Nasty letters exchanged with T$R over Intellectual Property
macros
I wrote......
>ted to tell you that your internet policy regarding
>>what material may be kept on web sites sucks.
>
They wrote.....
> OK, how about you tell me what you _think_ our internet policy is, and
>we can talk about it for a while.
>
>- Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
>
I responded.....
I would love to. Unfortunately, all you ever do is say the sites have
material that infringe your intellectual property rights. Then you tell the
admins. you want them closed down, putting the fear of legal action into their
souls. If you would specify which material actually infringes upon your rights,
maybe sites wouldn't actually have to close all the way down. They might be
able to keep some material that is "O.K." by your standards. Unfortunately for
gamers on the net, your scare tactics worked to your benefit. Now MPGN is the
only site with any real material on it, and it is a far cry from the old
Greyhawk site.
Believe it or not, I attend Quinnipiac Law School in Connecticut. I
have a working knowledge of intellectual property laws. I do respect your
property rights, and agree that you have most of the rights you claim. I know
that you don't want your game system to have too much circulation in a
non-approved manner, or else you run the risk of them becoming THE generic set
of rules for gaming in general. If that happens anyone can publish TSR
compatable supplements and take away from your profits. There is a difference
here though. The net is not accessed by about 95% of the American population.
There is no way in which the net can be the instrument through which the entire
gaming community gains rights to use your trademarked system and the terms
associated with it. I also understand that you want to try and preserve the new
politically correct "tone" of the game you worked so hard to achieve.
Unfortunately, the only thing you are accomplishing is to piss off and turn away
a lot of devoted fans who also happen to use the internet.
I guess you guys did your demographic studies and found we don't
contribute that much to your bottom line. I guess you can aford to piss us off.
I guess TSR is now T$R, a corporation which sacrafices quality and the spirit
of gaming for pursuit of the almighty buck.
Joe Dimech
That was my response. Am I too far off the mark do you think?
DarkAvgr1
>spirit
>of gaming for pursuit of the almighty buck.
You're damn right they do! (Have you SEEN some of the new crap they came
out with? Look at the new PHB and DMG. Any difference? A new (Stupid...)
logo, new art, (big deal...) more spelling and editing errors than I have
ever seen, and, everyone's favorite, after adding all this new stuff
(worthless sh*t...) , they jacked up the price!)
-The Dark Avenger
"If it's not nailed down, It's free!
james vassilakos
:Believe it or not, I attend Quinnipiac Law School in Connecticut. I
:have working knowledge of intellectual property laws. I do respect your
:that you don't want your game system to have too much circulation in a
:non-approved manner, or else you run the risk of them becoming THE generic set
:of rules for gaming in general. If that happens anyone can publish TSR
:compatable supplements and take away from your profits.
:That was my response. Am I too far off the mark do you think?
Since you are apparently a law student, you may want to check on this.
My understanding was that a system (even a system of terms) does not
have to be generic in order to be freely used (unless it has been
patented). Though I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice,
my understanding is that it is perfectly legal for a person to
distribute supplements which they wrote which are compatible with
any game system, regardless of its circulation or popularity.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd very much like to see it.
Veggie Boy
Actually, since you're such a fan of quoting email, you actually
wrote a little more than that, which I thought could bear some scrutiny:
> When are you going to wake up and see that you only hurt yourselves
> by closing down sites like morpheus'.
This doesn't even need to be addressed.
> You may have the pigeons here at AOL eating out of your hands,
> but they don't represent the internet community.
How many people in the internet community do you think there are that
play AD&D? That care about this situation? Take a look at the number of
posts in this newsgroup? Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
either a) stopped posting, or b) realized that the situation isn't as bad
as they thought it was. Do you represent the internet community? Does
Jim? Does Guy?
> AOL kinda sucks too.) Did any of you ever see what was at
> greyhawk.stanford.edu? There was 100 times more stuff to
> dnload there. And most of it was good.
Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
> The only thing you accomplish thru your hardassedness is to turn
> off most of the tsr customers on the net.
TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
> There wasn't a lot of quality stuff to dnload. Just like there
> isn't a lot of quality stuff on the shelves these days from you.
> You were a lot better 12 years ago. Quality over quantity then.
Ah, so are you attacking the internet policy, or are you attacking
TSR products? One has no bearing on the other.
> If you want to reply send it to mac...@nai.net. If you don't,
> well, it's to be expected I guess. There's not much you could
> say to change what you did or how you are.
Then what did you expect me to do? Interpretive dance? :P
>I then wrote:
> I would love to. Unfortunately, all you ever do is say the sites
> have material that infringe your intellectual property rights. Then you
> tell the admins. you want them closed down, putting the fear of legal
> action into their souls. If you would specify which material actually
> infringes upon your rights, maybe sites wouldn't actually have to close
> all the way down.
Where have you been? Have you read _anything_ I've posted in the
past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
as in the way you mentioned above.
>Believe it or not, I attend Quinnipiac Law School in Connecticut. I
>have a working knowledge of intellectual property laws. I do respect
>your property rights, and agree that you have most of the rights you
>claim.
> The net is not accessed by about 95% of the
> American population. There is no way in which the net can be the
> instrument through which the entire gaming community gains rights to use
> your trademarked system and the terms associated with it.
However, if a thousand people on the net get their foot in the door
by using TSR property w/o permission, it's not that hard for another game
company to push it open the rest of the way and claim that TSR has not
defended its exclusive rights to its property. "Butm your honor, we have
here a thousand pieces of similiar game materials evidence which TSR did
nothing to try and stop the distribution of...."
> I also
> understand that you want to try and preserve the new politically correct
> "tone" of the game you worked so hard to achieve. Unfortunately, the only
> thing you are accomplishing is to piss off and turn away a lot of devoted
> fans who also happen to use the internet.
This has to do with TSR's Code Of Ethics, not with its online policy.
When you mix together the online policy, the CoE and the quality of
recent TSR materials, it only muddles the issue.
Veggie Boy
> You're damn right they do! (Have you SEEN some of the new crap they came
> out with? Look at the new PHB and DMG. Any difference? A new (Stupid...)
> logo, new art, (big deal...) more spelling and editing errors than I have
> ever seen, and, everyone's favorite, after adding all this new stuff
> (worthless sh*t...) , they jacked up the price!)
If you dislike TSR so much, why can I find you talking with my staff
in the AOL forum chat room most every night?
DarkAvgr1
SUCK, but that doesn't mean that I *HATE* all of TSR...but you, I might
make an exception for. You are an incredibly cocky, arrogant, idiotic
<explitive deleted!>. And, please, go away. For the sake of all mankind.
:-)
-The Dark Avenger, who thinks that he's talking to a cement wall here...
Guy Robinson
[...]
: They wrote.....
: > [...]
: >
: >- Sean Reynolds
: > TSR Online Coordinator
: > TSR...@aol.com
: I responded.....
: I would love to. Unfortunately, all you ever do is say the sites have
: material that infringe your intellectual property rights. Then you tell the
: admins. you want them closed down, putting the fear of legal action into
: their souls. If you would specify which material actually infringes upon
: your rights, maybe sites wouldn't actually have to close all the way down.
: They might be able to keep some material that is "O.K." by your standards.
: Unfortunately for gamers on the net, your scare tactics worked to your
: benefit. Now MPGN is the only site with any real material on it, and it is
: a far cry from the old Greyhawk site.
This is an emotive, but fairly accurate, analysis of events.
The last site to close was run by Morpheus but TSR directed their e-mail
message, notifying possible legal action, to his internet connection
supplier, not to Morpheus himself. No details of the infringement was
given although Veggie Boy has since stated infringements in a series of
small, non-exhaustive, examples.
Veggie Boy, or Sean, claims that future legal action will be handled in
an improved fashion but we have yet to see evidence of this despite the
fact that D&D materials are creeping back on to various WWW sites I have
seen recently.
: Believe it or not, I attend Quinnipiac Law School in Connecticut. I
: have a working knowledge of intellectual property laws. I do respect your
: property rights, and agree that you have most of the rights you claim.
Welcome to fold of those who respect TSR intellectual property rights but
do not agree with TSR's annecdotal, patched and fragmentary net.policy.
: I know
: that you don't want your game system to have too much circulation in a
: non-approved manner, or else you run the risk of them becoming THE
: generic set
: of rules for gaming in general. If that happens anyone can publish TSR
: compatable supplements and take away from your profits.
I see this from another perspective. TSR has taken the stick it uses to
beat the producers of D&D compatible products and used it to beat its
formerly loyal customers with.
: There is a difference
: here though. The net is not accessed by about 95% of the American
: population.
: There is no way in which the net can be the instrument through which the
: entire
: gaming community gains rights to use your trademarked system and the terms
: associated with it.
This would be not too hard to enforce as it is far harder to write a non
derivative replacement for a full rule-book than to write a non-derivative
piece of writing akin to that a TSR customer writes for his own campaigns.
: I also understand that you want to try and preserve the new
: politically correct "tone" of the game you worked so hard to achieve.
: Unfortunately, the only thing you are accomplishing is to piss off and
: turn away
: a lot of devoted fans who also happen to use the internet.
I would only abide by TSR's code of ethics if they _paid_ me to do so.
I have my own code of ethics and I stick by those.
: I guess you guys did your demographic studies and found we don't
: contribute that much to your bottom line. I guess you can aford to piss
: us off.
: I guess TSR is now T$R, a corporation which sacrafices quality and the
: spirit of gaming for pursuit of the almighty buck.
Both of the above are entirely possible.
--
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
The real meaning of Christmas is a Mid-Winter feast.
ed taychert
>
> How many people in the internet community do you think there are that
>play AD&D? That care about this situation? Take a look at the number of
>posts in this newsgroup? Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
>either a) stopped posting, or b) realized that the situation isn't as bad
>as they thought it was. Do you represent the internet community? Does
>Jim? Does Guy?
I think that a large amount of people realize that c) just because
TSR says it's so doesn't make it so, d) just because TSR says "no"
doesn't make it illegal, (I'm not advocating doing anything illegal,
I'm saying that TSR represtatives are the _last_ people one should
ask concerning what is legal and what is not,) and e) it's just not
worth the effort to pay any attention to you (collectively, not
personally.)
> TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
>property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
> [...]
> However, if a thousand people on the net get their foot in the door
^^^
>by using TSR property w/o permission, it's not that hard for another game
>company to push it open the rest of the way and claim that TSR has not
>defended its exclusive rights to its property. "Butm your honor, we have
>here a thousand pieces of similiar game materials evidence which TSR did
>nothing to try and stop the distribution of...."
This is of course the big hope, that the perception of "whipping" this
group into submission might later help TSR in some otherwise
unsupportable position.
But "get" is in the wrong tense ...
Life was cosy for TSR when (most) people had to go to the bookstore
to get gaming materials and TSR was the biggest gaming company and
had all the distribution channels sown up. But when they eventually
got around to stringing telephone wires into the digital wastelands,
TSR discovered that thousands of people were already publishing on
the biggest distribution channel in the world and TSR was struck
by fear.
Forget whether mommy gives her kids 25 bucks to buy hard-print rushed
to market onto all those old-tech delivery trucks, there are pleny of
alterntives available for (practically) free on his or her newly
internet-connected computer ... TSR sees itself for the first time
in a catch-up position.
So along comes the "value added" scheme, the Code of Ethics. Okay,
adding value is fine business. But why not attempt to restrain the
trade of their "competition" too? Hit some internet hot buttons
like "copyright infringement" by claiming 6 sided dice and blank
forms are copyrighted, trademarked and patented ...
A baby crying in the night gets attention at first, you try to
sooth it, stroke it, calm it ... eventually, the best course
just became to leave TSR alone and wait for them to stop crying
when they figured out that no one cared.
I hope this helps clear things up.
- Ed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Taychert | Visit Irony Games! PBEM's, Game openings, Worlds on the
e...@irony.com | web and online GM tools. All free! http://www.irony.com
DarkAvgr1
>If you dislike TSR so much, why can I find you talking with my staff
>in the AOL forum chat room most every night?
