IMPORTANT: The future of the net
Ben Zeller
First of all: Rob Repp is a real person. I met him at Gen Con, he wore a
badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
compromise, now it’s our turn.
TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
compromised their position, now its our turn.
After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
will refuse to accept the proposal. I don’t like the idea of a corporate
sponsor any more than any of you do, but this has to be done or our
community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
our community’s actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
to control theirs.
Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
and we shouldn’t blame them for that. If anything, write your
congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
community. Thank you for your time,
Ben Zeller
PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
for us, if we let them.
--
*--------------*---------------------*--------------------------*
| Ben Zeller | zel...@mixcom.com | (do NOT use NES address) |
*--------------*---------------------*--------------------------*
| "Lord, what fools these mortals be." - W.S. |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
| Member: LPWI RPGA |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
Mark Nockleby
(Ben Zeller) writes:
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
>and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
>But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
>compromise, now it's our turn.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
This all sounds fine to me, however it only addresses the issue of
"publishing" at an internet archive site. What about posting to this
newsgroup? Several days ago kendall...@his.com (Kendall Bullen) posted
on rec.games.frp.dnd (Subject: Fuel to the fire) a conversation with
Rob Repp that was posted to the fidonet.
"ROB REPP: Well, you can create whole universes and use them at home, or in
your local gaming group. Another facet to this questions is "At what point
should TSR care?" The line gets crossed whem people start publishing their
stuff. In a home setting, quite a bit goes. In a publishing setting, we can
tolerate very litte le because of the copyright and trademark laws. So, find a
way to discuss and share and be creative that ISN't publishing."
Does TSR consider the posts to this newsgroup "publishing?" I think this
question needs to be answered if TSR has the ability to shut down this
newsgroup as Ben Zeller claims. Over the last several days someone
has asked about guidelines for posting modules to the internet and a couple of
spells in the exact same format as the player's handbook (mentioning saving
throws and other elements of the AD&D(tm) game, uh oh!) have been posted to
this newsgroup. Is TSR threatened by these postings to this newsgroup?
And, if so, will a relatively painless solution be found?
Mark Nockleby
--
"But I like to think that when something disturbs me that it is important"
-- Steven Jesse Bernstein.
n...@noether.ucsc.edu
Jeff Gostin
Zeller) writes:
> First of all: Rob Repp is a real person. I met him at Gen Con, he wore a
> badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
> alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
That's good to know... :-)
> Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
> wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
> and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
> But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
> compromise, now itÕs our turn.
I bloody doubt it. The reason they can shut down FTP sites (and,
IMHO, it wouldn't stand up in court) is because people are distributing
alledgely infringing literature and supplements via these FTP sites. The
Newsgroups and Mailing Lists serve as a discussion forum, very similiar to
a CON. Just because the con isn't officially sanctioned by TSR doesn't
mean that room can't be set aside for AD&D discussions. Sorry, I don't buy
it.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
> ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
> their place, at the new site.
This is a good first step, and I sincerely appreciate TSR's
willingness to be flexible -- kudos to you, Rob and Company!
> What we have to do is download a disclaimer type thing from this
> site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc. and then upload our
> creation to their site.
I don't know how I feel about this, considering I haven't seen the
disclaimer. If it's not more than (effectively) "this is not an official
TSR product, use at your own risk. If it destroys your campaign, or your
sanity, T-S.", that's fine. I don't have a problem with TSR protecting its
rights. I do have a problem with TSR protecting its rights at my expense.
> We will not be able to have a mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable
> point for TSR. They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
This is unreasonable. Could they not sanction a second US-Based site
(so that copyrights would still hold) that could be an official mirror?
What happens if said site has a hardware crash? All of a sudden, we've got
problems, because alot of people will lose a valuable resource.
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
> works.
That's the funny thing about sanity. A paranoid schizophrenic
genuinely believes everyone is out to get them. Someone suffering from MPD
genuinely believes each of their personalities is a seperate, viable
entity. So, what does this tell us about sanity.....?
> The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a mirror
> are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
> purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
Again, I have no problem with a disclaimer, in theory. I'll reserve
judgement until I have a chance to see it for myself.
> I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
> compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
> will refuse to accept the proposal.
The British colonists in the "New World" who drafted the Declaration
of Independence were considered "radical elements in [their] community."
Being "radical" generally implies that you don't like the status quo. All
in all, the compromise shows Good Faith on the part of TSR. I applaud
their efforts. However, there are a few points (the disclaimer, and the
lack of a mirror) that require additional discussion, IMNSHO.
> I don't like the idea of a corporate sponsor any more than any of you
> do, but this has to be done or our community will be destroyed.
I don't know what line you were fed at GenCon, or wherever you met
with TSR, but it'd be damn near impossible to destroy this newsgroup. The
first amendment comes to mind, but I'm no lawyer.
> As I said before, TSR has the ability to
> completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
> our communityÕs actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
> to control theirs.
I doubt your premise. I don't think TSR has the ability to
"completely squash us". I think you're "Chicken Little"'ing here.
> congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
> this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
> community.
There was peace before TSR got involved, and there will be peace
afterwards, regardless of TSR's actions. It's just a matter of how much
TSR wants to get involved with a convoluded court battle over the exact
standing of the Net, the status of newsgroups, of the posts on the
newsgroups, and of the Constitutional grounds for protection of that
information.
> PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
> Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
> for us, if we let them.
...and this is the problem... I applaud their efforts. I think what
they are doing (this compromise) is a great thing. I object, however, to
the argument that the only way it can be done is if they do it FOR us.
--Jeff
--
====== ====== +-----------...@eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+
== == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,|
== == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. |
==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! |
PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+
U58...@uicvm.uic.edu
have any "right" to shut down a NEWS GROUP, although they definitely could go
after a few people (probably people who repost text straight from the books)
and hope the rest will run like scared rabbits. Judging by previous behavior,
I'd say that's too charitable a description for a group of people who start
saying "now we can't talk about orcs" because somebody reposts a letter he got
from the legal department after requesting their opinions. Nonetheless,
remember that NO ONE, not a company or a government or ANYBODY has the right to
censor the Net, and if they try we will flay the skin from their bones and
boil them in salt water before we allow them merciful oblivion.
They CERTAINLY have no right to "censor" E-mail; as a matter of fact, they
have rather restricted rights even in terms of trying to eavesdrop on it. And
a mailing list is at least technically E-mail (if it's private and not gated to
a bitserv. group, etc.).
Which leaves the Dreaded FTP site problem. I say sure, let's use them ---
they ARE a site after all. Disclaimers are a waste of Internet bandwidth; I
suspect that sooner or later posts will come with so much crap about whether
they're obscene or pornographic or copyright-limited and so on and so forth
(due to more scared rabbits; I doubt the modern-day SS will ever grow so large
as its German predecessor) that when someone finally comes up with compression/
automatic editing-out features it'll double the capacity of the Net.
BUT using them is one thing --- giving them power is entirely another. If
they want to say "Let us protect ourselves by keeping this material here
instead of somewhere else" then we can play ball with them. But if they say
"Let us convince you suckers to close down your sites and use only ours, so
that then we can attack any site that tries to come on-line (since we will have
already given them the victory), then once we're the only site, we can make all
kinds of rules about what's "appropriate" and what comes too close to competing
with stuff we have on the market, then we can charge them $$$$$..." ... Well,
we're not going to let them get away with that.
Remember always that WE have the numerical advantage in any battle. We may
not be armed, but there are so many of us that they simply can't shoot us all,
as a matter of fact, they can't even shoot enough of us for us to notice unless
we let the first rumor of a problem anywhere on the entire battlefield send us
into a frantic retreat. And remember that ultimately they depend on us for
their income --- If they DID force us to do all our public conversations with
some other format, we'd stop using D&D, because the only advantage of using a
prewritten system is that it IS a standard --- they'd be throwing that away.
Use their system. Call their bluff. Let them pretend to courts and kings
that they are in control of the winds, the tides, the seven moons, and even the
very Internet; for lawyers are the kind to thrive on pretense.
Meanwhile, keep your powder dry!
Alexander Forst
|> In article <zeller-23...@bbvvbb.mixcom.com> zel...@mixcom.com (Ben
|> Zeller) writes:
|> > We will not be able to have a mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable
|> > point for TSR. They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
|> This is unreasonable. Could they not sanction a second US-Based site
|> (so that copyrights would still hold) that could be an official mirror?
|> What happens if said site has a hardware crash? All of a sudden, we've got
|> problems, because alot of people will lose a valuable resource.
