
Furthermore, thanks to first-sale rights, I can sell or lend my copy
of, say, Dragon magazine #38 to anyone who wants to view the comic.
If I am a "library or archive" as defined in the US Code, not only
can I lend out my copy, I can make backup copies in case my original
is destroyed or is not returned by a borrower.
In the case of musical works covered by mechanical royalty, then the
author never has any say to begin with; I can publish covers of any
Led Zeppelin songs I like. They are entitled to royalty, but cannot
stop me from publishing.
I think the most sensible way to handle these kinds of disputes,
given:
- the increasing duration of copyright (when I was born, it was
56 years max; now it's the author's lifetime plus 75 years!);
- the increasing number of works which are out-of-print;
- and the increasing ease of illicit digital copying;
would be to have all copyrightable works covered by mechanical royalty
arrangements. Then copiers could not argue that they weren't hurting
anybody because the work was out-of-print; the work would -always- be
in print from the moment it was published till the day it went public
domain. Click here, and a copy is sent to your reader or printer,
while the royalty payment is sent to the author's bank account.
.----------------------------.
| lpurple at netcom dot com |
'----------------------------'
Zoran Bekric
Ken McKinney (k...@adaptivemedia.com) wrote:
<snip>
>No right exists in a vaccuum. I believe in the right of an artist to be
>fairly compensated for his work. I also believe in the public's right to not
>have parts of it's culture dissappear because an artist can't be bothered to
>either assent to it's publication, or deny it. I think my position is a
>reasonable compromise between the rights of the public, and the rights of the
>artist.
I believe current copyright law already covers this. Among those countries
who are signatories to the Burne Convention (which includes -- finally --
the United States) copyright expires 50 years after the death of the
creator or 50 years after first publication in the case of posthumous
publication. After that the work enters the public domain.
This seems to be an equitable compromise between the rights of a creator
to be fairly compensated for their work (and to be able to leave an estate
to their family) and the public's right to not have parts of their culture
dissappear.
The problem here is that you do not seem to be abiding by this particular
compromise while trying to use the basis of the compromise to defend your
actions. This will not win you friends on either side of the arguements
and -- given how hard various groups struggled to get the rights inherent
in the law(s) of copyright established and recognised -- may well make
some enemies.
A reasonable compromise is one all -- or at least, a clear majority of --
parties agree to. The number of people disagreeing with you here would
seem to indicate your particular compromise is not reasonable by this
definition.
Something to think about.
Regards,
Zoran
--
Zoran Bekric
(zbe...@hempseed.com)
purple prose is the prose for me,
purple prose is the best you see;
red prose only makes you mad;
blue prose only makes you sad;
yellow prose is the worst of the lot,
written only to boil the pot;
yes, purple prose is the prose for me,
happy and glad and grand to see.
JFZeigler
My only comment on this matter:
Trampier's rights are being violated by people who claim
to "care about him" and his work. I find that despicable.
One of the arguments being used to defend this action is
that the "public" has a right to Trampier's work. I find this
despicable as well. "The public" is an abstraction and as
such has no rights -- none whatsoever. Individuals are
real entities with rights that demand defense.
It would be foolish to start comparing those who would
steal Trampier's work "for the public good" with great
collectivists like Stalin or Hitler. There are degrees. But
this *is* a matter of degree. Not of kind.
----------
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, amateur historian, science fiction fan,
freelance writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry
JFZe...@aol.com
"Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself."
Zachery J. Bir
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:56:29 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>
>The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
>presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
>think the opposite, in this narrow case.
It's not only his position (and, apparently, the position of most
other intelligent posters in this thread), it's the law. Stop wasting
our time, and go read some copyright law.
Zac
Zachery J. Bir
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 02:07:26 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>
>Agreed. What are we arguing about, really? All I am saying is that if David
>Trampier wants distribution of Wormy restricted, he should ask for it.