I *TRY* not to talk to the staff, because most of them are idiots. (I
won't name names, here...). But, I think your code of ethics sucks, alot
of your new products suck, (except for S&P, and Masque of the Red
Death...) but I don't hate TSR products, the AD&D game, etc. It's the
company policies (and some of the people there...) that I don't like.
-The Dark Avenger
macros
> > When are you going to wake up and see that you only hurt yourselves
> > by closing down sites like morpheus'.
>
> This doesn't even need to be addressed.
I guess if you don't understand this statement, you don't really understand what we've been complaining about.
> > You may have the pigeons here at AOL eating out of your hands,
> > but they don't represent the internet community.
>
> How many people in the internet community do you think there are that
> play AD&D? That care about this situation? Take a look at the number of
> posts in this newsgroup? Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
> either a) stopped posting, or b) realized that the situation isn't as bad
> as they thought it was.
How about c) Just given up, since you have a team of lawyers and lots of money to back you up, and all
we have is our love of gaming. The net and distribution of materials over it is still a new area in the law.
It would be a shame if this became the standard net policy.
> Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
> MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
You see, we would never know what to upload since when you close down sites, you never specify what material is
actually in violation. A threat of legal action is enough to close sites down and all they contain, since the
admins. have no idea what is at issue, only that their wallets are at risk. Don't tell me you don't realize
this and haven't used it to your advantage in the past.
> > There wasn't a lot of quality stuff to dnload. Just like there
> > isn't a lot of quality stuff on the shelves these days from you.
> > You were a lot better 12 years ago. Quality over quantity then.
>
> Ah, so are you attacking the internet policy, or are you attacking
> TSR products? One has no bearing on the other.
> > I also
> > understand that you want to try and preserve the new politically correct
> > "tone" of the game you worked so hard to achieve. Unfortunately, the only
> > thing you are accomplishing is to piss off and turn away a lot of devoted
> > fans who also happen to use the internet.
>
> This has to do with TSR's Code Of Ethics, not with its online policy.
> When you mix together the online policy, the CoE and the quality of
> recent TSR materials, it only muddles the issue.
>
I think all three issues go to the root of the problem: the attitude T$R has towards it's customers.
It seems you don't give a shit about us at all. All that matters is putting out stuff so we give you money.
Quality and consistency doesn't matter. Some of us are not satisfied with your "stuff" so we make up our own.
Then put it on the net so that others can benefit from it. You close it down because we may prevent you from
getting a few more bucks from dnd newbies. I wonder how you personally would feel if put in our position?
> > I would love to. Unfortunately, all you ever do is say the sites
> > have material that infringe your intellectual property rights. Then you
> > tell the admins. you want them closed down, putting the fear of legal
> > action into their souls. If you would specify which material actually
> > infringes upon your rights, maybe sites wouldn't actually have to close
> > all the way down.
>
> Where have you been? Have you read _anything_ I've posted in the
> past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
> that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
> and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
> as in the way you mentioned above.
Well you've had 2 months to give us a list of what was ok for general publication on the net. Where
is it? Did I miss it? People don't want to read legal guidelines. They want to know if the Net Book of Sex
is ok to post and if not, why? What specifically in it is bad? What is a violation? Tell us and we'll change
it. Rewrite a netbook for us and give us concrete examples. Maybe it seems like a lot of work, rewriting a
netbook, but I think a company who gave a shit about it's customers might make at least a half-assed effort to
do something like that.
I really hope you do things differently than your predecessors. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has
been done. You wonder why no one posts their stuff to MPGN? Think about it. They're probably scared that
you'll try and take possession of it. Say we gave up all rights to it. T$R has spread a lot of fear and
confusion out here. And resentment.
>
> >Believe it or not, I attend Quinnipiac Law School in Connecticut. I
> >have a working knowledge of intellectual property laws. I do respect
> >your property rights, and agree that you have most of the rights you
> >claim.
> > The net is not accessed by about 95% of the
> > American population. There is no way in which the net can be the
> > instrument through which the entire gaming community gains rights to use
> > your trademarked system and the terms associated with it.
>
> However, if a thousand people on the net get their foot in the door
> by using TSR property w/o permission, it's not that hard for another game
> company to push it open the rest of the way and claim that TSR has not
> defended its exclusive rights to its property. "Butm your honor, we have
> here a thousand pieces of similiar game materials evidence which TSR did
> nothing to try and stop the distribution of...."
>
Here is my soultion to the situation:
You can _expressly_ give people on the net permission to use specified trademarks and other
intellectual property on condition that they never seek to make money off it by sale to someone like Steve
Jackson, etc..
You can limit the rights strictly to publication on the internet via email, gopher, ftp, and www. Any
other publication would be a violation of trademarks, etc..
You could also limit the products developed thereby as strictly not for sale in any way to anyone but
T$R.. That way anyone who decides to sell roleplaying goods with your trademarks via the net will have no
right to. By expressly sharing your rights, you still retain control over them. They are not taken from you.
It does not open up the door for other companies, since you limit the rights as you share them.
This seems fair, since as you said, the net dnd community is small and so would pose no threat to you
business-wise. If the only thing you are worried about is opening up the door to future takings of your
rights, this proposal would seem to limit it.
This has precedent in the shareware area. Look what ID Games did with Doom. Look what's going on with
Netscape. It is a viable money-making strategy, so can be defended in court as not a giving up of rights, but
as a development scheme to expand the business. In a sense, you're giving us a license to distribute and
develop new products for T$R, as long as distribution was limited solely to the net, and we couldn't make $ off
of what is developed here, unless we sold to you. The only ones who would be able to make money off it would
be you guys, if you worded the statement right.
Just a suggestion from a second year law student. Pass it by your lawyers. See what they say. I'll
ask my professors. Maybe we can work together to develop a solution all can be happy with, rather than clash
heads all the time.
Joe Dimech
Veggie Boy
communicate your point prove your skill at debate! :)
> I think alot of your new products
> SUCK, but that doesn't mean that I *HATE* all of TSR
> ...but you, I might
> make an exception for. You are an incredibly cocky, arrogant, idiotic
> <explitive deleted!>.
other Shaolin monks always thought so ... my "holier than thou"
attitude.... :)
> And, please, go away. For the sake of all mankind.
> :-)
> -The Dark Avenger, who thinks that he's talking to a cement wall here...
--
Sean K Reynolds | "Jane, desired, by the people at the school and work
a.k.a. Veggie Boy | Jane, is tired, 'cause every man becomes a lovesick jerk."
skr...@netcom.com | 'Jane'
skr...@aol.com | - BareNaked Ladies
Mike Brown
>Sorry for my OPINION, almighy idiot. I think alot of your new products
>SUCK, but that doesn't mean that I *HATE* all of TSR...but you, I might
>make an exception for. You are an incredibly cocky, arrogant, idiotic
Well, this will certainly enhance your position in the debate.
Perhaps you could restrict your namecalling letter to more private
channels next time? It would be less embarassing for you.
-Michael, wondering if this was some of that 'dark vengance'. Pretty feeble.
Veggie Boy
> I *TRY* not to talk to the staff, because most of them are idiots. (I
> won't name names, here...).
TSR Online staff would eave you alone, like they do everyone else that
behaves in a civil manner? Easy, eh?
> But, I think your code of ethics sucks,
> alot of your new products suck,
Then don't buy them. Easy, eh?
> It's the company policies (and some of the people there...)
> that I don't like.
a snail mail letter to our president. Easy, eh?
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
house and ask for a Big Mac?
"I'm a New Kid On The Block/And I may not be Johann Sebastian Bach
So we may not write the songs we sing
But look at Elvis - he sold his soul and you crowned him King"
- 'New Kid (On The Block),' BareNaked Ladies
macros
Guy wrote...
> I see this from another perspective. TSR has taken the stick it uses to
> beat the producers of D&D compatible products and used it to beat its
> formerly loyal customers with.
>
My response...
I think TSR has every _legal_ right to beat us with the stick, as you put it. I think there are better
alternatives than doing that though. I finished my last post with a legal suggestion. It follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my soultion to the situation:
You can _expressly_ give people on the net permission to use specified trademarks and other
intellectual property on condition that they never seek to make money off it by sale to someone like Steve
Jackson, etc..
You can limit the rights strictly to publication on the internet via email, gopher, ftp, and www. Any
other publication would be a violation of trademarks, etc..
You could also limit the products developed thereby as strictly not for sale in any way to anyone but
T$R.. That way anyone who decides to sell roleplaying goods with your trademarks via the net will have no
right to. By expressly sharing your rights, you still retain control over them.
They are not taken from you. It does not open up the door for other companies, since you limit the
rights as you share them.
This seems fair, since as you said, the net dnd community is small and so would pose no threat to you
business-wise. If the only thing you are worried about is opening up the door to future takings of your
rights, this proposal would seem to limit it.
This has precedent in the shareware area. Look what ID Games did with Doom. Look what's going on with
Netscape. It is a viable money-making strategy, so can be defended in court as not a giving up of rights, but
as a development scheme to expand the business. In a sense, you're giving us a license to distribute and
develop new products for T$R, as long as distribution was limited solely to the net, and we couldn't make $ off
of what is developed here, unless we sold to you. The only ones who would be able to make money off it would
be you guys, if you worded the statement right.
Just a suggestion from a second year law student. Pass it by your lawyers. See what they say. I'll
ask my professors. Maybe we can work together to develop a solution all can be happy with, rather than clash
heads all the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a much better approach than closing down sites and coming across as hardasses. Sean said that
T$R's net policy will be carried out in a different manner. Maybe he'll pass along this suggestion to his
lawyers and we can work together to come to an equitable, fair, productive soultion to the problem, rather than
have to hate each other. I'm still waiting for him to get back to me. Therse is no evidence of any real
change from T$R. They have yet to give at all in any way to our requests. They don't have to. They have all
the power here. Hopefully they'll realize there are better ways of doing things. There are alternatives, like
the one I mentioned above, through which all can benefit.
Joe Dimech
Veggie Boy
> >> But, I think your code of ethics sucks,
> > Then don't write anything for AD&D and try to publish it. Easy, eh?
> That's part of the problem. TSR won't allow material violating the ethics
> code to be placed on a TSR site, while using legal threats to keep it from
> being placed elsewhere.
OK, let's try this again, Ken. If he thinks the TSR Code Of Ethics
sucks, write something that _isn't_ based on AD&D (or other TSR paterial),
which he can try to publish wherever he likes, with no LEGAL THREATS
(sorry, the way you say it makes me think it should be in all caps) from
TSR to worry about.
Don't eat them poppies, Ken, they do funny things to your head.
Ken Arromdee
>sucks, write something that _isn't_ based on AD&D (or other TSR paterial),
>which he can try to publish wherever he likes, with no LEGAL THREATS
>(sorry, the way you say it makes me think it should be in all caps) from
>TSR to worry about.
TSR, however, has strange ideas of what is "based on TSR material". This
makes all the rest a problem; if TSR stuck to the law in deciding what
material violates TSR's rights, we wouldn't need to worry about the TSR
ethics code. Instead, TSR makes unsupportable legal threats, knowing very
well that they can intimidate people without being legally in the right
because most people don't have the financial resources to survive a lawsuit
from TSR even if they finally win the suit.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
"How can you be so evil, Kayura?"
"The pay is good and there's lots of room for advancement." -Ronin Warriors #34
Brent David Tokarchuk
: dark...@aol.com (DarkAvgr1) wrote:
: >Sorry for my OPINION, almighy idiot. I think alot of your new products
: >SUCK, but that doesn't mean that I *HATE* all of TSR...but you, I might
: >make an exception for. You are an incredibly cocky, arrogant, idiotic
: ><explitive deleted!>. And, please, go away. For the sake of all mankind.
: >:-)
: Interesting theory. You hate Sean, who is one of the politest, most
: cooperative TSR people online, but you don't hate all the other people
: who are nowhere near as rude as him. Maybe you just like all the
: attention being obnoxius gets you. Try going away yourself.