What about other countries? I don't want to waste bandwidth because I _must_
connect to a site across the atlantic.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Dad! You shot the Flanders-Zombie!" | Alexander Forst |
| "He was a Zombie?" | al...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at|
| | University of Technology Vienna|
| Bart & Homer Simpson | Institute of Computer Languages|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
DUNEDON
[Rob Repp is real deleted]
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
>and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
>But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
>compromise, now it’s our turn.
I'm glad that the reason they did what they did has finally
come out, if does make a lot of sense.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
There is nothing wrong with this idea, if fact it will act as
quality control for the content of the site. Also does this
allow us to replace the wonderful programs that could be found
on other sites? And, does this mean that all out of country
sites will be shut down (ie: agena)
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
>works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
>mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
>purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
Finally the group can get to discussing what we are really here for
not politics. :-)
>I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
>compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
>will refuse to accept the proposal. I don’t like the idea of a corporate
>sponsor any more than any of you do, but this has to be done or our
>community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
>completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
>our community's actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
>to control theirs.
What does TSR plan to do to the mpgn site if the 'more radical
elements' decide not to go along with this plan? I personally
feel that the radical elements should start to play along as
there are more of us sane ones around.
>Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
>with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
>monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
>and we shouldn't blame them for that. If anything, write your
>congress-person and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
>this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
>community. Thank you for your time,
>
>Ben Zeller
Thanks for the report Ben it was well needed. Now anyone with
answers to my questions (Rob??) please resond at the email
address below. Thanks.
>PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
>Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
>for us, if we let them.
>
Sounds like a great idea hope to hear more about it soon.
Keith Sine
/\ DUNEDON <---> Master of Ansillon
/ \
______/____\_____ charmed human: Keith Sine cs...@blaze.trentu.ca
~-_ / \_-~
/~-_ _-~\ The opinions expressed above are those of
/ _~~_ \ DUNEDON and should NOT be disputed.
/ _-~ ~-_ \
/-~ ~-\ [FLAME ME AT YOUR OWN RISK -- I LIKE IT HOT]
Matt
1. Will TSR ever charge for access to this information?
2. Will TSR use the information found on the ftp site in publications and
profit from it without sharing profit's with spell /world/program creators?
Matthew Harelick
--
Matthew S. Harelick
IBM, Watson Research Division
914-784-7079
John Michael Martz
Jeff Gostin <jgo...@eternal.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>In article <zeller-23...@bbvvbb.mixcom.com> zel...@mixcom.com (Ben
>Zeller) writes:
>> What we have to do is download a disclaimer type thing from this
>> site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc. and then upload our
>> creation to their site.
> I don't know how I feel about this, considering I haven't seen the
>disclaimer. If it's not more than (effectively) "this is not an official
>TSR product, use at your own risk. If it destroys your campaign, or your
>sanity, T-S.", that's fine. I don't have a problem with TSR protecting its
>rights. I do have a problem with TSR protecting its rights at my expense.
As editor (or, as TSR would have it, "publisher") of the DARK SUN Net
Handbook, I'm willing to give this option a try. In fact, I just ftped to
ftp.mpgn.com looking for the disclaimer and couldn't find it--not there
yet, I guess (or I simply missed it). I want to read it over and see what
they have to say. As long as they don't make me compramise the quality
and availability of the DSNHB (which has been getting rave reviews), I'm
willing to play along.
>> We will not be able to have a mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable
>> point for TSR. They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
> This is unreasonable. Could they not sanction a second US-Based site
>(so that copyrights would still hold) that could be an official mirror?
>What happens if said site has a hardware crash? All of a sudden, we've got
>problems, because alot of people will lose a valuable resource.
Well, if said site is a quality site, they should have some type of
periodic backup procedure. I don't see a crash as a major problem--in
reality, it would probably be little more than an inconvience.
>> As I said before, TSR has the ability to
>> completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
>> our communityÕs actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
>> to control theirs.
> I doubt your premise. I don't think TSR has the ability to
>"completely squash us". I think you're "Chicken Little"'ing here.
I tend to agree--while TSR could probably legislate the DARK SUN Net
Handbook (and me) out of existance, I doubt there is much it could do to
this news group.
JOHN
--
* John M. Martz: Psychology Dept, UNC-CH * *
| CB# 3270, Davie Hall | B = f(P,E) |
| Chapel Hill, NC 27599 | --Kurt Lewin |
* JOHN_...@UNC.EDU * *
Larry Smith
Ben Zeller <zel...@mixcom.com> wrote:
>community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
>completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
Difficult to do in a medium which interprets censorship as a malfunction.
While I would probably not have objected to this idea, I object like hell
to this whining surrender of basic rights.
>our communityÕs actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
>to control theirs.
TSR _is_ a radical element, they can only improve or stay the same.
>monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
This is a base and vile lie.
Luckily, I do not maintain a T$R-related net.book, or I would have solved
the problem with rm -rf *. I didn't consider myself a "radical" in this
debate until this post. While I would certainly _have_ supported this com-
promise, the whining and spineless tone of the pleading here simply
disgust me.
--
Larry Smith - My opinions alone. lar...@io.com/thes...@mv.mv.com
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take
everything you have. -- Barry Goldwater. Liberty is not the freedom to do
whatever we want, it is the freedom to do whatever we are able. -- Me.
Thomas Petersen
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
> ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
> their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
> type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
> and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
> mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
> compromised their position, now its our turn.
I think all of this sounds like a nice idea but, is this a proposal
or reality? I just FTPed MPG-Net (ftp.mpgn.com) and there are no
template disclaimers, no possibility of uploading anything whatsoever
and the Hero, AD&D and other directories are as closed as ever.
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
> works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
> mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
> purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
Let me get this right. MPG-Net will be the only place in the universe
with AD&D files? Is TSR aware of just how ludicrous this is? I counted
18 FTP sites that carry AD&D specific files without thinking, and virtually
all files about Role-Playing contains words such as ARMOR VALUE which
TSR apparently think they own. There is no way short of universal
litigation (some of it taking place in Europe where they would have
a hard time winning,) TSR can limit the number of FTP sites. TSR
can in fact not even hope to know the names of all the relevant FTP
sites because noone ever did. I'd be willing to advocate the use of
disclaimers, but when TSR demands that only MPG-Net distributes
AD&D files they are making fools of themselves. Especially so
when you consider the technical limitations of ftp.mpgn.com .
> Please think about this.
Are you a newbie? There is no way anyone could make a newsgroup
agree on anything whatsoever. If TSR thinks they have a sensible
solution they should try imposing it by the means available to them.
Incidentally these means includes friendly coercion as well as
concrete and detailed proposals for solutions to this crisis.
Works every time for me.
I might add that the best way of handling this would be for TSR to
announce instantly just how this method of licensing Public Domain
contributions should function. As ftp.mpgn.com is still closed
down I can only assume that TSR has still not worked this out.
I guess the animosity they have created is a fair punishment for
their sloth.
Thomas
Jean-Marc Libs
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site.
I have no comment until I have seen this disclaimer and someone has
translated from legalese to a langage I understand.
> We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR.
If it is a "non-negotiable point for TSR" then it means it's
important to them, right? If it's important to them, there is a reason
why it is important to them. What is this reason?
> They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
The compromise being that they don't make us pay for net-stuff.
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
>works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
>mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
>purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
I'm very interested in the "never having to worry about your creation being
purged" part. Especially in relation to the "no mirror site" aspect.
How long before the "we are devoting an incredible time to the maintenance
of this site. It costs us money. You must understand that as a company
we can't provide a service for free for an indefinite duration"
part? Why don't they let site owners from all around the world do
the job for free? Doesn't the licensing agreement protect TSR from
trouble related to the contents of the individual sites anyway?
In short: I understand the rationale of a disclaimer and I am ready
to cope with the inconvenience. I can not, however, think of a rationale
for the "our site and none other" stance.
> I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
>compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
>will refuse to accept the proposal. I donUt like the idea of a corporate
>sponsor any more than any of you do, but this has to be done or our
>community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
>completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
>our communityUs actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
>to control theirs.
A community does not need to be controlled. Is r.g.f.d moderated? How
do you define radical? How do you destroy an Internet group? This
paragraph does not make sense.
> Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
>with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
>monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
>and we shouldnUt blame them for that. If anything, write your
>congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law.
So, all other RPG companies are failing to do what the law of the US says
they must do. I feel sooo sorry for them. They must be crazy.
> But, please accept
>this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
>community. Thank you for your time,
Nothing's more peaceful than a cemetary.