>
>Ken McKinney
You are so incredibly stupid. All I can think is that you've begun
this April Fools' Day Thread about two weeks early, in the hopes of
this final, brain-dead culmination. It really is a stretch of the
imagination that anyone could be this thick-skulled-stupid. To be able
to blatantly ignore the law and rest on the mindless diarrhoea that
you've been spewing is a trait I find admirable... if you want a job
as a doorstop.
If you want Wormy so damned badly, go down to your local game shop, or
comic shop, and buy up all the back issues of Dragon. Hell give me a
list of issues, and a big whoppin' check and I'll pick them up for you
at my local shop.
Until then, I'm sure you've got better things to do, like rob people
who weren't home to defend their property.
Zac
Joseph M. Saul
Ken McKinney asks, referring to criminal copyright infringement:
>Really? Could you elaborate on this, and on whether the Wormy stuff would
>qualify?
Section 506(a) of the Copyright Act provides for criminal penalties in
certain cases of copyright infringement. It used to require that the
infringement be not only willful, but "for purposes of commercial advantage
or private financial gain." Since Congress passed the "No Electronic
Theft Act" last year, however, it is now sufficient that the copying be
*either* for gain as above, or that you reproduce or distribute at
least $1,000 worth of copyrighted material within a 180-day period. The
infringement still has to be willful, but based on the dialogue in this
newsgroup, it clearly is.
The basic offense is a 1-year misdemeanor. If the value exceeds $2,500
within 180 days, you can get 5 years if for-profit, 3 years if not, plus a
very large fine.
Does what you're doing qualify? Depends on the dollar amount a court
would value the out-of-print Wormy strips at, I guess. Courts are funny
about that sometimes. My advice is to go get a lawyer. I am not one
(yet), and the preceding does not constitute legal advice.
But even a year in the Federal pen would suck.
Joe Saul
jms...@umich.edu
NUELOW
Frank Sronce wrote:
<< And if he's dead, *I* for one would not like to see any artist's work
die with him. >>
So? When it comes to copyrighted material, that is a decision that is left to
his estate, not fans with scanners and little sense of law or morals.
Steve Miller
NUELOW
Ken McKinney wrote:
<< Agreed. What are we arguing about, really? All I am saying is that if David
Trampier wants distribution of Wormy restricted, he should ask for it. >>
He *doesn't* have to ask for it, just like I don't have to ask for burglars to
please not break into my house.
The lack of moral fiber coupled with back-assward logic that 'netters display
never ceases to amaze me.
"It's okay so long as we don't get caught!"
Steve Miller
NUELOW
Ken McKinney wrote:
<< Is Wormy's copyright registered? >>
My experience with periodical publishers is that they register the copyright
for material--on behalf of the author and themselves as it relates to their use
of the material--on or before publication of the magazine. Now, I've only
worked with a limited amount of publishers, so I could have been working with
unusual organizations.
Steve Miller
Ken McKinney
>You still don't get it, do you?
Look, you're basically arguing by saying"you don't get it", and repeating your
position. I acknowledge your position, I just happend to disagree with it,
as is my right. I'm going to move on now.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
In article <x5sU.293$3C1.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>, jms...@toastman.us.itd.umich.edu (Joseph M. Saul) wrote:
>
>Does what you're doing qualify? Depends on the dollar amount a court
>would value the out-of-print Wormy strips at, I guess. Courts are funny
>about that sometimes. My advice is to go get a lawyer. I am not one
>(yet), and the preceding does not constitute legal advice.
I'd like to point out, _again_, that I am not the one with the web page.
Hell, I haven't even _seen_ it. I just took the opposite viewpoint of a
number of writers, here, regarding the _ethics_ of the web site.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>Or did you miss teh episode of Sesame Street that explained the
>difference between BEFORE and AFTER?
Sean, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, since you can't be civil.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>
>>The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
>>presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
>>artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way. I
>>think the opposite, in this narrow case.
>
>I guess that's the real difference here, I actually obey the laws of this
>country rather than pick and choose the ones that I feel like obeying.