This isn't much of a thread but, i just wanted to say that i agree with
you, as far as i've been reading Sean is very polite and actually seems
to want to get something resolved.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Aardy R. DeVarque
[complete quote of previous article with nothing new added--deleted]
Sorry for that folks; newsreader glitched and the @#$%! thing won't let
me issue a cancel message. <sigh> Something to hammer out later; oh joy.
In any case, as I was *going* to say, with all this praise, from Terry &
myself at that, Sean's gonna develop a swelled head fer shure. Can't let
that happen, now can we? :p
Aardy
Veggie Boy
> >posts in this newsgroup? Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
> >either a) stopped posting, or b) realized that the situation isn't as bad
> >as they thought it was. Do you represent the internet community? Does
> >Jim? Does Guy?
> I think that a large amount of people realize that c) just because
> TSR says it's so doesn't make it so, d) just because TSR says "no"
> doesn't make it illegal, (I'm not advocating doing anything illegal,
> I'm saying that TSR represtatives are the _last_ people one should
> ask concerning what is legal and what is not,) and e) it's just not
> worth the effort to pay any attention to you (collectively, not
> personally.)
legal, and g) much could be said of half the email I get, but I still read
it.
> > TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
> >property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
> > However, if a thousand people on the net get their foot in the door
> ...
> But "get" is in the wrong tense ...
home? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. When someone has been beating
their wife (your best friend) for three years, do you say, "Oh, well, it's
been going on since long before I knew about it. Oh, well. Here, Bob,
try this broken bottle!"? No, you stop the situation from continuing.
And no, I don't support wifebeating, and I don't consider
intellectual property as important an issue as spousal abouse. Far
from it.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
house and ask for a Big Mac?
"I took a beating when you wrote me those letters, and
And every time I remembered the taste of your lip gloss"
'Enid'
- BareNaked Ladies
Veggie Boy
> proceedings that resulted in closing down a site. *Rob* did, and
> often. There's a big difference.
Thanks, I'm glad somebody notices....
> And the Morpheus situation is a bad example. That's why it's not
> worth talking about.
And _that_ is why I said it didn't need to be discussed. Thanks,
Aardy.
> Have you been reading the "generic terms" threads? Some of us, Sean
> included, are trying to hammer out exactly what is and what isn't
> allowed. When that process is done, then it'll be a snap to go
> through the net.books and fix them up.
You know, I think that you and I may be the only ones reading that
thread....
> Write to
> o...@intr.net and ask them about their net.policy: the answer you'll
> get? As long as it's not for sale, it's ok.
I'm going to write to them for info about this.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
house and ask for a Big Mac?
Friday, Feb. 3 - the 34th day of the year. 331 days left in the year.
This day's Highlight in History: In 1959, was "the day the music died" as a
plane crash near Clear Lake, Iowa, claimed the lives of rock 'n' roll
stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson.
In 1971, Sean K Reynolds was born. Coincidence? I think not.
Veggie Boy
> ethics", and don't allow material violating it to be released, people
aren't
> going to _try_ sending in much material that violates it in the first
place.
> That doesn't mean your code isn't restricting what people write, just that
> most of the restriction happens before you ever lay an eye on anything.
Ah, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy? Sorry, it doesn't work that
way, Ken. The AOL members don't even know about the Code of Ethics. They
only follow the TOS (Terms of Service) which is much shorter and more
explicit than the CoE - in effect, "don't harass other members," "no
explicit sex," "dont use extreme profanity," "no salacious nudity." Much
of what would be considered a CoE violation slips right past TOS. As I
said before (and I'll say it as many times as it needs to be, as people
seem to only read the first five words I say ("He said 'before!' Die, T$R
scum!")), I know of only 1 CoE violation in all of the uploads to our AOL
file libraries.
And no matter what limitations are applied, you're going to get the
odd ones that either don't read them or think they don't apply to them
(we've had nude pictures uploaded to our forum), so not everyone quakes at
hearing about "TSR, the Architects of Fear," as you think they do. A lot
of the net-authors (such as those in charge of some of the netbooks) are
just not uploading out of spite, but, then again, it is their collection
and their right to not upload it.
Welcome back, by the way. Nice to have you back. Have a flower.
They're good for you, and some of them even taste good.
Ken Arromdee
That's part of the problem. TSR won't allow material violating the ethics
code to be placed on a TSR site, while using legal threats to keep it from
being placed elsewhere.
Ken Arromdee
>by the creative staff? True, it is used to check files uploaded to AOL or
>MPGN, but I know of _one_ file that was rejected because of the CoE
Oh, come now. Censorship leads to self-censorship. If you have a "code of
ethics", and don't allow material violating it to be released, people aren't
going to _try_ sending in much material that violates it in the first place.
That doesn't mean your code isn't restricting what people write, just that
most of the restriction happens before you ever lay an eye on anything.
TSR can get away with violating the letter of its own ethics code and
claiming to respect its spirit, but _we_ have no such luxury. We have to
obey the letter of your code. _You_ can write something which shows a corrupt
judge that is not ultimately brought to justice. I can't.
Dan
years. Yes, I don't like all of their changes, but I just make my own
house rules to cover them. That's pretty much the whole idea.
Personally, many of their changes were being used by me way before 2nd
edition. The only thing I didn't like was them trashing the assassin
class and loss of the demon summoning spells (but since I still own 1st
edition it doesn't really bother me, but others are missing out).
If nothing else, improvise! Dan
..note: I don't work for TSR, so don't say that's why I'm saying this.
Deanna Hatter
: You know, I think that you and I may be the only ones reading that
: thread....
Not the only one...8)
Jason
Terry Austin
>In any case, as I was *going* to say, with all this praise, from Terry &
>myself at that, Sean's gonna develop a swelled head fer shure. Can't let
>that happen, now can we? :p
I doubt there is much danger of that. The bigger his head gets, the
bigger a target it is for all those flamethrowers out here. Sean
seems pretty level headed. Jim sometimes gets a little too involved
in things, but means well and mostly doesn't get in the way. It's a
shame they can't really expect to deal with people as reasonable as
themselves all the time.
Terry Austin
tau...@ni.net
macros
> TSR, however, has strange ideas of what is "based on TSR material". This
> makes all the rest a problem; if TSR stuck to the law in deciding what
> material violates TSR's rights, we wouldn't need to worry about the TSR
> ethics code. Instead, TSR makes unsupportable legal threats, knowing very
> well that they can intimidate people without being legally in the right
> because most people don't have the financial resources to survive a lawsuit
> from TSR even if they finally win the suit.
Actually, from a legal standpoint T$R is on very strong ground. I think most, if not all of their
claims will hold up in court. I've consulted with some professors at the law school I attend and they seem to
agree. From a business standpoint, T$R is on bad ground. The PR factor from this whole incident is heavily
against T$R. There are many ways to solve this problem that are a lot better than the situation we now have.
I suggested one to Sean, and am waiting for him to get back to me on it. I'll let you know what the outcome
is.
Joe Dimech
Veggie Boy
: Sorry for any misunderstanding. when I say "you", I don't mean Sean, but T$R in general.
: Sean actually seems like an all-right guy, if a bit of a wise-ass. :)
Now _this_ had me rolling on the floor. :)
--
Sean K Reynolds a.k.a. Veggie Boy skr...@netcom.com skr...@aol.com
"What life is there, what delight, without golden Aphrodite?"
- Mimnermus (c. 650-590 BC) "Fragment I"
Steve Gilham
Hear, hear! I think it is quite noticable that Sean, having only
recently moved from being on our side of the fence, as it were, having
been a regular on this group before taking up his current post, at
least has some notion of what's really going on.
--
-- st...@windsong.demon.co.uk (home) ---- PGP keys available on keyservers --
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|Footprints in the sands of time.
Key fingerprint = 08 8A 67 70 6E 86 09 B4 38 0A BD C4 53 1C 88 99
Guy Robinson
: > The last site to close was run by Morpheus but TSR directed their e-mail
: > message, notifying possible legal action, to his internet connection
: > supplier, not to Morpheus himself.
: Ain't the internet great? Two months pass and this story is all
: screwed up again. Morpheus _was_ contacted about his site directly. How
: else could he tell TSR "F*CK YOU" Re: that message, and refuse to give TSR
: his name? It was this response that forced TSR to turn to his provider.
: So, do you wish to restate anything, Guy?
Allegations and counter allegations where made by a number of parties.
My contribution was to tell TSRJim that he over-reacted to this anglo-saxon
word. It appears that you are continuing with this over-reaction.
This is restatement enough.
: > Veggie Boy, or Sean, claims that future legal action will be handled in
: > an improved fashion but we have yet to see evidence of this despite the
: > fact that D&D materials are creeping back on to various WWW sites I have
: > seen recently.
:
: Well, as my WWW connection has been unreliable laterly, but we (Jim,
: Julia, and I) are trying to keep track of such things, especially if they
: are waved in our faces.
I was not waving anything in your face, just honestly stating that I have
see what TSR would consider to be violations on WWW sites. You should
be thanking me rather seeking to rebuke.
I have yet to see TSR take any action over the rogue-like games, such as
nethack, rogue and angband, that I informed TSR about as early as 1994.
If TSR is not taking this issue seriously, and is keeping you under
staffed, then you will have to raise this issue with your employers.
: For example, Dr. Ed Friedlander (sorry if I misspelled that, Dr. F)
: uploaded an AD&D character generator to MPGN, and when MPGN hadn't
: released it over a month later, he put it on his home page. He and I
: exchanged email, figured out the situation, and he removed it from his
: site while I got MPGN to release it.
This is just an example of poor administration at the MPGN site.
: No lawyer-bombs. No lawsuits. Nothin' but net....
Unfortunately I view a threat of legal action as a serious issue, whether
it is deliver by snail-mail or through the net.
However I will give the benefit of the doubt as to whether a mention of
legal action was part of your communication with this individual.
: > : I know
: > : that you don't want your game system to have too much circulation in a
: > : non-approved manner, or else you run the risk of them becoming THE
: > : generic set
: > : of rules for gaming in general. If that happens anyone can publish TSR
: > : compatable supplements and take away from your profits.
: > I see this from another perspective. TSR has taken the stick it uses to
: > beat the producers of D&D compatible products and used it to beat its
: > formerly loyal customers with.
:
: So, just because you're seeing it from another perspective, does that
: mean that his interpretation is incorrect, Guy?
I think that he looking at this issue out of context, Sean, to be honest.
What is correct is his later assessment that TSR is totally over-reacting
as he felt that TSR could do something like Steve Jackson (quiet moment of
homage, please) does with his intellectual property policy.
: > I would only abide by TSR's code of ethics if they _paid_ me to do so.
:
: Hmmm, perhaps that is why it's TSR's Code of Ethics, for internal use
: by the creative staff? True, it is used to check files uploaded to AOL or
: MPGN, but I know of _one_ file that was rejected because of the CoE [...]
If TSR's Code of Ethics is used to check files uploaded to AOL or MPGN
then it is _not_ purely for the internal use by TSR's internal staff.
This one file could be the tip of the iceburg.
: > I have my own code of ethics and I stick by those.
:
: Good. Hopefully part of that code is "I will respect the property of
: others."
That was a very childish comment, Sean.
bax...@hookup.net
> Oh, since this has already happened, it's OK and we should just go
> home? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. When someone has been beating
That's odd. Your contention has been that if J. Random Gamer doesn't
adhere to whatever your intellectual property policy is this week, Bad Things
will happen. Precedents will be set, and the evil Other Companies will use
J. Random Gamer's work as justification for stealing TSR's stuff.
So if you're saying that it's already happened, doesn't that mean that it's
too late?
> - Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
>
> T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
> personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
> house and ask for a Big Mac?