>Ben Zeller
Thank you for the time it took you to collect all these info for
our benefit and then posting it all.
>PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
>Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
>for us, if we let them.
We are not the ones who would dream of preventing anyone (even TSR)
from doing great things for the benefit of all on this net. You
must be thinking of someone else.
Colman Reilly
>Sorry to do all those cross references, but this is important.
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
>and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
>But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
>compromise, now itÕs our turn.
1) I got a note from Rob Repp this morning, saying that something would be
announced soon, but his press release was being held up inside TSR. He said
"contracts have been signed", whatever that means.
2) If the solution that TSR has come up with is wrong then we must tell
them so. If they are insisting on no mirrors they are wrong. We must say so.
3) Their legal interpretation is written from the point of view of someone
figuring out what TSR might be able to get away with. I don't believe it
particularly, but we can't really fight it in court. I'd love to see them
try to close down a newsgroup though...and as for a mailing list!
4) We have nothing to compromise on. We want to keep on playing and
exchanging ideas. That's all. We've never wanted to rip off TSR, so there's
nothing to give.
5) The problem here would appear to be suits and lawyers with their heads
stuck in the wrong ends of their anatomies. We need to talk suit for them to
understand. Ranting won't help, so stay calm. Unless they do something
completely stupid.
6) The correct solution is for them to define a disclaimer (acceptable to
us) which releases them, and if necessary to license official sites. There
is no such thing as non-negotiable, unless you believe them when they say
it. We know that technically they're wrong, so we should tell them _why_
they're wrong. (It is, of course because no one site can carry all this
traffic. Unless they feel like paying for it's trouble of course.)
Colman
--
Colman Reilly (cre...@maths.tcd.ie) [+353-(0)1-7022280]
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.
PGP Public Key on Request MIME OK
"Nothing so strong as gentleness; nothing so gentle as real strength."
Craig Allen Campbell
>badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
>alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
Amen to that, brother. I'm sick of "Die now you Nazi pig" comments too.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
Wow...a solution. And one that doesn't cost us money or piss us all off. I
have only used the T$R remark once in all of my posts here. I hereby
retract that usage.
ROBB REPP READ THIS: On behalf of myself and my gaming group, thank you for
finding a solution to this problem that is acceptable to both parties. And
thanks to the various departments at TSR for coming to this compromise.
It is greatly appreciated.
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
>works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
>mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
>purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
We agree totally. A mirror site isn't all that important. And now ALL the
stuff will be at ONE site...much easier to get at. And who really cares
about a disclaimer.
later...
-craigc
AND...
_____ __ ___ ___ _____ *
| _ / | | | __ |__ |
| |_| \__ | | | / \ | |
| | \ \__/ | |
| __/ | TM.
* (The Perpetually Shrinking Minority of Free Thinkers)
Ben Zeller
> In article <zeller-23...@bbvvbb.mixcom.com> zel...@mixcom.com (Ben
> Zeller) writes:
> > Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
> > wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
> > and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
> > But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
> > compromise, now its our turn.
> I bloody doubt it. The reason they can shut down FTP sites (and,
> IMHO, it wouldn't stand up in court) is because people are distributing
> alledgely infringing literature and supplements via these FTP sites. The
> Newsgroups and Mailing Lists serve as a discussion forum, very similiar to
> a CON. Just because the con isn't officially sanctioned by TSR doesn't
> mean that room can't be set aside for AD&D discussions. Sorry, I don't buy
> it.
They couldn't shut it down, but they could take us all to court. Even if
they didn't win (which in my mind they wouldn't), it would be a pain in the
neck.
> > We will not be able to have a mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable
> > point for TSR. They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
> This is unreasonable. Could they not sanction a second US-Based site
> (so that copyrights would still hold) that could be an official mirror?
> What happens if said site has a hardware crash? All of a sudden, we've got
> problems, because alot of people will lose a valuable resource.
I mentioned this too. Apparently they want to track posts down, or
something. Regardless, they said it was non-negotiable point, which only
means it will be hard to change thier mind :)
> > I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
> > compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
> > will refuse to accept the proposal.
> The British colonists in the "New World" who drafted the Declaration
> of Independence were considered "radical elements in [their] community."
> Being "radical" generally implies that you don't like the status quo. All
> in all, the compromise shows Good Faith on the part of TSR. I applaud
> their efforts. However, there are a few points (the disclaimer, and the
> lack of a mirror) that require additional discussion, IMNSHO.
I have been called a radical before (sometimes I even like the label), but
I was referring to the "T$R is owned by the Nazies"/"They're out to get us"
type. Perhaps paranoid would be a better label.
> --
> ====== ====== +-----------...@eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+
> == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,|
> == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. |
> ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! |
> PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+
--
S. Keith Graham
>Sorry to do all those cross references, but this is important.
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
>and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
>But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
>compromise, now it’s our turn.
First of all, the "law" does not force TSR to 'protect' their copyright.
If they don't protect their copyright, they may get less in damages if
someone else violates their copyright, but in no way will the Player's
Handbook ever become public domain or anything like that.
And they have the power and ability to shut down the sites through
intimidation and force, not necessarily through any valid legal
stance on the issue. Its just that noone that runs a free FTP site
wants to spend $100,000 defending themselves in court, even if they
are assured by their lawyers that they would assuredly win.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
Why can't they do what all the other game companies do? They don't seem to
think its a legal requirement to have a single site. (At most, a
standard disclaimer, and some don't require that.)
Second, "mirror sites" are an Internet bandwidth saving measure. Are
they going to say you can't keep the files compressed next? What about
storing them on more than one drive at the site? Seriously, a *pure
mirror*, that has no additional files, is no different than a single site,
and it is "Bandwidth friendly".
I hope that this is simply a case of TSR not understanding what a mirror
is, rather than a serious objection. (i.e. mirror sites have no files
but the ones on the original site; mirror sites do not accept new material;
mirror sites simply have automatically generated copies to reduce bandwidth
used in transferring the files repeatedly to Europe, etc.)
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
>works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
>mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
>purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
The other options include posting a standard disclaimer to r.g.f.dnd,
and asking that it be included on any material that is related to TSR
products. That's what *OTHER* game companies do.
(Are AD&D related posts going to have to filter through the site too?
After all, people post characters to the group, and new spell ideas, etc..
And after all, these posts are being archived and distributed via
CD-ROM.)
>It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
>and we shouldn’t blame them for that. If anything, write your
>congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
>this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
>community. Thank you for your time,
This is utter and complete garbage, just for the record.
They have, at best, a borderline legal position to go after the authors
and distributors of the material, BUT given the legal system, and given
that you'd have to spend a great deal of money defending yourself, those
authors and distributors WILL cave to whatever TSR demands.
If you do not defend your copyrights (not trademarks), they are just
as valid as they ever were. Even if they go to sleep for 10 years,
they can prosecute people in 10 years for making copies of the
Player's Handbook. Even if they've made copies for that entire time.
Really.
Any licensing scheme at all fully protects both their copyrights and
trademarks. Other companies (including White Wolf and Steve Jackson
Games) have *VERY* liberal policies for licensing free-ware, including
things like "character generators", that are without a doubt a copyright
violation. (A module is a very questionable thing. Other gaming companies
have published modules for AD&D and other games without being sued. A
character generator that includes tables of prices from a TSR book
is definately a copyright violation, but SJG will license that too.)
TSR may not consider this an "acceptable position", but they aren't
"forced by the legal system to be Nazis". They just decided that
they wanted to be Nazis.
>Ben Zeller
>PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
>Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
>for us, if we let them.
I'm sure it will be up to their usual quality standards.
And I'm sure it will be free, just like the ftp site, and all of their
current high quality material. :-)
Sorry for the sarcasm, but someone at TSR has misinformed you about
the copyright laws, and TSR has threatened the existing MU*s to get
them to shut down, so they will have less competition. (For their
Mud which will presumably be a profit center for them.)
Sure they can do some great things, but I don't see them doing those
great things for free, like is available today.
In the meantime, I'll still wait for the official legal posting from
Rob, including wether PBeM, posting to the Usenet, Play-By-IRC, etc.
is acceptable in their opinion, and for what their disclaimer states.
This very unoffical post hasn't answered 1/10th of the questions.
Keith Graham
Brian Trosko
: First of all: Rob Repp is a real person. I met him at Gen Con, he wore a
: badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
: alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
Good, and it's about bloody time. I was ready for people to start
claiming that Rob Repp also killed JFK.
: Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
: wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
: and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
I must quibble on this point. I honestly can NOT see how TSR has the
power to shut down this *newsgroup*. I really don't see what they can do
about mailing lists either, since that, by definition, is all private
email. Even assuming TSR found out about a particular list, if all
parties on that list started using PGP to encrypt their mailings, there
is not a whit that TSR could do about it. While I agree that TSR has
mostly been in the right on this issue, lets not go and start claiming
they're an omnipotent business megalith. This isn't Disney or Microsoft
we're talking about.
: TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
: ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
: their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
: type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
: and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
: mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
: compromised their position, now its our turn.
: After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
: works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
: mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
: purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
I personally am willing to except a compromise of this nature, but I do
have two qualms. One, why are you telling us this, and not Rob Repp? Not
that I doubt you, but I would like to hear this one straight from the
horse's mouth, as it were. Second, why not a mirror site? It would be a
simple matter to make the ftp.mpgn.com site be the only one that accepts
uploads, and this would avoid the inevitable blockages due to only having
*one* site. This site is going to be overloaded, fast. Unless, of course,
TSR sees its way clear to donating hardware to the site to facilitate its
use. Note that this is not such an outlandish idea. As an recent
example, infant2, the main ftp site for material and programs relating
to the game Doom, by Id Software, was running out of hard drive space.
At this point, the admins of that site posted to alt.games.doom and let
people know they needed more HD space. The first response? From Id
Software, a notification that Id was *giving* them 2 gigs of HD space.
If this is the kind of responsiveness we can expect from TSR, then I will
not take issue with their arbitrary limit of one ftp site.
: I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
: compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
: will refuse to accept the proposal. I don’t like the idea of a corporate
: sponsor any more than any of you do, but this has to be done or our
: community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
: completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
: our community’s actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
: to control theirs.
Please, lets stop the overestimation of TSRs abilities as a company. It
does *not* have the ability to completely squash us. Quite frankly,
people on this group have not done anything to circumvent TSR on this
issue. At least, if they have, it hasn't been to the maximum of their
ability. Really, all it would take is to setup an anonymous ftp site in a
country that isn't a signatory of the Berne Convention. The very nature
of the net means that a company such as TSR can NOT squash that which it
disagrees with. Yes, it can squash individual ftp sites, and maybe
individual gamers (even though that would be corporate suicide). It can
NOT squash this newsgroup.
: Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
: with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
: monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
: and we shouldn’t blame them for that.
See, no its not. TSR looked at copyright law and made the decision that
this route would best protect them in the event of any legal quarrels.
This is different that doing what the 'law...says it must do.' If you
want to look at a different route, merely look at Id Software and Doom.
The shareware version came out, people loved it, people bought the
registered version. Then Id said "we're going to release some of the
source code so you can build your own levels around our engine." Id's
only request was that levels be made to not work with the shareware
version, so that people would continue to buy the game. Because of this
attitude, there is a *tremendous* amount of support for the game on the
net, and Id has created a *very* loyal customer base. This is a
different route taken then the one by TSR, but an equally legal one. As
the copyright laws say, Id had the right to give people free reign to create
derivative works; their own Doom levels. These original levels don't
have any sort of legalese disclaimer on then, and somehow I doubt that
this has endangered Id's copyrights in any way.
:
If anything, write your
: congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
: this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
: community. Thank you for your time,
: PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
: Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
: for us, if we let them.
Personally, I will have to wait and see. I don't doubt TSRs ability to do
great things, I doubt their willingness. But I'm just a cranky bastid, I
guess.
Brian "Cranky Bastid" Trosko
--
"In this connection, I think a moral and decent thing to do - for people
who read my posts - is to contribute to the nearest newsnet fund some $
per postings of mine that they read." - Alex Abian
"The 'god' of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF RENEGADE SPACE
CANNIBALS..." -Rob McElwaine
Yoda
>We agree totally. A mirror site isn't all that important. And now ALL the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... to those not on machines connected to the 'one' site, passing packets
of the same info over and over and over again...
A mirror site is a good thing, that's why mirrors were invented. If the
mirror took no uploads, and included all the disclaimers and files associated
with ftp.mpgn.com's AD&D directory, it would be, in all respects, the same
site. Only it would save 'net bandwidth. And ftp.mpgn.com wouldn't get
overloaded with ftp users using those damn programs that keep trying every
couple of seconds until they connect... Mirrors are a benefit to all.
>stuff will be at ONE site...much easier to get at.
Obviously you haven't tried to get onto ftp.wustl.edu at a decent hour...
one site with everything, so EVERYONE tries to use it...
>And who really cares
>about a disclaimer.
Agreed. It protects their rights, and lets us distribute our creative efforts
for free. It took them a while, and they paniced and reacted too strongly
at first, but they did it... for that, I'm grateful. Very. Thanks to TSR
for that! Now, if only they'd recant on the mirror thing... :)
ttyl,
bruce
--
Bruce Baltzer - bru...@vnet.ibm.com - balt...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca
NLTC, IBM Toronto (Canada) Software Lab
**IF YOU READ THIS AFTER AUG 30, PLEASE REPLY TO balt...@tuns.ca!!!**
PGP Public Key available on request.
Keith Barber
: In article <94082400272...@eternal.pha.pa.us>, Jeff Gostin
: <jgo...@eternal.pha.pa.us> wrote:
: > IMHO, it wouldn't stand up in court) is because people are distributing
: > alledgely infringing literature and supplements via these FTP sites. The
: > Newsgroups and Mailing Lists serve as a discussion forum, very similiar to
: > a CON. Just because the con isn't officially sanctioned by TSR doesn't
: > mean that room can't be set aside for AD&D discussions. Sorry, I don't buy
: > it.
: They couldn't shut it down, but they could take us all to court. Even if
: they didn't win (which in my mind they wouldn't), it would be a pain in the
: neck.
the bringing of these suits would bring, from me at least a counter-suit
for malicious prosecution and frivolous litigation, and possibly
restraint of trade.
--
Keith Barber
kei...@comtch.iea.com
Not me
it. So here it is.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 18:47:35 +0300
From: Mikko Barros <mur...@cute.fi>
To: zel...@mixcom.com (Ben Zeller)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: The future of the net
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
In article <zeller-23...@bbvvbb.mixcom.com> you wrote:
: Sorry to do all those cross references, but this is important.
: Ben Zeller
First of all i want emphasize that this is my first mail to
Usenet.news, meaning that this mail might not be following the etiquette
of the net, but you have to start somewhere, so here hoes nothing...
In my opinion it is important to stand our ground on this (cp)-issue.
I don't think that i'm alone, when i'm stating that we can't let T$R rule
what we can and cannot talk about here in our newsgroup. Furthermore, the
existance of a newsgroup involving T$R:s products is perhaps the most
effective free advertisement they could ever get. This (cp)-thing has
left many former T$R supporters pondering about the wisdom behind
punishing the very people who play their games and buy their products.
I know that they don't care whether i buy their products or not
because my share of T$R:s annual turnover is miniscule, but they should
be interested in the opinions of every customer they have, if not for the
money, then for the moral reasons.
It is frightening that some of us are starting to yield before the
massive power of T$R and it's demands. I see no need for compromise,
either they give us rights to talk about their products freely, and send
our own ideas here (using the terms of the game), or they kill the thing
for good...I for one am not able to reach a commercially run T$R-BBS, and
futhermore have no interest of discussing my views in a corporate
controlled environment.
As an afterthought it might be said, that T$R has become the
Dragon, who terrorizes the idle countryside, and whom the brave
adventurers must find and slay.
David Manvell
There is a potential problem with this type of a set up. Lets say that
we went out and started a on-line role-playing magazine like
Adventurer's Companion (sorry. Had to get in a plug there.) and people sent
in various articles from all sorts of gaming systems. Do you think that other
gaming companies are going to want TSR to put a disclaimer in these multi-
game-system mags - one's where their gaming systems have articles in? For
instance, let's say that someone sent in a new monster for one of the GURPS
games.....Do you think GURPS would like TSR claiming ownership???? And TSR
would probably have control over the FTP site too. Do you think TSR is going
to care if someone uploads a GURPS article to everyone on the FTP site?? I
bet GURPS would care.
Putyt...@Delphi.com
(Join the Adventurer's Companion. send EMail to Putyt...@Delphi.com and I'll
send ya' info on how to join.)
Jeff Gostin
(Alexander Forst) writes:
> What about other countries? I don't want to waste bandwidth because I _must_
> connect to a site across the atlantic.