>
The web page isn't mine, nor have I looked at it (I own all of the relevant
Dragons). So if you've viewed the web page (hence creating a temporary copy
of the page on your machine) you've broken the law, and I haven't.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
>I think the most sensible way to handle these kinds of disputes,
>given:
>
> - the increasing duration of copyright (when I was born, it was
> 56 years max; now it's the author's lifetime plus 75 years!);
> - the increasing number of works which are out-of-print;
> - and the increasing ease of illicit digital copying;
>
>would be to have all copyrightable works covered by mechanical royalty
>arrangements. Then copiers could not argue that they weren't hurting
>anybody because the work was out-of-print; the work would -always- be
>in print from the moment it was published till the day it went public
>domain. Click here, and a copy is sent to your reader or printer,
>while the royalty payment is sent to the author's bank account.
This makes a lot of sense. I hope the print world adopts this approach. It's
in keeping with what I asserted earlier -- that copyright is about making sure
artists are fairly compensated for their work. It won't make people happy who
are interested in the ability of an artist to remove previously published work
from the marketplace happy, but as I think my posts on this topic have made
clear, this is not a right which I think is in the interests of society.
Ken McKinney
ps: Hi Lance!
Zachery J. Bir
Look, you're basically an idiotic twerp. You, as a consumer, have no
"right" to the artistic material of a creator. These aren't merely
hypothetical opinions flying around here, y'know? There's the matter
of law. Good or bad, copyright law exists. As the laws are written,
the site with the pirated Wormy strips is _illegal_
_no_matter_how_much_you_disagree_with_the_il/legality_of_it_.
Zac
Ken McKinney
>The problem here is that you do not seem to be abiding by this particular
>compromise while trying to use the basis of the compromise to defend your
>actions. This will not win you friends on either side of the arguements
>and -- given how hard various groups struggled to get the rights inherent
>in the law(s) of copyright established and recognised -- may well make
>some enemies.
Umm, I repeat, for the 20th time on this thread, _I Am Not The Web Page
Owner_. I have not taken any actions which I need to defend. I haven't even
_seen_ the web page!
>
>A reasonable compromise is one all -- or at least, a clear majority of --
>parties agree to. The number of people disagreeing with you here would
>seem to indicate your particular compromise is not reasonable by this
>definition.
The people disagreeing with me here are by and large authors. It's not too
surprising that they're interested in a definition and enforcement of
copyright law that gives _them_ as many rights and as few responsibilities as
possible.
Ken McKinney
Ken McKinney
In article <slrn6i40a...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net>, zb...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net (Zachery J. Bir) wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:56:29 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>The difference between your position and mine is just that you think that the
>>presumption should be that the work should not be made available, when the
>>artist has abandoned his work and has left no instructions either way. I
>>think the opposite, in this narrow case.
>
>other intelligent posters in this thread), it's the law. Stop wasting
>our time, and go read some copyright law.
>
I know what the law is. I haven't broken the law. What's your point? I'm
arguing about the _ethics_ of the situation, and the reasons for which the law
was created.
And anyway, if you think I'm wasting your time, there are plenty of other
threads to read out there on USENET.
Ken McKinney
>Zac
Zachery J. Bir
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:12:02 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>
>The people disagreeing with me here are by and large authors. It's not too
>surprising that they're interested in a definition and enforcement of
>copyright law that gives _them_ as many rights and as few responsibilities as
>possible.
!!!???!!! My God, man, are you _insane_?!? Are you seriously
suggesting that authors should have their rights reduced? Revoked? How
can anyone who claims to be a fan of an artist possibly write the
tripe in your last paragraph?
Ack,
Zac
Ken McKinney
In article <slrn6i419...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net>, zb...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net (Zachery J. Bir) wrote:
so incredibly stupid. All I can think is that you've begun
>this April Fools' Day Thread about two weeks early, in the hopes of
>this final, brain-dead culmination. It really is a stretch of the
>imagination that anyone could be this thick-skulled-stupid. To be able
>to blatantly ignore the law and rest on the mindless diarrhoea that
>you've been spewing is a trait I find admirable... if you want a job
>as a doorstop.