>
> "I took a beating when you wrote me those letters, and
> And every time I remembered the taste of your lip gloss"
> 'Enid'
> - BareNaked Ladies
Good taste in music. You might want to trim the .sigfile, down thought -
wouldn't want TSR to be seen as net.unfriendly.
email: bax...@hookup.net Scott Baxter
web: http://www.hookup.net/~baxter
Promise from the Win '95 theme song: "You make a grown man cry!"
Terry Austin
>Forgot something...
Sign of low intelligence.
>I *TRY* not to talk to the staff, because most of them are idiots. (I
>won't name names, here...). But, I think your code of ethics sucks, alot
>of your new products suck, (except for S&P, and Masque of the Red
>Death...) but I don't hate TSR products, the AD&D game, etc. It's the
>company policies (and some of the people there...) that I don't like.
You just hate everyone involved in supporting the game they created.
Since you play it, you are obviously the center of their universe, and
can't stand the thought that any of them might not agree. Speaking of
idiots...
Terry "I finally made it into Larry Smith's killfile" Austin
What does USG stand for anyway, Larry? Unusually Stupid Guy?
What proof do we have that Larry Smith and Slacker01 are not,
in fact, the same person. Has anyone ever seen the two of
them together?
Theodore R. Krueger
>
> Actually, since you're such a fan of quoting email, you actually
>wrote a little more than that, which I thought could bear some scrutiny:
>
>> When are you going to wake up and see that you only hurt yourselves
>> by closing down sites like morpheus'.
>
> This doesn't even need to be addressed.
It does for some of us. I am relatively new to this list, though I
have been playing D&D since 1979 and participating in usenet since 1986.
When you claim that a subject does not need to be addressed, unless it
has been addressed recently, as long as there is interest, there is a
need to address a subject.
>> You may have the pigeons here at AOL eating out of your hands,
>> but they don't represent the internet community.
>
> How many people in the internet community do you think there are that
>play AD&D? That care about this situation? Take a look at the number of
>posts in this newsgroup?
Apparently there is enough interest for TSR to provide a "TSR Online
Coordinator."
>Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
>as they thought it was. Do you represent the internet community? Does
>Jim? Does Guy?
Do you.
>> AOL kinda sucks too.) Did any of you ever see what was at
>> greyhawk.stanford.edu? There was 100 times more stuff to
>> dnload there. And most of it was good.
>
> Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
>MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
Why did the site close down? Are you saying that TSR had nothing to
do with it?
>> The only thing you accomplish thru your hardassedness is to turn
>> off most of the tsr customers on the net.
>
> TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
>property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
That is not evident from the very aggressive posture I have observed
from TSR. How long did it take you to decide that people could use
the word "levels"?
> Where have you been? Have you read _anything_ I've posted in the
>past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
>that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
>and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
>as in the way you mentioned above.
So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
organization whose policies you disagree with?
> This has to do with TSR's Code Of Ethics, not with its online policy.
> When you mix together the online policy, the CoE and the quality of
>recent TSR materials, it only muddles the issue.
It seems that TSR is the one who is mixing the issues here.
>- Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
Are you really official? Does TSR know that you disagree publicly with
some of their policies?
Ted
--
"Why has the entrenched men's political structure worldwide given in so
completely to the feminist movement? Because it gives men the one thing
that they want most...sex without responsibility." - Michael Medved
kru...@xroads.com
Theodore R. Krueger
> If you dislike TSR so much, why can I find you talking with my staff
>in the AOL forum chat room most every night?
I dislike (actually I only disagree with them) democrats very much, yet
I talk to them all the time.
>- Sean Reynolds
> TSR Online Coordinator
> TSR...@aol.com
So you have a staff, eh? Wasn't that you in a recent post claiming that
there weren't enough people on the net interested in TSR issues?
How large is this staff that doesn't have to deal with very many interested
net-folk?
Matt Randall
>like it, namely with TSRJIM. I think Macros really does define the
>problem rather well.
>I posted earlier that some of T$R's products were lacking in quality
>and recieved a blistering post from TSRJIM accusing me of insulting
>him and stating that he usaully doesn't respond to such posts. THIS
>FROM A TSR REPRESENTATIVE! Not very professional. I never offended him
>personally; nor did I state that "I hated TSR". Yet he inflamed the
>issue by taking on a very condescending attitude and accusing me of
>"lemming-like satisfaction" for using the "T$R" logo. I explained T$R
>is a logo that has come to express a certain disatisfaction with the
>way TSR treats its customers. TSRJIM being a case and point.
> Look, Sean seems like a decent fellow. So let's put it to you. Don't
>you think that people notice when T$R rehashes old materials, puts
>some inferior artwork into the mix and re-publishes for $25 bucks.
>What real updates did the 2nd Edition Forgotten Realms have? Not many.
Whoever you are, me and my gaming group completely agree with you. I
was recently at a gaming-material auction here in St. Louis and many
comedical comments occasionally about the quality and / or attitude of
TSR to the general public, most were negative. I have not talked to a
gamer yet that is thoroughly (sp?) happy with TSR's products and
attitude towards the general public. Most find the typos and general
mistakes very annoying, and extremely unprofessional. We do
understand that people do make mistakes sometime, and we can't
keelhaul them for just that, but when so many mistakes run rampant and
uncorrected (such as those in the PHB) it shows extreme
unprofessionalism on the part of TSR.
TSR, I know you want feedback from your fans (I and my players are
fans, although we are quite disappointed in your recent years
performance.) If you could please get some more people to thoroughly
play test the material before releasing the materials. I love your
new Skills and Powers book, but I am quite disappointed in some
missing parts that were claimed to exist in the foreword. We are also
disappointed in the Monstrous Annual 1. Although there was some
creatures within its pages I would have liked to have, I did not find
the whole book worth the 18$ cover price. The art was definitely not
as good as the "normal" art found in the original Monstrous Manual.
What I and my players would truly like to see:
A Monstrous Manual 2 with more golems, new metallic and gem dragons,
elemental and outer planar creatures, and others.
A book of useful magical spells, and items, with good amounts of them.
I have found the TOM unsatisfying for the price charged. Also new or
rare psionic powers included if possible.
A book of new character subclasses and kits for use with S&P. This
time WITH S&P rules for the psionic character class, instead of just
old rules.
We would find these products truly useful and would buy them if you
made them properly. Any response saying, "That's a good idea" or "We
are currently working on something like that" from TSR would certainly
rekindle a small spark within me for their company.
Thank you for your time - if you have read this far - Matt Randall
tony karakashian
>
> T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
> personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
> house and ask for a Big Mac?
Sorry, I wanted to be polite, and get this resolved in a civilized manner,
but I think this .sig is a bit much. You have no idea who you're talking
to, let alone know where they work. Besides, POE does not indicate the type
of person. Even if he does work at McDonald's it's honest work.
--
Please e-mail all replys. |Geek Code: GCS -d+ H(H+) s++:++ g+ p?>+ au-- a- K-
Sometimes I read them. |v2.1 w+++ !v C++++ UL P+ L+>+++ 3 E N++ n! G-
http://www.servtech.com | W--->!W M-- !V po+++ Y+ t+ 5+ R++ tv b+
/public/ghoti| D++ B--- e+ u--- h--- f r++ y*>**
Deanna Hatter
: > T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
: > personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
: > house and ask for a Big Mac?
: Sorry, I wanted to be polite, and get this resolved in a civilized manner,
: but I think this .sig is a bit much. You have no idea who you're talking
: to, let alone know where they work. Besides, POE does not indicate the type
: of person. Even if he does work at McDonald's it's honest work.
All he's saying is he doesn't ask you stuff about YOUR job at your
personaly id, so please don't do the same to him...*sigh*
ed taychert
No, that's not it or he wouldn't have his employer's name and his
job title in his personal sig file. If it's important enough for him to
put at the bottom of every post from his personal account, I'd
say it's reasonable to expect people to email him back regarding it.
- Ed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Taychert | Visit Irony Games! PBEM's, Game openings, Worlds on the
e...@irony.com | web and online GM tools. All free! http://www.irony.com
Aardy R. DeVarque
>In article <443nc5$a...@spectator.cris.com>,
>Deanna Hatter <Towo...@cris.com> wrote:
>>tony karakashian (gh...@cyber1.servtech.com) wrote:
>>: > T$R just might be in my killfile. Don't write to my
>>: > personal email - it will be ignored; do I go to your
>>: > house and ask for a Big Mac?
>>
>>: Sorry, I wanted to be polite, and get this resolved in a civilized manner,
>>: but I think this .sig is a bit much. You have no idea who you're talking
>>: to, let alone know where they work. Besides, POE does not indicate the type
>>: of person. Even if he does work at McDonald's it's honest work.
>>
>>All he's saying is he doesn't ask you stuff about YOUR job at your
>>personaly id, so please don't do the same to him...*sigh*
>>
>No, that's not it or he wouldn't have his employer's name and his
>job title in his personal sig file. If it's important enough for him to
>put at the bottom of every post from his personal account, I'd
>say it's reasonable to expect people to email him back regarding it.
To stand up for Sean here, IIRC, he does much of his posting from his
personal account due to the convenience (and possibly superior
newsreader). He needs to include his job description so people
realize that he's speaking as TSR net.rep. But all e-mail intended
for TSR, or him in his official capacity, should go to TSR...@aol.com,
not to his personal account, whether or not he is posting from there.
(Although changing the Reply-To: line when necessary might help, as
well...)
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Deanna Hatter
: To stand up for Sean here, IIRC, he does much of his posting from his
: personal account due to the convenience (and possibly superior
: newsreader). He needs to include his job description so people
: realize that he's speaking as TSR net.rep. But all e-mail intended
: for TSR, or him in his official capacity, should go to TSR...@aol.com,
: not to his personal account, whether or not he is posting from there.
: (Although changing the Reply-To: line when necessary might help, as
: well...)
He does, for the most part. I've emailed him some replies to some of his
comments, and gotten my answers back from the TSR...@aol.com ID. 8)
Jason
Travis S Casey
>>> greyhawk.stanford.edu? There was 100 times more stuff to
>>> dnload there. And most of it was good.
>>
>> Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
>>MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
>
>Why did the site close down? Are you saying that TSR had nothing to
>do with it?
TSR had absolutely nothing to do with it, as I recall. The
administrators of greyhawk decided that they didn't want to
use up their disk space storing tons of material that had
nothing to do with Stanford's purpose as an educational
institution. Indeed, greyhawk stopped carrying RPG material
before TSR instituted their net policy, and also removed
all other RPG material from their server, not just AD&D
material.
Remember, most of the FTP sites out there are not making
money off of this, and have no reason to carry RPG materials
other than the goodness of their hearts.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ FAQ maintainer for rec.games.design
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' "We are GNU. Prepare to be assimilated."
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) No one agrees with me. Not even me.
rec.games.design FAQ: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~casey/design.html
Larry Smith
In article <skreynDF...@netcom.com>, skr...@netcom.com (Veggie Boy) writes:
> You know, I think that you and I may be the only ones reading that
>thread....
Incorrect.
--
Larry Smith - My opinions only. Killfile slac...@aol.com & tau...@ni.net
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action." -- G Washington lar...@zk3.dec.com Unix Systems Grp
TSR Steve
"The
administrators of greyhawk decided that they didn't want to
use up their disk space storing tons of material that had
nothing to do with Stanford's purpose as an educational
institution."
I also seem to recall that the connections were being tied up by RPG
downloads, so the more serious areas couldn't be accessed.
SM
Brian Trosko
: >past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
: >that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
: >and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
: >as in the way you mentioned above.
: So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
: organization whose policies you disagree with?
No, you tool, he's saying what he's said in the past. Namely, that there
was a previous net-rep who took a very heavy-handed attitude towards
dealing with problems like the Morpheus site. That guy is gone. Sean's
the New Guy, and he didn't like the way the Old Guy did things, and will
handle things differently than the Old Guy did. Simple enough?
: Are you really official? Does TSR know that you disagree publicly with
: some of their policies?
Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths and learn a bit about the
history of the discussion before you jump in unannounced. You'll come
off as less of a prat that way.