The only reason I said US is that the US is the only place where we
can be sure that we can prosecute copyright violations. I was thinking
about things from TSR's point of view.
David Manvell
Whhooops sorrry, I hit Ctrl z a little early.
I don't think a FTp site is going to work. There are hundreds of
thousands of phone calls into the FRP nets, SIGS, FTPs, Usenets, etc ev
day and I don't think TSR is going to be able to afford a Cray II and a 1000
phone lines to run it, never the less the time involved.
I do think a small disclaimer is more than reasonable especially for on-line
magazines like the Adventurer's Companion (Sorry, another plug). I don't
think however that they will be able to get every person who posts a message
on the net to print up the disclaimer. Allthough it's a nice thought, it isn't
practical. (It would be nice if every one went 55 MPH too).
As the editor of the Adventurer's Companion, I have no problem with
a disclaimer....in fact I've already worked up one for the first issue but it
still doesn't answer the question about what to do as far as other companies
go with a disclaimer. If the disclaimer said something on the line of every
thing in this magazine is TSR copyrighted. Other companies are NOT going to
like that.
Putyt...@Delphi.com
Heather L. Roberts-Weller
: Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
: wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
: and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
: But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
: compromise, now its our turn.
TSR has the power and ability to shut down this newsgroup, etc.? Bullshit
they do...I think everyone gives TSR's lawyers and lawyers in general too
much credit. I have thought all along, that the best thing to do is just to
ignore TSR's rantings. Give a cosmic shrug of the shoulders and then
watch with glee as all their lawyers have a big collective stroke when they
see that they are not getting their own way. I have two words for TSR's
lawyers: the second is the name of Dorothy's Aunt, and the first...well, you
can guess the first.
Greg
: Ben Zeller
Architect of Sleep
>Sorry to do all those cross references, but this is important.
>
>First of all: Rob Repp is a real person. I met him at Gen Con, he wore a
>badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
>alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
I actually feel sorry for Mr. Repp. He DOES take alot of abuse from us and
all he really is is TSR's liason to the net. Still don't like what he has
to say though..
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have the power
>and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
They have no power to "shut down" this group or any mailing lists. Maybe
they can shut down FTP sites with scare tactics or lawsuits.
>But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They have made a
>compromise, now it’s our turn.
How nice of them. They've declined to stop their customers from giving TSR
free word-of-mouth advertising. ;-)
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
>ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
>their place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
>type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
>and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have a
>mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR. They have
>compromised their position, now its our turn.
And who owns the material that's put here? Read the disclaimer closely,
people, or you may find your labour of love being sold by TSR without
even a thankyou for your work.
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
>works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
>mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
>purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
I wouldn't call this a sane option... at least not until I read their
disclaimer. And when that SINGLE ftp site is overloaded and unavailable
you may not think it's very sane either!
[deleted]
> Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
>with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
>monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
Then why does TSR think *WE* are a band of evil monsters "out to get" TSR?
>and we shouldn’t blame them for that. If anything, write your
>congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
I still find it hard to believe that TSR will "lose their copyrights" and
trademarks (most of which are dubious anyway) because we are doing the very
thing TSR is asking us to do: play their damn game.
>this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
>community. Thank you for your time,
>
>Ben Zeller
>
>PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
>Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
>for us, if we let them.
Ooooh! How nice. With at least 1000 generic D&D-like MUDs out there, we'll
all clamor to get on the "official" one.
-Robert
--
-----> mush...@netcom.com <-----
"It was relatively fast, and a moron could operate it - two big pluses in the
online world." -- Boardwatch, Nov 93
T.J. Fitzmaurice
>cra...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig Allen Campbell) writes:
>
>>We agree totally. A mirror site isn't all that important. And now ALL the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You obviously have never tried to ftp from Europe. I don't know the situation
in the States and Canada but you guys have much better connections than we do
here on the other side of the Atlantic. The Atlantic link itself is a complete
son of a bitch sometimes, it doesn't carry very much. A Mirror site this side
of the Atlantic is desperately needed if the amount of interest in this group
and the interest I've seen on ftp sites is any indicator of the use this TSR
sanctioned site will get.
Tim
c
Thomas Petersen
No. We don't agree totally. A mirror is *very* important to Australian
and European users. Do you have any idea how painful wait-times can
be for trans-atlantic downloads?
Has anyone figured out exactly what purpose the No Mirrors clause
servers anyway?
Thomas
JANG HIN LANG
Heather L. Roberts-Weller <hea...@wariat.org> wrote:
>
>TSR has the power and ability to shut down this newsgroup, etc.? Bullshit ...
TSR could receive legal council to do the following:
- Prohibit public Internet providers from carrying rec.games.frp.dnd as
such forums can infringe on laws regarding 'the transmission and/or
storing of copyright materials into a retrieval system (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise).
.Hin.
Colman Reilly
Nope. The best they can do is prosecute individual posters: any telephoe
line could infringe, as could any photocopier. Please get a sense of reality
here.
WinningerR
Reilly) writes:
"Nope. The best they can do is prosecute individual posters: any telephoe
line could infringe, as could any photocopier. Please get a sense of
reality
here."
Actually, that's not necessarily true. The fact of the matter is that the
court has never ruled on such a thing -- it could go many different ways.
And don't assume that "But this is the INTERNET!" is going to be any sort
of defense (like many of the posters seem to be doing).
In any case, the whole issue is irrelevant. TSR has absolutely no
intention of even trying to shut down this newsgroup and I'm sure their
lawyers haven't even made a threat to do so.
JANG HIN LANG
Colman Reilly <cre...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>ja...@ecf.toronto.edu (JANG HIN LANG) writes:
>
>>In article <33h458$c...@gazpacho.wariat.org>,
>>Heather L. Roberts-Weller <hea...@wariat.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>TSR has the power and ability to shut down this newsgroup, etc.? Bullshit ...
>
>>TSR could receive legal council to do the following:
>
>>- Prohibit public Internet providers from carrying rec.games.frp.dnd as
>> such forums can infringe on laws regarding 'the transmission and/or
>> storing of copyright materials into a retrieval system (electronic,
>> mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise).
>
>Nope. The best they can do is prosecute individual posters: any telephoe
>line could infringe, as could any photocopier. Please get a sense of reality
>here.
I have to disagree here, Colman. As stated in my quote, '... into
a retrieval system' suggests that TSR material can be obtained by
means *other than purchasing TSR products*. With copyright material
avaiable at a site, there is sufficient reason for people to retreive
such material.
.Hin.
Craig Allen Campbell
>In article <bruceb.7...@vnet.ibm.com>, Yoda <bru...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>cra...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig Allen Campbell) writes:
>>
>>>We agree totally. A mirror site isn't all that important. And now ALL the
>
>in the States and Canada but you guys have much better connections than we do
>of the Atlantic is desperately needed if the amount of interest in this group
>and the interest I've seen on ftp sites is any indicator of the use this TSR
>sanctioned site will get.
No, I haven't tried to ftp from Europe, etc. Having a site on your side of
the Atlantic would improve things for all of you way over yonder, but I can
do nothing about that. Did MPGN have a mirror over there to begin with?
I don't think it did have a true mirror. There WERE places over there that
you could get stuff via ftp, but not many.
Maybe I should restate my earlier statement: A mirror site is not all that
important TO US. Sorry if I offended or pissed off any of my global
co-gamers.
later...
-craigc__
__/ / (hic!) ***** Borik's Rules To Live By (Or Else Die By) *****
\ /
/ / @@@@@ 1. Acid BITES!!!
\/@@@@@@@@@@ 2. Beer is good. More beer is better. Gold is best.
_/[ craigc ]@@ 3. There's no such thing as a "half-elf".
[]===[ @csd4 ]@@ 4. When in doubt, pop their eyeballs.
[] [ .csd ]@ 5. Drow have NO sense of humor.
[] [ .uwm ] .-----------------------------------------------------.
[]===[ .edu ] | Craig is co-founder and a senior member of TPSMOFT. |
========== | "These opinions are mine, and you can't have them." |
Craig Allen Campbell
>Craig Allen Campbell (cra...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
>>
>> We agree totally. A mirror site isn't all that important. And now ALL the
>> stuff will be at ONE site...much easier to get at. And who really cares
>> about a disclaimer.
>
>No. We don't agree totally. A mirror is *very* important to Australian
>and European users. Do you have any idea how painful wait-times can
>be for trans-atlantic downloads?
Refer to my earlier apology. As I know little about what you (far away
people) have to deal with.
BTW, the "we" in my statement above only meant myself and my gaming group.
I was not speaking for the net.