Look, you idiot, I'm not the one who made the Wormy web page. I haven't
ignored the law. I haven't claimed that the _Law_ supports the creation of
the web page. And I haven't descended to making infantile personal attacks
out of frustration that someone doesn't agree with my point of view.
>
>If you want Wormy so damned badly, go down to your local game shop, or
>comic shop, and buy up all the back issues of Dragon. Hell give me a
>list of issues, and a big whoppin' check and I'll pick them up for you
>at my local shop.
Well, as a matter of fact, I own them all.
>
>Until then, I'm sure you've got better things to do, like rob people
>who weren't home to defend their property.
Do you still beat your wife?
>
>Zac
Ken
Zachery J. Bir
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:14:51 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>
>I know what the law is. I haven't broken the law. What's your point? I'm
>arguing about the _ethics_ of the situation, and the reasons for
>which the law was created.
I'm not saying you broke the law. I'm calling into question your
ethics, which, so far, seem to amount to: "If I can get away with
theft, in this case because the artist wishes to remain out of the
public eye, it's okay."
Some ethics.
>
>And anyway, if you think I'm wasting your time, there are plenty of other
>threads to read out there on USENET.
Too true.
Zac
Zachery J. Bir
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:19:01 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>Look, you idiot, I'm not the one who made the Wormy web page. I haven't
>ignored the law. I haven't claimed that the _Law_ supports the creation of
>the web page. And I haven't descended to making infantile personal attacks
>out of frustration that someone doesn't agree with my point of view.
>
Read what I wrote, turnip. I never said you broke the law. But you're
_advocating_ a blatant disregard for copyright law because you feel
that "the public" deserves to see Wormy. That's just stupid.
I really hope that a time comes when you have produced something and
have to deal with the infantile "gimme gimme gimme" attitudes you're
showing from the other side of the equation.
Zac
Ken McKinney
>
>The lack of moral fiber coupled with back-assward logic that 'netters display
>never ceases to amaze me.
OK, I'm retiring from this thread. I've given my point of view, you guys have
given yours. There's nothing left but the personal attacks, and I'm not
interested in that. Goodbye.
Ken McKinney
Bruce Baugh
>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:12:02 GMT, Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>The people disagreeing with me here are by and large authors. It's not too
>>surprising that they're interested in a definition and enforcement of
>>copyright law that gives _them_ as many rights and as few responsibilities as
>>possible.
I'll go further than that. I think creators have _no_ responsibilities
to the public at all. There is no duty to create. If one chooses to
create, there is no duty to publish. If one chooses to publish, there is
no duty to make sure that a work once available remains available. It
is - until copyright expires - purely and only the prerogative of the
creator and rights-holder to decide whether and under what terms a work
is available.
Personally, I think copyright period extends too long; I'd favor a fixed
term of years (fifty, say, or thereabouts). But I am emphatically keen
on the principle that for a significant period of time, the creator, or
the people to whom the creator assigns rights, get the say-so about what
happens to a work.
I'm equally enthusiastic about the principle of wide accessibility of
works in the public domain. I hope to contribute to Project Gutenberg
later this year, for instance, and I think it swell that the net makes
it feasible to get at works hitherto hard to find. Archives of
classical, historical, artistic, and other reference materials are great
stuff. That's preserving our shared cultural heritage and making it
accessible.
I don't think there's a conflict between those two, either. For a while,
the creator gets to control access and derive profit from a work. Then,
in perpetuity, it becomes available to all to do with as they please.
Bruce Baugh
In article <slrn6i4kd...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net>, zb...@chaumas.suits.kiva.net (Zachery J. Bir) wrote:
>I really hope that a time comes when you have produced something and
>have to deal with the infantile "gimme gimme gimme" attitudes you're
>showing from the other side of the equation.
Ahh, now that'd be a pleasure.