Sean K Reynolds
> Sorry, I wanted to be polite, and get this resolved in a civilized manner,
> but I think this .sig is a bit much. You have no idea who you're talking
> to, let alone know where they work. Besides, POE does not indicate the
type
> of person. Even if he does work at McDonald's it's honest work.
that section in my sig because somehow I end up getting 5-10 pieces of
mail per week to my personal accounts. It's not like I make it easy for
them, too - I set the headers to reply to TSRinc, but some people bypass
that and paste my netcom account back in, and some must look through some
of my old postings, because they somehow reach me at my personal AOL
address (which I never post from, and only shows up in my sig).
I'm just asking people to think. Come on, is it really necessary to
paste "skr...@netcom.com" or "skr...@aol.com" right over the
"tsr...@aol.com" when you write to me? I mean, when I post officially, I
_do_ have my TSR address in my sig....
- Sean
P.S. Remember that McDonalds is a business that uses a horrendous
amount of beef, and the beef industry is directly responsible for rising
temperatures from the greenhouse effect, as well as being indirectly
responsible for the depletion of the world's rainforests.
--
Sean K Reynolds a.k.a. Veggie Boy skr...@netcom.com skr...@aol.com
"If I was John, and you were Yoko, I would gladly give up musical genius,
Just to have you as my very own ... personal Venus."
'Be My Yoko Ono,' Barenaked Ladies
Sean K Reynolds
> it's too late?
_doesn't_ mean it is too late.
- Sean Reynolds
TSR Online Coordinator
TSR...@aol.com
Sean K Reynolds
> Allegations and counter allegations where made by a number of parties.
several points. Morpheus was initially contacted by TSR. He blew them
off and used profanity in a most inappropriate manner. TSR then contacted
his provider.
So, your statement that "TSR directed their e-mail message, notifying
> I was not waving anything in your face, just honestly stating that I have
> see what TSR would consider to be violations on WWW sites.
easiest to find, whether it be maps or artwork.
> Unfortunately I view a threat of legal action as a serious issue, whether
> it is deliver by snail-mail or through the net.
is a violation of TSR's internet policy."
> However I will give the benefit of the doubt as to whether a mention of
> legal action was part of your communication with this individual.
nice guy, and we talk every couple of weeks - there is no animosity
between us.
> : Good. Hopefully part of that code is "I will respect the
property of
> : others."
> That was a very childish comment, Sean.
property, and part is about TSR's CoE. You claimed that you hold yourself
to an internal standard of ethics, and I expressed hope that your code
governed your actions in regard to other peoples' property, in addition to
your own.
Brian Trosko
: mail per week to my personal accounts. It's not like I make it easy for
: them, too - I set the headers to reply to TSRinc, but some people bypass
: that and paste my netcom account back in, and some must look through some
: I'm just asking people to think. Come on, is it really necessary to
: paste "skr...@netcom.com" or "skr...@aol.com" right over the
: "tsr...@aol.com" when you write to me? I mean, when I post officially, I
: _do_ have my TSR address in my sig....
Sean, I checked the headers for this post, and the relevant ones were:
From: skr...@netcom.com (Sean K Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Nasty letters exchanged with TSR over Intellectual Property
Message-ID: <skreynDF...@netcom.com>
Organization: America's Dairyland
Now, all the newsreaders I'm familiar with are going to reply to the
address listed in the From: line, unless you supercede it with a
manually-inserted Reply-to: line. Such a line is absent. I really
can't blame anybody for replying to the default adress, can you?
I understand your point, but if you want to direct mail to a given
account, you've got to stick that reply-to: line in.
: P.S. Remember that McDonalds is a business that uses a horrendous
: amount of beef, and the beef industry is directly responsible for rising
: temperatures from the greenhouse effect, as well as being indirectly
: responsible for the depletion of the world's rainforests.
I'll appreciate it if you keep the environmentally-oriented flamebait
in another group. This group is solely for RPG-oriented flamebait.
Brian "Ooooaaaggh.....beef...." trosko
Terry Austin
> P.S. Remember that McDonalds is a business that uses a horrendous
>amount of beef, and the beef industry is directly responsible for rising
>temperatures from the greenhouse effect, as well as being indirectly
>responsible for the depletion of the world's rainforests.
Please say you're joking about this. We REALLY don't need an ecology
based flame war out here.
Terry "I finally made it into Larry Smith's killfile" Austin
What happened to the USG, Larry? I thought I was in your killfile.
Guy Robinson
: > : So, do you wish to restate anything, Guy?
: > Allegations and counter allegations where made by a number of parties.
: Yes, but the two parties involed - Morpheus and TSR - agreed one
: several points. Morpheus was initially contacted by TSR. He blew them
: off and used profanity in a most inappropriate manner. TSR then contacted
: his provider.
If events happened in the manner you stated then I am incorrect but ...
Are you suggesting that Morpheus was content with the way that your
legal attentions where re-directed at his supplier?
Are you suggesting that Morpheus' use of English was sufficient to
justify this course of action?
If this is so then what do you expect from someone who is attempting
to take a defiant stance to say?
What would you have done differently?
: > I was not waving anything in your face, just honestly stating that I have
: > see what TSR would consider to be violations on WWW sites.
:
: Mostly, right now, we're going after art infringement, as it is the
: easiest to find, whether it be maps or artwork.
Artwork is a good target as the copyright issues are uncontraversial and
people can get used to the idea that copyright material can not be
copied. We can alway build up a base of fan art to adorn WWW sites if
people feel that their web sites need fantasy pictures.
: > Unfortunately I view a threat of legal action as a serious issue, whether
: > it is deliver by snail-mail or through the net.
:
: IIRC, the only mention of legal action was when I said "Your upload
: is a violation of TSR's internet policy."
If this is the case then I have few objections. And these few objections
will hopefully be resolved when Connie rewrites TSR's internet policy.
: > However I will give the benefit of the doubt as to whether a mention of
: > legal action was part of your communication with this individual.
:
: I'm sure I could get some sort of comment from him. He's a rather
: nice guy, and we talk every couple of weeks - there is no animosity
: between us.
As the problem was an issue of poor administration at the MPGN site I am
not suprised that he bears no animosity towards you.
: > : Good. Hopefully part of that code is "I will respect the
: > : property of others."
: > That was a very childish comment, Sean.
:
: No, it wasn't. This whole debate is about rights over intellectual
: property, and part is about TSR's CoE. You claimed that you hold yourself
: to an internal standard of ethics, and I expressed hope that your code
: governed your actions in regard to other peoples' property, in addition to
: your own.
You could have made a far more mature remark if that was your real
intention rather than seizing the chance to make a cheap jibe.
You could have instead defended some oustanding quality within TSR's
Code of Ethics that demonstrated the value of people voluntarily
complying with such a code.
For I may not be a lawyer but I spent last year studying philosphy
at night-school for recreational purposes.
Bruce Pierpont
>In article <skreynDF...@netcom.com>, Veggie Boy <TSR...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, since you're such a fan of quoting email, you actually
>>wrote a little more than that, which I thought could bear some scrutiny:
>>
>>> When are you going to wake up and see that you only hurt yourselves
>>> by closing down sites like morpheus'.
>>
>> This doesn't even need to be addressed.
>
>It does for some of us. I am relatively new to this list, though I
>have been playing D&D since 1979 and participating in usenet since 1986.
>When you claim that a subject does not need to be addressed, unless it
>has been addressed recently, as long as there is interest, there is a
>need to address a subject.
The subject was addressed recently. But it was dropped about a month ago and
most of us that were around then would rather not see the discussion start all
over again.
>>> You may have the pigeons here at AOL eating out of your hands,
>>> but they don't represent the internet community.
>>
>> How many people in the internet community do you think there are that
>>play AD&D? That care about this situation? Take a look at the number of
>>posts in this newsgroup?
>
>Apparently there is enough interest for TSR to provide a "TSR Online
>Coordinator."
There was enough interest that TSR has provided three Online Coordinators not
including Rob Repp. (TSRJim, TSRSteve, and Veggie Boy)
There was also enough interest to generate over 200 posts a day solely on this
subject. Did we all forget the "I asked TSR about the Morpheus site" thread?
>>Most of the people that were angry at TSR have
>>as they thought it was. Do you represent the internet community? Does
>>Jim? Does Guy?
>
>Do you.
>
>>> AOL kinda sucks too.) Did any of you ever see what was at
>>> greyhawk.stanford.edu? There was 100 times more stuff to
>>> dnload there. And most of it was good.
>> Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
>>MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
>Why did the site close down? Are you saying that TSR had nothing to
>do with it?
No. He's saying that all that wonderful material at greyhawk is allowed to be
made available at MPGN. TSR isn't stopping people from getting it, they're
just controlling the distribution. (Controlling it a little too much IMNSHO.)
>>> The only thing you accomplish thru your hardassedness is to turn
>>> off most of the tsr customers on the net.
>> TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
>>property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
>That is not evident from the very aggressive posture I have observed
>from TSR. How long did it take you to decide that people could use
>the word "levels"?
About a day after someone asked. IIRC it was Aardy that looked up half the
terms that are now called generic in other games and we were told not long
after that they were fine. It was the old TSR reps who wouldn't even consider
asking TSRlegal if there was such a things as a "generic term".
>> Where have you been? Have you read _anything_ I've posted in the
>>past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
>>that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
>>and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
>>as in the way you mentioned above.
>So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
>organization whose policies you disagree with?
Yes, that's why he actually went to TSRlegal and got some of them changed. If
noone at TSR disagreed with the policy we wouldn't get anywhere.
--
____ |] |]
|]ruce | ierpont
Do I live? [Do I live?]
Am I dead? [Am I dead?]
Or do I mearly dream of the life the once was mine?
--Etienne d'Ambreville "Mark of Amber"
Sean K Reynolds
> Towo...@cris.com wrote:
> >All he's saying is he doesn't ask you stuff about YOUR job at your
> >personaly id, so please don't do the same to him...*sigh*
> No, that's not it or he wouldn't have his employer's name and his
> job title in his personal sig file. If it's important enough for him to
> put at the bottom of every post from his personal account, I'd
> say it's reasonable to expect people to email him back regarding it.
TSR's online coordinator, I edit any part of my sig which contains personal
info about me or either of my personal accounts.
Sure, I may have missed it once or twice, but that doesn't explain how
people somehow manage to reach my personal AOL account, which isn't
mentioned anywhere in anything official I post. Don't write me at home.
In nicer language than my sig uses, "I don't visit you at home and ask
you about work, right?"
Aardy R. DeVarque
>In article <skreynDF...@netcom.com>, Veggie Boy <TSR...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I wrote......
>>
>> Actually, since you're such a fan of quoting email, you actually
>>wrote a little more than that, which I thought could bear some scrutiny:
>>
>>> When are you going to wake up and see that you only hurt yourselves
>>> by closing down sites like morpheus'.
>>
>> This doesn't even need to be addressed.
>It does for some of us. I am relatively new to this list, though I
>have been playing D&D since 1979 and participating in usenet since 1986.
>When you claim that a subject does not need to be addressed, unless it
>has been addressed recently, as long as there is interest, there is a
>need to address a subject.
It was the subject of a flamewar that lasted from the end of June to the
beginning of August. I'd say it's pretty well already addressed. If you
have questions about what actually happened in that case, that's one thing.
But basing arguments on it is another, because of the details of the
morpheus case. As I've said before--don't use Morpheus as a base for
arguemnts; use the Jove site, instead.
>>> AOL kinda sucks too.) Did any of you ever see what was at
>>> greyhawk.stanford.edu? There was 100 times more stuff to
>>> dnload there. And most of it was good.
>>
>> Guess what? Most of that stuff can be uploaded to AOL, GEnie, or
>>MPGN. But it's not. And TSR isn't the one responsible for keeping it out.
>Why did the site close down? Are you saying that TSR had nothing to
>do with it?
greyhawk.stanford.edu closed down because the administrators at that site
decided that they were no longer going to allow *any* anonymous logins.