Larry Smith
TSR can receive any legal council it wants, but that _won't_ give it
the power to prohibit anything. Only a lawsuit or the threat of one
will sway those providers, and it will require thousands or tens of thousands
of letters, threats, or lawsuits and the whole house of cards will come
tumbling down if just _one_ defies them, because TSR does not have a legal
leg to stand on. They are no more a threat to this newsgroup than the
Green Card bozos were, and for the same reason: we outnumber them by any
metric you care to name. Personally, I'd like to publically thank TSR,
I haven't seen so much activity in rec.games.design since I started
reading it, and it _never_ would have happened if TSR didn't think the
Internet was just another bulletin board on a PC somewhere...
Coyt D Watters
1) First Amendment - Until TSR bribes enough Congressmen and The Prez into
repealing Bill of Rights, we have the RIGHT to
discuss what we want. The particular forum is
irrelevant.
BECAUSE
2) Common Carrier - USENET NEWS is a public common carrier, rides on
common public and common private carriers and is
typically accessed via common carriers, and can be
prosecuted for such crime no more than the
phone company and the U.S. Postal Service.
I can mail you an illegal item, or connect modem
to modem with you and send you the scanned files,
but the phone companies and USPS cannot be implicated
in the crime. Same thing applies here.
To use your argument as an example - if a person calls me (whether or not
they own the xD&Dn books) and I read them a passage verbatim, which they
record (electronic), copy longhand, type (mechanical), whatever, legally
I (perhaps unknowingly) and they are violating the copyright. Technically
a suit could be filed against my copyright violation, but the phone company
could not be included as an accessory to the crime.
Yes, they could shut you or I down by INDIVIDUAL LAWSUIT, but not USENET NEWS.
As an aside, how difficult is it to OFFICIALLY become a LIBRARY? Libraries
are considered PUBLIC repositories for information and can not
be prosecuted for the actions of the individuals who borrow the books.
Kendall Bullen
BZ> First of all: Rob Repp is a real person. I met him at Gen Con, he
BZ> wore a badge from TSR, he ran a seminar. All of the 'Rob Repp is an
BZ> alien/nazi/hacker' conspiracy theories can probably die right now.
Unless you're in collusion with him. ;)
BZ> Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against
BZ> a wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright. Also, they have
BZ> the power and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp
BZ> sites, etc. But most importantly, they have declined to use it. They
BZ> have made a compromise, now it’s our turn.
Must? Power and ability? Declined to use it? Sounds like everyone is in
their own little reality.
BZ> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the ability
Offered who? I haven't seen any offer from them. I saw them threaten everyone
in e-reality, and I saw them stall while people bitched, but I didn't see any
offer or compromise.
BZ> to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in their
BZ> place, at the new site. What we have to do is download a disclaimer
BZ> type thing from this site, post it onto the top of our program/text/etc.
The disclaimer is a good thing, that's what everyone's been itching for and
clamoring for.
BZ> and then upload our creation to their site. We will not be able to have
BZ> a mirror site, and this is a non-negotiable point for TSR.
Whoops, bzzt, thank you for playing, TSR. Why won't we negotiate? I suspect
(based on traffic here) that people will thumb their noses at the idea of only
being allowed to post stuff under TSR's control. I know I would. If it works
for them to have us do it there, then there is no reason why there can't be
other sites, or at least mirrors. TSR's full of it, IMNSHO.
BZ> They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
It's about time.
BZ> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
works.
No, the only sane thing that works is to not force everyone to use this one
site (without even a backup site! sheesh!).
BZ> The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
BZ> mirror are,
I don't think the disclaimer is an inconvenience ;) (heck, didn't some things
already have such disclaimers?). The lack of a mirror or the ability to post
elsewhere, however, is more than a minor inconvenience. What about posting to
the newsgroup? To mailing lists? In e-mail? Gopher? WWW? There are so many
holes in their idea it's not even funny.
BZ> IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being purged,
BZ> and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
Well, the latter might be worth it <wink>. . . .
BZ> this has to be done or our community will be destroyed. As I said
BZ> before, TSR has the ability to completely squash us
So they say -- so you believe.
BZ> It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
BZ> and we shouldn’t blame them for that.
BZZT, thank you for playing once more. The law doesn't say, "Though shalt only
have one site, with no mirrors." That's TSR's control-freak outlook talking,
plain and simple.
Thanks for the interesting (and at times, amusing) post. :) It's nice to know
that someone has met Rob Repp and can dispel some of the rumours (most of which
I didn't believe, i.e., that TSR is run by Satanists ;) -- and confirm others
(that TSR is a monolithic, control-freak-ish company).
Kendall
Kendall Bullen
MN> Does TSR consider the posts to this newsgroup "publishing?" I think
MN> this question needs to be answered if TSR has the ability to shut down
MN> this newsgroup as Ben Zeller claims.
I'm overly optimistic, of course <sarcastic grin>, but I think he's an alarmist
in that respect. Just try to sue every site that carries this newsgroup to
force them to dismantle it. I've heard that as difficult as it is to start a
newsgroup, it's almost *impossible* to stop one. <snickering> They're blowing
smoke when they claim they can shut down all the newsgroups & mailing lists. .
. .
MN> Is TSR threatened by these postings to this newsgroup? And, if so,
MN> will a relatively painless solution be found?
I fail to see how posting to a newsgroup could be considered any different from
posting to a site. (Especially when you consider that newsgroups can be
archived, and sometimes [frequently?] are.) So it seems like their legal bills
will be high in their attempt to shut down the nasty AD&D players that are out
to take away their copyrights and profits. <snicker>
Kendall
WinningerR
Smith) writes:
"because TSR does not have a legal leg to stand on."
Take legal advice from non-lawyers with a vast mountain of salt.
In any case, once again, TSR HAS NO INTENTION OF EVEN TRYING TO SHUT DOWN
THIS NEWSGROUP! THEY HAVE NEVER EXPRESSED ANY SUCH INTENTION.
Now, let's move the discussion on to the important bits -- is this "TSR
proposal" (and note that it's not official yet) acceptable to everyone? I
understand that the overseas mirror sites are a problem.
HENDERSON
<much talk about the proposed TSR net policy deleted>
> They have compromised their position, now its our turn.
I am for some reason reminded of the about two children arguing over a
piece of pie. One child asserts that they should divide it in half;
while the other insists on having the whole piece for himself. Then a
well-meaning adult happens by and tells them to compromise- that the
first child should get one-fourth of the pie, and the second child should
get three-quarters.
Backing of slightly from an unreasonable and just position may be a
compormise, but the result is still unreasonable and unjust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson "I will fear not C'thulhu, for Elvis
jch...@inxs.uta.edu walks with me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Barnes
In article <zeller-23...@bbvvbb.mixcom.com>, zel...@mixcom.com (Ben Zeller) writes:
> Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
> wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright.
Yes, but will they pull a Palladium in doing so? T$R (one of the
first times I'll use that label) has a right to make money off their
copyright. However, if they pursue this course, they must legally
prevent anyone from creating anything original using their system. In
other words, you can't make your own characters, modules, etc. It's
an "all or nothing". This policy will only hurt T$R.
> Also, they have the power
> and ability to shut down this newsgroup, mailing lists, ftp sites, etc.
> But most importantly, they have declined to use it.
T$R can't shut down anything. They can sue and drag it out in court
to make it legally inexpedient for a site to run its own ftp, mail
list, etc. As far as this newsgroup goes, I'd love to see how T$R
would try to sue "us". What criteria would they use to define "us",
anyway? And why would they want to? Once again, it only hurts them
in the long run.
> They have made a compromise, now it's our turn.
Going from completely unreasonable to mostly unreasonable is not a
compromise.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
> ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
> their place, at the new site. [further stuff showing T$R has no
clue how the Internet works deleted]
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
> works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
> mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
> purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
Well, it certainly does for me. T$R from now on.
> I know some of us (the more moderate and pragmatic) will accept this
> compromise, but I also know some more radical elements in our community
> will refuse to accept the proposal. I don’t like the idea of a corporate
> sponsor any more than any of you do, but this has to be done or our
> community will be destroyed. As I said before, TSR has the ability to
> completely squash us, and if we allow our more radical elements to control
> our community’s actions, then TSR might allow their more radical elements
> to control theirs.
I'm about as conservative as they come. Reagan supporter and
everything. Think Michael Kinsley, Sam Donaldson, and our president
are morons. Plan to vote for Jack Kemp in '96. Don't grudge anyone making a
profit off their own ideas. However, T$R is sticking its nose in our
privacy. If I develop something based on the AD&D system and use it
for my own amusement, am I violating the copyright? If I give it to a
friend, am I violating the copyright? Two friends? Three? Post it
on the Internet?