James Wallis
In article <6fs7l2$ic7$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, Ken McKinney
<k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>In article <6frmpa$h...@enews3.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>>If 'the public' has a right to an artists work, then, it has a right to
>>enslave the artist and force him to create, when he does not wish to. How DARE
>>Shakespeare retire when he could have written more plays? By what right does
>>he 'deprive' the public of the works he never created.
>
>Oh please, you're drawing all sorts of ridiculous inferences from the narrow
>case we're dealing with here. Of _course_ I don't think that society has the
>right to enslave the artist. Geez.
So if you don't believe society has the right to enslave the artist, why
are you forcing Dave Trampier to do something he shouldn't have to do,
legally or morally -- defend his work from those who are stealing and
abusing it?
--
James Wallis, Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Publishers of WARHAMMER FANTASY ROLEPLAY (wf...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Warhammer is a registered trademark of Games Workshop PLC, used with permission
Company motto: "Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo"
James Wallis
In article <6fu2u2$h99$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, Ken McKinney
<k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote:
>In article <3521C032.2DDE@no_spam_please.earthlink.net>, skreyn@no_spam_please.e
>arthlink.net wrote:
>
>>Or did you miss teh episode of Sesame Street that explained the
>>difference between BEFORE and AFTER?
>
>Sean, I'm not going to argue with you anymore, since you can't be civil.
Translation: "I know I've lost, but I'm not admitting it."
Frank Sronce
Sure. I agree with you in one sense and disagree in another. Hm. Let's
see...
To put it back into gaming terms, I'll use a bit of Elric cosmology and
bring in two cosmic representatives... Bear in mind that these two are both
fanatics.
The Master of Law: If the man who created the work has not given, sold or
leased it to this individual, then any and all use of it is wrong. The work
still belongs to the author and only he can decide whether it shall be
published or destroyed, unless a substantial public interest can be proven
to the contrary.
The Lord of Chaos: What is legal is irrelevant. If by this act he has made
available good works that would otherwise be lost, then he has benefited the
lives of those who view it. This makes it a good act. Even if it could
conceivably injure the artist in some fashion, it is still a good act unless
the injury will exceed the benefit granted to the world by making the work
available. Such things should be made available to as many people as
possible, that they may reach their full potential. To destroy the art,
even at the artist's command, would be a crime.
The Master of Law: The artist owns his work.
The Lord of Chaos: Does the parent own his children? What has been made,
is. It exists independently of the artist now.
The Master of Law: This is a great crime.
The Lord of Chaos: This is a great service to the community.
The Speaker of Balance has not yet been heard from... it is
probable, like usual, that he intends to wait and see what results before
making a judgement.
Myself, I tend to be a balance person. Which means that I haven't
made up my mind yet, but I am sure of one thing- I think that the strips
ought to be available in some format, because they were good. If the author
can arrange it and benefit from it, fantastic. If he can't, I'd still like
to see them out there. Because I liked them.
Kiz
Frank Sronce
>> Dead people don't have rights, I'm afraid.
>
>Bull. They have the right to pass their heritable properties on to
>their heirs. If Trampier is dead, then his heirs likely have the
>rights to Wormy.
>*****
>--Anthony Ragan
Right. You clipped an important bit- unless there are living people who
are affected. Heirs, naturally, have to be alive, and usually do care, very
strongly. So I agree with you. But I still think that Shakespear gets no
special consideration under our laws/moral system. We don't care whether or
not he would've approved of the movies and plays that we base off of his
works. If there was still a Shakespear family, though, that owned and
protected those works... well, that would be a different story.
Kiz
Michael B. Thomas
Ken McKinney <k...@adaptivemedia.com> wrote in article
<6fu3ti$h99$7...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
> In article <zbekric-0104...@ppp324.adelaide.on.net>,
zbe...@hempseed.com (Zoran Bekric) wrote:
>
> Umm, I repeat, for the 20th time on this thread, _I Am Not The Web Page
> Owner_. I have not taken any actions which I need to defend. I haven't
even
> _seen_ the web page!
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. <g>
Mike