TSR had *nothing* to do with it, as this was *long* before TSR started
looking at FTP sites.
>>> The only thing you accomplish thru your hardassedness is to turn
>>> off most of the tsr customers on the net.
>>
>> TSR is trying to establish some control over what is its legal
>>property. If that turns off some customers, we're sorry.
>That is not evident from the very aggressive posture I have observed
>from TSR. How long did it take you to decide that people could use
>the word "levels"?
It took a very short time after Sean took over as net.rep. Your point?
>> Where have you been? Have you read _anything_ I've posted in the
>>past two months? Past two weeks? Yesterday? I have said _many_ times
>>that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
>>and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
>>as in the way you mentioned above.
>So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
>organization whose policies you disagree with?
>Are you really official? Does TSR know that you disagree publicly with
>some of their policies?
He's said that Rob Repp, the original net.rep, handled the situation badly,
something no one except Rob himself denies. That's not disagreeing with the
policies, but with how they were carried out. BIG difference.
I'm beginning to think more and more that this group needs a copyright
scorecard to tell who all the players are/were...
"Since I gave up hope I feel a lot better"
--Steve Taylor
ed taychert
Sean K Reynolds <TSR...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Ed. All the TSR stuff is in a macro. If I'm posting as
>TSR's online coordinator, I edit any part of my sig which contains personal
>info about me or either of my personal accounts.
My braim may still be in shock from memory of the previous tenant
of that account. But maybe you should consult your accountant, from
the use I see, you could probably write off your "personal" account
as a business deduction. And if you spammed Usenet with TSR ads (hm..)
who would I complain to? AOL or netcom?
Why not try to turn this into a positive thing? I'm sure `the net'
would agree never to send TSR mail to your account if TSR agreed
never to send mail to ours ...
Anyway, I'm not trying to bait you and this is far off topic ... peace.
Theodore R. Krueger
Brian Trosko <btr...@usr4.primenet.com> wrote:
>Theodore R. Krueger <kru...@xroads.xroads.com> wrote:
>
>: >that the heavy-handed tactics used when TSR got online were unneccesary
>: >and counter-productive, and that I would handle things differently, such
>: >as in the way you mentioned above.
>
>: So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
>: organization whose policies you disagree with?
>
So I'm a tool, eh? If you had put forth the effort to read my
entire post, you would have seen that I have only been reading
this newsgroup for a week or two. The main reason why I posted
was that the "Official TSR Rep" was acting pretty beligerent
(admittedly no more so than his opponent, but IMO, Official Reps
need to act a little more mature than your average Joe) and
saying that certain subjects simply didn't need to be discussed.
>was a previous net-rep who took a very heavy-handed attitude towards
>dealing with problems like the Morpheus site. That guy is gone. Sean's
>the New Guy, and he didn't like the way the Old Guy did things, and will
>handle things differently than the Old Guy did. Simple enough?
If Sean would have said that, I may not have posted, and may have
avoided being called a tool. If he did say that, and I missed it,
I'm sorry.
>: Are you really official? Does TSR know that you disagree publicly with
>: some of their policies?
>
>Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths and learn a bit about the
>history of the discussion before you jump in unannounced. You'll come
>off as less of a prat that way.
It's kinda hard, you tool, to learn about the history of the discussion
if people are bouncing around claiming that certain subjects "don't"
need to be discussed.
Have a nice day,
Theodore R. Krueger
Deanna Hatter <Towo...@cris.com> wrote:
>Theodore R. Krueger (kru...@xroads.xroads.com) wrote:
>
>: It does for some of us. I am relatively new to this list, though I
>: When you claim that a subject does not need to be addressed, unless it
>: has been addressed recently, as long as there is interest, there is a
>: need to address a subject.
>several people who know more about that thread than I do will answer you. 8)
Yep. And I've been called a "tool" for my interest.
If Sean would have said "We don't need to discuss this because we just
spent two days talking about it." then he wouldn't have sounded to
heavy-handed.
>: So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
>: organization whose policies you disagree with?
> Not the policies, but the IMPLEMENTATION of the policies. Rob
>Repp was unnecessarily heavy-handed in his actions. Sean is saying that
>the methods Rob used are not the methods Sean will use.
Does Sean have the authority to close down sites, MUDS or remove
files? Is there a FAQ that includes this information?
Deanna Hatter
: Does Sean have the authority to close down sites, MUDS or remove
: files? Is there a FAQ that includes this information?
I don't know about the authority to "close down sites, Muds, or remove
files", but he DOES have the authority to ask that offending materials be
removed. For more info, check the Faq which will be posted at the
beginning of next month. Oh, and btw, regarding your previous comment to
(I believe) Terry Austin, about how you'd only been here for a few days
and didn't know all this had been discussed, that's why it's usually a
good idea to wait to see the FAQ or observe for several weeks, or asking
several people via email about the issue. That tends to help avoid
responses like the one you got, which was understandable, but avoidable.
Hope this helps,
Jason
Sean K Reynolds
: Sean K Reynolds <skr...@netcom.com> wrote:
: : I'm just asking people to think. Come on, is it really necessary to
: : paste "skr...@netcom.com" or "skr...@aol.com" right over the
: : "tsr...@aol.com" when you write to me? I mean, when I post officially, I
: : _do_ have my TSR address in my sig....
: Sean, I checked the headers for this post, and the relevant ones were:
: From: skr...@netcom.com (Sean K Reynolds)
: Subject: Re: Nasty letters exchanged with TSR over Intellectual Property
: Message-ID: <skreynDF...@netcom.com>
: Organization: America's Dairyland
: Now, all the newsreaders I'm familiar with are going to reply to the
: address listed in the From: line, unless you supercede it with a
: manually-inserted Reply-to: line. Such a line is absent. I really
: can't blame anybody for replying to the default adress, can you?
I hasten to point out that neither the post you quoted, nor this one,
are an "official" post from me - neither bears the Reply-To: (which I _do_
paste in with my handy little F9 macro) _or_ my work .sig. When it's
work-related, I make sure the RT: and sig are in place. If not, I avoid the
work-related threads. In fact, I rarely post as "just little ole' me"
anymore, which I'm sure is considered a tragedy by many readers of this
newsgroup.... :)
So, it should be very easy to reach me at work on work-related
matters, and difficult to reach me at home on work-related matters, but
some people go through a lot of effort to do so.
--
Sean K Reynolds a.k.a. Veggie Boy skr...@netcom.com skr...@aol.com
"We now know what the Precursors built here.
It is a factory ...
A factory fcor building _starships_...." - Star Control II
Jonathan Egre
Sean K Reynolds <skr...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I hasten to point out that neither the post you quoted, nor this one,
>are an "official" post from me - neither bears the Reply-To: (which I _do_
>paste in with my handy little F9 macro) _or_ my work .sig. When it's
>work-related, I make sure the RT: and sig are in place. If not, I avoid the
>work-related threads. In fact, I rarely post as "just little ole' me"
>anymore, which I'm sure is considered a tragedy by many readers of this
>newsgroup.... :)
> So, it should be very easy to reach me at work on work-related
>matters, and difficult to reach me at home on work-related matters, but
>some people go through a lot of effort to do so.
The fact remains that you post to the D&D newsgroup from your home
account. You are known to be a TSR representative. I suspect that some
people are spotting a posting from your home account and using that as a
starting point for contacting you on issues that you consider to be
work-related. (E.g. customer knows he wants to send a message to
Sean Reynolds but doesn't have the exact e-mail address, so he/she
finds a posting that says "Sean Reynolds" and sends his/her message
as a reply to that posting.)
If you post to the same newsgroup in both official and non-official
capacities, on much the same subject matter (i.e. D&D), and making it
clear that the same person is behind both accounts, them IMHO it is
inevitable that mere mortals may confuse your two net accounts.
You can't give out your home phone number to customers and expect them
to never use it for work-related conversations. Similarly, you can't
give out your home e-mail address and expect people to not use it.
If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't be working in PR.
If you have to inform us of the difference between your office and home
e-mail addresses by stating an assumption that your customers have
minimum-wage jobs (and you've already admitted that you know it would
have been worded better) - then that's a second reason why you shouldn't
be working in PR.
--
Jonathan Egre' at Jobstream Group plc in Cambridge, UK
The above does not represent the opinions or policies of Jobstream Group plc
Andrew Hackard
>> So, it should be very easy to reach me at work on work-related
>>matters, and difficult to reach me at home on work-related matters, but
>>some people go through a lot of effort to do so.
>You can't give out your home phone number to customers and expect them
>to never use it for work-related conversations. Similarly, you can't
>give out your home e-mail address and expect people to not use it.
>
>If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't be working in PR.
But what he CAN do is post a request that people send work-related email
to the work-related email address, just as (e.g.) a lawyer might tell
people who call him at home for legal advice to contact him at the office
the next morning and politely end the call.
Sean, you might want to consider this. :-)
(Personal example: I have another account, on the Texas Ed Network, which
I use for messages related to my job as a teacher. I don't give that
address out because I don't want personal stuff, which all this is, going
to that address. Conversely, I *do* give that address to fellow teachers
and use it for a mailing list I subscribe to which relates to my teaching
field, because I don't want to mix that material up with my "fun" stuff
on this account.)
--
Does the government have any idea how long it will take to get the
Virgins back on their feet? -- John Roberts, about Hurricane Marilyn
Brian Trosko
: But what he CAN do is post a request that people send work-related email
: to the work-related email address, just as (e.g.) a lawyer might tell
: people who call him at home for legal advice to contact him at the office
: the next morning and politely end the call.
: Sean, you might want to consider this. :-)
He does do this. It's called the reply-to: header, and tells all
properly designed newsreaders that any reply should be directed to that
address.
Go ahead. Find one of Sean's official posts, and use the 'reply'
function of your favorite newsreader. If your newsreader isn't utterly
broken, it will send the mail to his TSR address. That is, unless you
specifically decide to override the reply-to: and stick his personal
address back in, in which case you're a gimp.
Jonathan Egre
Brian Trosko <btr...@usr4.primenet.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Egre <jona...@mantis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: You can't give out your home phone number to customers and expect them
>: to never use it for work-related conversations. Similarly, you can't
>: give out your home e-mail address and expect people to not use it.
>
>go to his work address. For a reply to end up at his personal address
>requires someone to cut out the reply-to: header and input his personal
>address.
There are several examples of Sean posting to this newsgroup from his
personal Netcom account, without "Reply-To: TSR...@aol.com". When
challenged, Sean told us that these were not official TSR posts.
But Sean *does* send official TSR postings from his home account. He
himself has already established that he is willing to conduct TSR
business from his home some of the time.
To use his own comparison, it's as if Sean worked for McDonalds and sold
Big Macs from his house on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, but got
angry with a customer who came to his house on a Wednesday asking for a
Big Mac.
And, to re-iterate a point I made earlier which you seem to have missed,
I think people are using his "unofficial" postings, without the
"Reply-To:", as a springboard for sending him messages connected with
his work. Sometimes the most convenient way to send e-mail to somebody
is to find a posting from that person - whether on a related subject or
not - and then use "Reply". It's sloppy and lazy, but it's not a
deliberate and conscious effort to override Sean's requests. Until
somebody comes forwards and admits to deliberately overriding a
"Reply-To:", I shall not use malice to explain what can be explained by
laziness.
Guy Robinson
: > legal attentions where re-directed at his supplier?
: I doubt anyone is "content" when legal action is brought against them
: or someone with power over them, Guy.
But in the end this legal action, this attempt to exercise power, was not
brought against Morpheus but against his supplier. As Morpheus felt
obliged to protect his internet supplier from litigation he was unable
to continue with his stance that he felt was correct.
: > Are you suggesting that Morpheus' use of English was sufficient to
: > justify this course of action?
:
: No, but the fact that in that same letter he also lambasted TSR,
: refused to give his real name, and expressed his intent to continue his
: "service" (if I ever find the email in question, which was sent to TSR
: before I started working here, I'll be more specific).