> Please think about this. I have met with Mr. Repp and discussed this
> with him; believe me when I say that TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
> monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
> and we shouldn’t blame them for that.
Bzzzt. They either have to enforce it totally (i.e., *NO* original
development) or not. After reading this post, I have to wonder if T$R
wants to put itself out of business.
> If anything, write your
> congressperson and tell them to revise copyright law. But, please accept
> this compromise, as it is the only way that peace will come to our
> community.
Until I see an official policy posted to this newsgroup by T$R
officials with accompanying legalese, I'll do the same as I always
have. If and when that posting appears, I'll go sell off all my AD&D
stuff (I would burn it, but I'm not stupid =). Like I said, I have to
wonder if *anyone* involved in making any policy like this has a
brain.
And I'm not sure what annoys me more: T$R's apparent attitude, or the
fact I'm sounding more and more like I'm with the ACLU...
-- Drizzt (waiting for a lawyer to serve me notice I'm violating
T$R's copyright with my net.name...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Barnes bar...@wkuvx1.wku.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fundamental idea of good is that it consists in preserving life, in
favoring it, in wanting to bring it to its highest value, and evil consists
in destroying life, doing it injury, hindering its development."
-- Albert Schweitzer
and...@phoenix.princeton.edu
involved, as I suspect they are quite serious for TSR. Then maybe people will
listen better.
-Anders Mikkelsen
Belrose The Blue
what its contents truly are. One problem I see, and it is one that is equally
a problem right now; if I post an article on something (say mental problems
caused by psionics gone awry), and a short while later TSR publishes something
very similar, then I might think they stole the idea from me. While it
may have been an innocent coincidence, it could lead to problems for TSR,
potentially even lawsuits. With the quantity of ideas thrown around here, I
would be surprised to hear that that has never happened at all. Getting back
to the disclaimer, I may not mind saying something belongs to the public
domain, but I would have a problem saying it belongs to TSR. Equally
problematic is that TSR isn't going to be willing to say that they won't work
on topics that had been cobered oln the 'net. This whole area causes such
problems that apparently DC comics doesn't even look at Batman or Superman
story submissions. Anybody out there know what the current situation is with
regards to TSR?
As for only one official site with no mirror, I don't understand. Why will
allowing mirrors hurt TSRs legal position? I think that either there should
be a registered site, or mirror site wherever there is a reasonable need.
North America, Europe and Australia come to mind. I have no real idea on the
popularity in Aisa, Africa or South America, but if it warranted it, why not?
Surely having 3 or 4 sites is no worse than 1. If they are all mirrors of the
MPGN site, then that is the only one that has to be monitored for content by
TSR.
Yoda
>Maybe I should restate my earlier statement: A mirror site is not all that
>important TO US. Sorry if I offended or pissed off any of my global
>co-gamers.
And maybe you should read my post... it is almost as important TO US.
Try getting on wuarchive during the day lately? :)
Yoda
are making it off-limits), could someone from TSR (Rob?) post the disclaimer
for us to see? Many people have expressed an interest in seeing it, and
maybe it would help this thread move on... :)
Belrose The Blue
>As an aside, how difficult is it to OFFICIALLY become a LIBRARY? Libraries
>are considered PUBLIC repositories for information and can not
>be prosecuted for the actions of the individuals who borrow the books.
I'm not going to comment on what is or is not legal. I personally have no
knowledge of the subject, and reading these messages has not helped me (yes
you can, no you can't, etc.). However, it seems to me that a library is not
entitled to knowingly carry books that are in infringement of copywrite.
Also, a book can only be signed out by 1 person at a time. The act of
borrowing the book does not produce a copy. When you 'borrow' a book from an
e-library a copy is automatically made.
All this does not mean there will never be e-libraries, but they certainly
won't take the exacty form of ftp sites.
S. Keith Graham
>1) First Amendment - Until TSR bribes enough Congressmen and The Prez into
> repealing Bill of Rights, we have the RIGHT to
> discuss what we want. The particular forum is
> irrelevant.
Discuss, yes. However, Usenet news could well be treated as an
"Unedited Journal". (At least that's the term I'd use if I were
T$R.) As such, it would be considered publishing, and if it was
a copyright violation (derivitive works), then you do NOT have
the right to post certain things to the group.
As such, they could demand moderatorship, or send cease&desist orders
to carriers and/or posters.
(Further, you have no guaranteed right to have the ability to speak
freely. The Constitution merely guarantees that the government will
not abridge that right. T$R, your non-school internet provider, and
a host of other people are NOT the government, and they don't have to
allow you to post anything or carry any specific group.)
>2) Common Carrier - USENET NEWS is a public common carrier.
USENET News has not been granted common carrier status. Just because
we use common carriers to transmit our data, does not make it "special".
A Journal that uses the common carrier "USPS", is still responsible
for libel/copyright violations/etc printed in its pages.
Further, common carrier status is granted to one *company* or *service (from
a given company)* at a time, so each USENET provider will have to be granted
that status, unless the laws are amended.
If they sent a Cease and Desist order to the top 20 major news propagation
sites, I believe that 80% of the messages would not get to most sites,
effectively killing the group, provided the sites complied.
And many of those major news sites might think "its not worth it to
spend $200,000 to defend rec.games.frp.dnd" in court.
>Yes, they could shut you or I down by INDIVIDUAL LAWSUIT, but not USENET NEWS.
Even if they went after individuals, if they sent orders to the top
500 or 800 posters, that would mostly shut down the group. There are
many more readers than posters.
T$R can tie this up in court indefinately if they so choose. And if they
have lawyers on staff that are bored, it could happen. :-/
UseNet news is a whole new territory, and the laws surrounding it just
aren't written yet. (Nor is case precedent, nor is...)
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Ben Zeller
cwat...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) wrote:
<<GONE>>
> In article <Cv3IK...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> As an aside, how difficult is it to OFFICIALLY become a LIBRARY? Libraries
> are considered PUBLIC repositories for information and can not
> be prosecuted for the actions of the individuals who borrow the books.
I while ago I tried to get my underground newspaper a Non-profit Corp.
status so we'd have cheap mailing rates. I remember that among other
things, Libraries must file under the same laws to become Non-profit Corp.
It's a lot of work and alot of money, plus we need a physical location,
employees, tax records, bylaws, . . . That's only Non-profit. I have no
idea about the other paperwork.
PS: Will all the people e-mailing me flames please stop. You are the
people I refered to as radicals, how can anyone take you serriously when
you swear every other word?
WinningerR
Blue) writes:
"a short while later TSR publishes something
very similar, then I might think they stole the idea from me. While it
may have been an innocent coincidence, it could lead to problems for TSR,
potentially even lawsuits."
Yes, you've stumbled on to one of the VERY big problems in the whole
thing. In fact, this might be one of the problems that forced TSR to start
all of this.
HENDERSON
Can TSR shut down every ftp site in the world, that carries the various
net.dnd.books?
No, but they can probably can coerce many of the US and European sites
into voluntarily caving in, at least for the time being.
Will that stop the net.dnd.books?
No, there always will be international sites that TSR would find it
impractical to bother with or impossible to affect. And anyone who
seriously thinks that the NSA, or any other federal agency, is going to
monitor international packet traffic in order to keep illegal D&D
supplements from being imported, is sniffing something that is quite
likely bad for their liver. The feds don't enforce copyright law; that
is left up to the holders of the copyright to do. The NSA isn't going to
knock down your door for downloading a copy of the net.dark_sun.handbook
from Taiwan.
There are also email mailing lists; nearly impossible to monitor. And
there will be "pirate" sites that will pop up, distribute for a few
months, and then vanish or get shut down.
What TSR can do is make things difficult for people to distribute (what
they consider) derivative works. And a good faith effort is all that is
needed to legally establish a pattern of aggressive protection of their
intellectual property.
As to whether TSR could shut down rec.games.frp.dnd...
Leaving aside the fact that they haven't yet threatened any such thing,
it is unlikely they could succeed. There is no Internet, Inc. or
Department of the Internet (not yet, thank god). As has been pointed out
by other posters, TSR would have to go after most of the major internet
providers, one by one, to get them to stop carrying this newsgroup.
There is a problem with this. Most major internet providers (online
services, corporations, universities) are bigger and richer than TSR-
some by just a little, some by orders of magnitude.