As you admit below he was responding to a vague letter sent to him by
TSR in a manner you can not condone.
: At that point, TSR
: had hit a brick wall, and went to contact teleport.com to get his real name.
: Teleport.com refused, citing a local law that they didn't have to release
: such information.
And this initial shot across TSR's bows caused TSR to ask the supplier to
yield private information that supplying the UK could be be an illegal act.
: TSR explained that "Morpheus" was violating TSR
: copyrights. Teleport.com explained that it wasn't their problem. TSR Legal
: explained that it _was_ their problem.
This does not suprise me at all. People seem to need to be threatened
with legal action before they accept TSR's current interpretation of
intellectual property law.
Why do you feel that this is the case?
: Then, apparently, "Morpheus" found
: out that teleport.com was facing a lawsuit from TSR just to protect him
: (without his knowledge), and that was when he removed his materials, so
: telport.com wouldn't be sued.
So in the end Morpheus acted ethically to protect his supplier.
: This is the information I have managed to piece together from TSR, the
: net and from "Morpheus" himself. If any of it is in error, please indicate
: where.
So, essentially, because Morpheus replied to a blunt, vague letter with a
blunt response TSR gave up and re-directed their efforts on his supplier.
: > What would you have done differently?
:
: I believe the initial letter from TSR was very vague and approached too
: bluntly. Again, I would point out the obvious items (such as the artwork
: and Ivid the Undying) and the reasons why they needed to be removed. Based
: on his actions, I would have taken it from there.
So it comes down to this:
If TSR had bothered to explain what exactly they were objecting to, and for
what legal reasons, Morpheus might have entered into a dialogue with TSR
untill only the grey areas were left.
An explaination of TSR rights that it seeks to claim, in legal terms with
references so people can verify these matters for themselves, would have
gone a long way to preventing this kind of thing happening.
For this is not a passive medium, but an active one, and if you want to
stop people from taking certain actions within this medium on the basis
of the threat of legal action then you should at least explain yourself.
For we, the gamers who respect intellectual property law but disagree with
TSR's intepretation of it, do not want to want to go a court to resolve
the legal justification for the grey areas that TSR will not explain.
: > Artwork is a good target as the copyright issues are uncontraversial and
:
: (chuckle) So you think, Guy. There are a few holdouts that think that
: because they bought a book of art, they have a right to scan it and post it
: (I'm not implying that anyone here is like this).
Ideally we should be able to say to someone "Go read your local copyright
law and you will understand TSR's net.policy" but we are not there yet.
: > : I'm sure I could get some sort of comment from him. He's a rather
: > : nice guy, and we talk every couple of weeks - there is no animosity
: > : between us.
:
: > As the problem was an issue of poor administration at the MPGN site I am
: > not suprised that he bears no animosity towards you.
:
: Actually, he's not upset at MPGN, either. He understands their current
: slowness, and simply succumbed to (justified) frustration.
What was the reason for the delay anyway?
Brian Trosko
: You can't give out your home phone number to customers and expect them
: to never use it for work-related conversations. Similarly, you can't
: give out your home e-mail address and expect people to not use it.
But he's specifically setting the headers so that replies *automatically*
go to his work address. For a reply to end up at his personal address
requires someone to cut out the reply-to: header and input his personal
address.
This is silly. Anyone who does such a thing is a cretin. It's pretty
clear by the presence of the reply-to: that his work address is the
relevant one.
Theodore R. Krueger
Aardy R. DeVarque <jh...@nslsilus.org> wrote:
>It was the subject of a flamewar that lasted from the end of June to the
>beginning of August. I'd say it's pretty well already addressed. If you
>have questions about what actually happened in that case, that's one thing.
>But basing arguments on it is another, because of the details of the
>morpheus case. As I've said before--don't use Morpheus as a base for
>arguemnts; use the Jove site, instead.
How about a short recap? You can send it via e-mail if you like.
(A recap on the Morpheus/Jove cases, that is.)
>>That is not evident from the very aggressive posture I have observed
>>from TSR. How long did it take you to decide that people could use
>>the word "levels"?
>
>It took a very short time after Sean took over as net.rep. Your point?
That the TSR reps I had read posts from over the course of a few days
seemed, to me, more aggressive than official corporate reps should be.
>>So you are saying that you are the official representative for an
>>organization whose policies you disagree with?
>>Are you really official? Does TSR know that you disagree publicly with
>>some of their policies?
>
>He's said that Rob Repp, the original net.rep, handled the situation badly,
>something no one except Rob himself denies. That's not disagreeing with the
>policies, but with how they were carried out. BIG difference.
I see.
Thanks for helping me catch up, but I believe that I could have
lurked forever without finding out what actually happened, so I
got involved in order to find out.
Ted
--
"Colin Powell's views on the centrality of racism and the unequal
distribution of wealth are shared by millions of good citizens.
They are called Democrats." - George Will
kru...@xroads.com
bax...@hookup.net
> Jonathan Egre <jona...@mantis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : You can't give out your home phone number to customers and expect them
> : to never use it for work-related conversations. Similarly, you can't
> : give out your home e-mail address and expect people to not use it.
>
> But he's specifically setting the headers so that replies *automatically*
> go to his work address. For a reply to end up at his personal address
> requires someone to cut out the reply-to: header and input his personal
> address.
No, he's not - at least not all the time. Sometimes it's set; sometimes it's
not. For example, in the message where Sean first complained about
people "changing" the address, the reply-to was set to his personal
account.
All that's required for me to send a message to his personal account is
that I happen to select a message that includes his personal address in
the reply-to field. No cutting and pasting required.
email: bax...@hookup.net Scott Baxter
web: http://www.hookup.net/~baxter
Promise from the Win '95 theme song: "You make a grown man cry!"
Sean K Reynolds
> brought against Morpheus but against his supplier.
you can't bring suit against someone named "Morpheus." He repeatedly stated
(in email and to the newsgroup) that "Morpheus is the name I use, you can
converse with me this way."
> This does not suprise me at all. People seem to need to be threatened
> with legal action before they accept TSR's current interpretation of
> intellectual property law.
TSR's IP rights by having electronic copies of TSR artwork on site, among
other things.
> : Actually, he's not upset at MPGN, either. He understands their current
> : slowness, and simply succumbed to (justified) frustration.
> What was the reason for the delay anyway?
are changing offices. I'm not sure the rest that I talked with Rob Miracle
about is public yet - I'll ask him about it. Anyway, the move is the reason
for the delays.
Sean K Reynolds
> personal Netcom account, without "Reply-To: TSR...@aol.com". When
> challenged, Sean told us that these were not official TSR posts.
sig, and stay out of the whole IP debate.
> To use his own comparison, it's as if Sean worked for McDonalds and sold
> Big Macs from his house on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, but got
> angry with a customer who came to his house on a Wednesday asking for a
> Big Mac.
someone came to my house on a Wednesday, and ignored that I had taken down
the Golden Arches(tm) from my roof and no longer had my Cool Polyester
Uniform(tm) on. It's not hard to see when I'm working or not.
> It's sloppy and lazy, but it's not a
> deliberate and conscious effort to override Sean's requests. Until
> somebody comes forwards and admits to deliberately overriding a
> "Reply-To:", I shall not use malice to explain what can be explained by
> laziness.
have _never_ posted from and only shows up in my sig when I'm posting
personally. Someone must have seen one of my personal posts, and then not
only replied to it (getting my netcom address in the To: line), but pasted
my AOL address over that. :/
(setting the reply-to to my work account, and using a TSR sig so it is
obvious...)
Guy Robinson
In article <skreynDF...@netcom.com>, <skr...@netcom.com> writes:
> > But in the end this legal action, this attempt to exercise power, was
> > not brought against Morpheus but against his supplier.
>
> rights, you can't bring suit against someone named "Morpheus." He
> repeatedly stated (in email and to the newsgroup) that "Morpheus is the
> name I use, you can converse with me this way."
For a start I would stop, think and evaluate why someone had taken this
course of action.
If it was because that person was angry with me I would seek to
understand why that person was angry: Had I acted in an insensitive
manner that I could apologise for? Had I been needlessly blunt to that
hypothetical person? Had I failed to explain what IP rights had been
violated?
Essentially I would attempt diplomacy first.
I would not redirect my attentions to their supplier just because I
received a blunt mail-note in response to my blunt mail-note.
On the net if someone wants to call themselves something silly like
the "Morpheus", "Veggie Boy" or the "Wild Blue Sausage" then that is
their choice. This is a seperate issue from a legitimate and
patient attempt to serve legal notice on an alledged IP violator.
> > This does not suprise me at all. People seem to need to be
> > threatened with legal action before they accept TSR's current
> > interpretation of intellectual property law.
> TSR's "interpretation" in this case was that "Morpheus" had violed
> TSR's IP rights by having electronic copies of TSR artwork on site,
> among other things.
Even if this was the actual content of the e-mail communication with
Morpheus's suppliers they could have though that rights TSR was seeking
to claim was too broad.
This is not an uncommon conclusion.
In summary TSR appears to have been impatent and blunt towards a poster
who was taking an ethical stance, albeit in ignorance of the fact that
the images he pulled off the net were covered by copyright.
At least TSR is not longer trying to justify their actions on the basis
of a single swear word.
This is progress of a kind.
Guy Robinson
[standard disclaimers apply]
Guy Robinson
> > It's sloppy and lazy, but it's not a
> > deliberate and conscious effort to override Sean's requests. Until
> > somebody comes forwards and admits to deliberately overriding a
> > "Reply-To:", I shall not use malice to explain what can be explained
> > by laziness.
>
> Then explain how someone managed to reahc me at my AOL account,
> which I have _never_ posted from and only shows up in my sig when I'm
> posting personally. Someone must have seen one of my personal posts,
> and then not only replied to it (getting my netcom address in the To:
> line), but pasted my AOL address over that. :/
Oops! I was that Evil Violator!
Sean at the time was making a big stink about wanting mail to be sent
to the right addresses and so when I composed a note to him, on my
mail tool rather than via my news reader, I specifically choose the
AOL version of the account he was posting from.
Unfortunately I did not take into account that someone might actually
choose to have a personal account with AOL. There was no pasting
involved as this was an entirely original piece of e-mail that I wrote
without the aid of a reply-to field or safety-net.
I apologise for any anguish, distress or paranoia this act might have
caused.
Larry Smith
In article <skreynDF...@netcom.com>, skr...@netcom.com (Sean K Reynolds) writes:
> TSR's "interpretation" in this case was that "Morpheus" had violed
>TSR's IP rights by having electronic copies of TSR artwork on site, among
>other things.
This is on after-the-fact retcon. Morpheus was not informed of
the nature of his violations before you threatened his provider.
Had you done so, history might have been very different. Mor-
pheus's biggest mistake was in concluding that, simply because
most of your claims of copyright were bogus, all of them were.
Nevertheless, do not attempt to use later justifications. Police
have no right to stop and search cars and threaten people provided
they can come up with something actionable later on.
--
Larry Smith - My opinions only. Killfile slac...@aol.com & tau...@ni.net
The attempt to justify an evil deed has perhaps more pernicious consequences
than the evil deed itself. The justification of a past crime is the planting
and cultivation of future crimes. - Eric Hoffer Digital Unix: 64 bit _now_.
Deanna Hatter
: This is on after-the-fact retcon. Morpheus was not informed of
: the nature of his violations before you threatened his provider.
: Had you done so, history might have been very different. Mor-
: pheus's biggest mistake was in concluding that, simply because
: most of your claims of copyright were bogus, all of them were.
: Nevertheless, do not attempt to use later justifications. Police
: have no right to stop and search cars and threaten people provided
: they can come up with something actionable later on.
Regardless, Larry, telling TSR to "F*&k off" was stupid. He could have
asked for such a list of which files are violations. From what I
remember, he did no such thing.
Jason
Andrew Hackard
>: TSR explained that "Morpheus" was violating TSR
>: copyrights. Teleport.com explained that it wasn't their problem. TSR Legal
>: explained that it _was_ their problem.
>
>This does not suprise me at all. People seem to need to be threatened
>with legal action before they accept TSR's current interpretation of
>intellectual property law.
>
>Why do you feel that this is the case?
People are stupid?
[wide-eyed, innocent look]
OK, so that was facetious. Actually, some people are willing to abide by
reasonable restrictions while they have a polite dispute with TSR over the
details. Others, who are not so reasonable, may require additional
inducements, perhaps even taking the form of legal threats. How
regrettable.
Nevertheless, a Morpheus situation would not recur, because the initial
negative stimulus -- a vague, accusatory letter from the TSR rep -- will
not be repeated. Sean has pledged to be specific in his accusatory...
er, um...letters, and I'm sure that if he isn't we'll hear all about it
in this group.
>: This is the information I have managed to piece together from TSR, the
>: net and from "Morpheus" himself. If any of it is in error, please indicate
>: where.
>
>So, essentially, because Morpheus replied to a blunt, vague letter with a
>blunt response TSR gave up and re-directed their efforts on his supplier.
What's your point?
If you feel wronged by a store representative, and that representative is
unable or unwilling to adequately answer your concerns, do you simply give
up and go home, or do you take your concerns to his/her manager?
Well, this is no different.
>If TSR had bothered to explain what exactly they were objecting to, and for
>what legal reasons, Morpheus might have entered into a dialogue with TSR
>untill only the grey areas were left.
No one is disputing that TSR should have been more specific about what they
were concerned with. I doubt you'd get more of a legal justification than
"this item violates our IP rights", however.
>An explaination of TSR rights that it seeks to claim, in legal terms with
>references so people can verify these matters for themselves, would have
>gone a long way to preventing this kind of thing happening.
>
>For this is not a passive medium, but an active one, and if you want to
>stop people from taking certain actions within this medium on the basis
>of the threat of legal action then you should at least explain yourself.
[after reading that sentence thrice] Huh?
Point the first: What does the passivity (or absence thereof) of this
medium have to do with anything?
Point the second: The explanation has been made. Some items on Morpheus's
site were in violation of TSR's rights. It could have been clearer, no
argument, but Sean has promised to be clearer in the future. What purpose
is served by picking at this old scab?
>For we, the gamers who respect intellectual property law but disagree with
>TSR's intepretation of it, do not want to want to go a court to resolve
>the legal justification for the grey areas that TSR will not explain.
Kinda spineless, aint'cha?
If you're so certain you have the right of it, you should be clamoring
for a court date. While I disagree with some of Jim V's positions, I
respect his willingness to put his own money on the line to get matters
clarified. Until someone goes to court with TSR over this issue, *it
will not be resolved*. If you can't accept that plain fact, you are not
understanding the state of matters.
>Ideally we should be able to say to someone "Go read your local copyright
>law and you will understand TSR's net.policy" but we are not there yet.
Copyright law is so convoluted, so obfuscatory, that such a statement from
TSR would be a step backward, not forward.
Why *are* we still arguing over the Morpheus site, anyway? That's water
under the bridge...we have different net.reps and different policies.
If we must debate, let's debate in the present.
Andrew Hackard
>aren't you glad that TSR has no
>large silly character that all these people who love to "$" in your name
>can use to physically bash.
What about Roger Moore?
Andrew Hackard
:: But what he CAN do is post a request that people send work-related email
:: to the work-related email address, just as (e.g.) a lawyer might tell
:: people who call him at home for legal advice to contact him at the office
:: the next morning and politely end the call.
:
:: Sean, you might want to consider this. :-)
:
:He does do this. It's called the reply-to: header, and tells all
:properly designed newsreaders that any reply should be directed to that
:address.
Smiley alert! Smiley alert!
Seriously, Brian, I did know that. I was being somewhat ironic, and added
the simley to show that I was fully aware he already does this, both by using
the reply-to and by stating a request in his posts.
Andrew Hackard
>Brian Trosko <btr...@usr4.primenet.com> writes:
:> But he's specifically setting the headers so that replies *automatically*
:> go to his work address. For a reply to end up at his personal address
:> requires someone to cut out the reply-to: header and input his personal
:> address.
:
:No, he's not - at least not all the time. Sometimes it's set; sometimes it's
:not. For example, in the message where Sean first complained about
:people "changing" the address, the reply-to was set to his personal
:account.
And this is work-related precisely how?
Seriously -- Sean's request that people not use his personal account for
work-related email is, believe it or not, a *personal* request, and doesn't
belong in his work-related email box.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>: This is on after-the-fact retcon. Morpheus was not informed of
>: the nature of his violations before you threatened his provider.
[...]
>:Police
>: have no right to stop and search cars and threaten people provided
>: they can come up with something actionable later on.
(They do if they have a reason to suspect something's up; and if they come up
with something actionable, well then, I guess they were right to search. In this
case, both sides knew going into the confrontation that there was some
infringing material there, so this is a bad analogy.)
>Regardless, Larry, telling TSR to "F*&k off" was stupid. He could have
>asked for such a list of which files are violations. From what I
>remember, he did no such thing.
I think he actually did ask for such a list. *After* telling TSR to "F*** off".
Smooth operator, that one.
Doesn't mean that it was the best course of action TSR could have taken (as I
think the decision is unanimous that it could have been handled much better; and
this includes, I think, Sean), but Morpheus *certainly* didn't handle himself
any better than TSR, and in fact, he was arguably worse-behaved.
Jonathan W. Hendry
: Seriously -- Sean's request that people not use his personal account for
: work-related email is, believe it or not, a *personal* request, and doesn't
: belong in his work-related email box.
Nonsense. There's very good business reasons for asking that work-related
mail not be sent to his personal address.
Terry Austin
>This is on after-the-fact retcon. Morpheus was not informed of
>the nature of his violations before you threatened his provider.
>Had you done so, history might have been very different. Mor-
>pheus's biggest mistake was in concluding that, simply because
>most of your claims of copyright were bogus, all of them were.
>Nevertheless, do not attempt to use later justifications. Police
>have no right to stop and search cars and threaten people provided
>they can come up with something actionable later on.
I haven't seen Sean try to "justify" anything. He has been expalining
what his predecessor did. And has so far agreed that said predecessor
handled things very poorly. Apparently, everyone at TSR agrees,
except Rob Repp.
Don't confuse explanation with justification. Sean has said quite a
few times that he would have handled things differently. He was ASKED
to explain just what happened, and has had to go to a lot of effort to
find out the details. Then someone accuses him of using this to
justify something he has repeatedly said was done poorly.
But then, you won't be seeing this, will you Larry.
Terry "I finally made it into Larry Smith's killfile" Austin
Guy Robinson
>Larry Smith (lar...@enemax.zk3.dec.com) wrote:
>: This is on after-the-fact retcon. Morpheus was not informed of
>: the nature of his violations before you threatened his provider.
>: Had you done so, history might have been very different. Mor-
>: pheus's biggest mistake was in concluding that, simply because
>: most of your claims of copyright were bogus, all of them were.
>: Nevertheless, do not attempt to use later justifications. Police
>: have no right to stop and search cars and threaten people provided
>: they can come up with something actionable later on.
>Regardless, Larry, telling TSR to "F*&k off" was stupid. He could have
>asked for such a list of which files are violations. From what I
>remember, he did no such thing.
No-one is claiming that what TSR or Morpheus did was intelligent.
Sean has explained that the letter that provoked this response was
was both blunt and vague. Replying with a blunt response is pretty
reasonable, given that background.
Besides Rob Repp was not disposed to give such lists and such an
expectation of being actually told what files are violations has only
become reasonable now Sean has taken over that role.
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
Oh for the wings of any bird, Other than a battery hen.
Hawkwind, "Spirit of the Age"
Guy Robinson
>Guy Robinson <guy....@rx.xerox.com> wrote:
>>Sean K Reynolds (skr...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>: TSR explained that "Morpheus" was violating TSR
>>: copyrights. Teleport.com explained that it wasn't their problem. TSR Legal
>>: explained that it _was_ their problem.
>>
>>This does not suprise me at all. People seem to need to be threatened
>>with legal action before they accept TSR's current interpretation of
>>intellectual property law.
>>
>>Why do you feel that this is the case?
[...]
>Nevertheless, a Morpheus situation would not recur, because the initial
>negative stimulus -- a vague, accusatory letter from the TSR rep -- will
>not be repeated. Sean has pledged to be specific in his accusatory...
>er, um...letters, and I'm sure that if he isn't we'll hear all about it
>in this group.
We agree on this.
>>: This is the information I have managed to piece together from TSR, the
>>: net and from "Morpheus" himself. If any of it is in error, please indicate
>>: where.
>>
>>So, essentially, because Morpheus replied to a blunt, vague letter with a
>>blunt response TSR gave up and re-directed their efforts on his supplier.
>What's your point?
>If you feel wronged by a store representative, and that representative is
>unable or unwilling to adequately answer your concerns, do you simply give
>up and go home, or do you take your concerns to his/her manager?
>Well, this is no different.
It's very different. Morpheus was not employed by his internet supplier.
Have you already forgotten about the "vague, accusatory letter from the TSR
rep" that you mentioned above in your own post?
>>If TSR had bothered to explain what exactly they were objecting to, and for
>>what legal reasons, Morpheus might have entered into a dialogue with TSR
>>untill only the grey areas were left.
>No one is disputing that TSR should have been more specific about what they
>were concerned with. I doubt you'd get more of a legal justification than
>"this item violates our IP rights", however.
Glad to see that we agree on this as well.
>>An explaination of TSR rights that it seeks to claim, in legal terms with
>>references so people can verify these matters for themselves, would have
>>gone a long way to preventing this kind of thing happening.
>>
>>For this is not a passive medium, but an active one, and if you want to
>>stop people from taking certain actions within this medium on the basis
>>of the threat of legal action then you should at least explain yourself.
>[after reading that sentence thrice] Huh?
>Point the first: What does the passivity (or absence thereof) of this
>medium have to do with anything?
When all we had were postal fanzines TSR encouraged us, their customers, to
share "fan material". When we became able to share across the internet on
the same basis with considerable ease TSR sought to reverse this situation.
There is a difference you might be able to understand.
>Point the second: The explanation has been made. Some items on Morpheus's
>site were in violation of TSR's rights. It could have been clearer, no
>argument, but Sean has promised to be clearer in the future. What purpose
>is served by picking at this old scab?
So I will expect no more posts from you on this subject then?
Bringing this up here allowed Sean to restate events outside of the hubhub
of the actual events. This has been of some considerable use.
>>For we, the gamers who respect intellectual property law but disagree with
>>TSR's intepretation of it, do not want to want to go a court to resolve
>>the legal justification for the grey areas that TSR will not explain.
>Kinda spineless, aint'cha?
>If you're so certain you have the right of it, you should be clamoring
>for a court date. While I disagree with some of Jim V's positions, I
>respect his willingness to put his own money on the line to get matters
>clarified. Until someone goes to court with TSR over this issue, *it
>will not be resolved*. If you can't accept that plain fact, you are not
>understanding the state of matters.
Kinda clueless, aint'cha?
When Jeff K. was preparing for a lawsuit back in 1994 I was ready to
contribute to a war chest then and this offer is still open. If Jim V.
wants to take this to a court then I will be one of the people prepared to
personally contribute to see that this is resolved.
Just like I contributed to the defense fund for the net.person that was
sued by the Scientologists over another copyright wrangle.
However I do not want anyone to have to confront TSR in a court to get this
issue resolved. I would rather a peacefull settlement be wrought.
>>Ideally we should be able to say to someone "Go read your local copyright
>>law and you will understand TSR's net.policy" but we are not there yet.
>Copyright law is so convoluted, so obfuscatory, that such a statement from
>TSR would be a step backward, not forward.
If TSR does not have a copyright policy that lay people can recognise as
being legal then how can TSR expect law-abiding people to comply?
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
Oh for the wings of any bird, Other than a battery hen.