And while some of these organizations (maybe even most) will probably
drop rec.games.frp.dnd after getting a "cease and desist" letter, others
are going to have their own bored lawyers sitting around. And they are
going to fight back, whether from a commitment to free speech,
self-interest (not wanting a precedent of being held legally responsible
for what goes over the internet through their network), a desire to
provide the best possible service to their customers, or just from an
attitude of "we're a big company and we don't have to listen to punks
like you."
It only takes one or two. And while TSR may have the deepest pockets in
the gaming industry, in the big world out there, they are very small fish
indeed.
TSR is probably aware of this, and will likely not even try.
David Halm
>
> [TSR] has a right to make money off their
> copyright. However, if they pursue this course, they must legally
> prevent anyone from creating anything original using their system. In
> other words, you can't make your own characters, modules, etc.
If you create something original, even using their "system," then it's
not a copyright violation.
> [...] However, T$R is sticking its nose in our
> privacy. If I develop something based on the AD&D system and use it
> for my own amusement, am I violating the copyright? If I give it to a
> friend, am I violating the copyright? Two friends? Three? Post it
> on the Internet?
If whatever you develop is an original creation, and not a "copy" of
anything appearing in one of TSR's copyrighted books, then the answer
to all of your questions is "No." Why?
Because you can't copyright ideas, concepts, or systems.
A copyright in a book extends only to the actual text, illustrations,
diagrams, etc. contained in the book, and not to any ideas, concepts,
systems, rules, etc. that are described therein.
Also, copyright does not extend to single words or short combinations of
words. So things like "armor class" and "hit points" are not copyrightable.
TSR holds the copyright to all of the spells described in the PHB.
But they don't hold any rights to the *concept* of a spell. If you
create a brand new spell, even if it's described in a similar format
to the PHB spells, then you hold the copyright to your original spell.
It is not a copyright violation. The same thing holds true for new
character classes, monsters, etc.
Likewise, TSR holds the copyright to the description (words, tables, etc.)
of its gaming system, but not to the system itself. So the creation of an
original adventure module, as long as it doesn't contain any of TSR's
copyrighted text, is not a copyright violation.
Now if TSR were to receive a *patent* on its AD&D gaming system, then
this would be an entirely different matter. Also, associating an original
creation with a TSR trademark is probably a violation of their trademark.
-----
David
Disclaimer: I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
Chris Anderson
>
> 2) Common Carrier - USENET NEWS is a public common carrier, rides on
No, it's not. It has never been awarded
that status. Nor is it likely that it could
be.
Chris
Brian Trosko
: - Prohibit public Internet providers from carrying rec.games.frp.dnd as
: such forums can infringe on laws regarding 'the transmission and/or
: storing of copyright materials into a retrieval system (electronic,
: mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise).
Which laws regarding, 'the transmission and/or storing of copyright
materials into a retrieval system?' Canada's laws? Or the U.S's? Of
course, if you are quoting that paragraph from the Berne Convention, you
have a point. But if it's part of an FCC regulation, thing become a bit
more complicated. Even if it is a part of Berne, do you have *any* idea
how man public internet providers there are? If TSR wishes to shut down
all electronic discussion of its products, then it certainly has the
freedom to try. This will, however, lose TSR many many customers, and
embroil TSR in many many lawsuits. You mention 'public internet
providers.' By this, do you mean universities and other providers that
draw money from the government to help provide their services? Keep in
mind that there are also many many *private* internet providers. Some of
these have coffers and legal staff that would dwarf TSR. Hey, I know
that *I* would *love* to see TSR in a lawsuit with America On-Line.
Brian "kill 2 birds with one legal brief" Trosko
--
"In this connection, I think a moral and decent thing to do - for people
who read my posts - is to contribute to the nearest newsnet fund some $
per postings of mine that they read." - Alex Abian
"The 'god' of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF RENEGADE SPACE
CANNIBALS..." -Rob McElwaine
Brian Trosko
: 2) Common Carrier - USENET NEWS is a public common carrier, rides on
: common public and common private carriers and is
: typically accessed via common carriers, and can be
: prosecuted for such crime no more than the
: phone company and the U.S. Postal Service.
: I can mail you an illegal item, or connect modem
: to modem with you and send you the scanned files,
: but the phone companies and USPS cannot be implicated
: in the crime. Same thing applies here.
So sorry, thank you for playing. "Common Carrier" status is something
that is *granted* by the government. It is not something that Usenet
automatically gaines simply by following a certain set of guidelines. In
order to be granted 'common carrier' status, a company needs to provide
access to *everyone*. I don't think a single internet provider qualifies
as a common carrier, and even if it did qualify, I don't know of one that
has been granted such status. The phone companies managing the backbones
might be common carriers, but the providers and their local hookups
certainly are not.
Jeff Gostin
(WinningerR) writes:
> Yes, you've stumbled on to one of the VERY big problems in the whole
> thing. In fact, this might be one of the problems that forced TSR to start
> all of this.
Then they should stop reading this newsgroup. I'll be damned if I'm
going to stop talking about something purely on the basis of making a
company I've invested (by buying products) happy. I'll just sell the stuff
I own, and NEVER play or buy their games again. Word of mouth and all, ya
know?
--Jeff
--
====== ====== +-----------...@eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+
== == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,|
== == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. |
==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! |
PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+
Nelson Waissman
we could just discuss it on rec.games.frp or create a new group called
rec.games.frp.gng right? And if they still tried to stop us, why don't we
discuss it in some other place, like alt.sex.something :-)
Nelson
Kendall Bullen
JM> Well, if said site is a quality site, they should have some type of
JM> periodic backup procedure. I don't see a crash as a major problem--in
JM> reality, it would probably be little more than an inconvience.
If the disclaimer will work at wherever it is that they are "sanctioning" then
why do they need to restrict it to that one site? Either it's a legal thing
that they think works, or it isn't -- where it is used shouldn't matter one
whit. And as others have pointed out, where does this leave sites in other
countries, particularly when some people don't want to ftp across an ocean?
TSR's idea is a START . . . but that's all it is, IMNSHO. They're still being
control freaks.
Kendall <grin&shrug>
Kendall Bullen
BZ> They couldn't shut it down, but they could take us all to court. Even
BZ> if they didn't win (which in my mind they wouldn't), it would be a
BZ> pain in the neck.
Heh, I'd like to see them try. You're beyond paranoid with this statement that
"they could take us all to court" . . . golly gee!
BZ> I have been called a radical before (sometimes I even like the label),
BZ> but I was referring to the "T$R is owned by the Nazies"/"They're out
BZ> to get us" type. Perhaps paranoid would be a better label.
The pot calling the kettle black. . . .
Kendall
P.S. For the record (wink) I do NOT think that TSR is owned by Nazis (or even
RUN by Nazis) -- just that some people have weird ideas of reality at that
company, that's all. :)
Curtis Shenton
>In article <33ipcr$j...@pentagon.io.com>, lar...@pentagon.io.com (Larry
>Smith) writes:
>
>"because TSR does not have a legal leg to stand on."
>
>Take legal advice from non-lawyers with a vast mountain of salt.
>
>In any case, once again, TSR HAS NO INTENTION OF EVEN TRYING TO SHUT DOWN
>THIS NEWSGROUP! THEY HAVE NEVER EXPRESSED ANY SUCH INTENTION.
But it's a fun straw man to attack. :)
>
>Now, let's move the discussion on to the important bits -- is this "TSR
>proposal" (and note that it's not official yet) acceptable to everyone? I
>understand that the overseas mirror sites are a problem.
I think we really have to wait until we see just what TSR's disclaimer
looks like. I'm also hoping TSR will explain why they feel the need to
go to just one site and limit distribution of their materials while
other companies seem quite happy to do nothing at all or have just a
standard disclaimer.
--
Curtis Shenton cur...@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet
Interested in the process of designing unique magic/psionic/etc power
systems in an rpg? The loc-l mailing list is set up for discussions on
this topic. Email me to find out how to sign up.
bale...@elde1.epfl.ch
Why the hell are we only seeing second hand messages from Repp??
Since, as one poster claimed, he reads this group, why isn't he
posting to it himself? Especially given the nature of the topic.
I'd really like to hear something from him, first hand and not
a repost from Compuserve. After all, this is an issue that affects
the people who read this group. The least he could do is address
us directly.
Ken Arromdee
Ben Zeller <zel...@mixcom.com> wrote:
>Second: The future of the net. Both ourselves and TSR are up against a
>wall. TSR must legally protect their copyright.
People keep _saying_ this.
TSR must legally protect their copyright only against things that actually
violate their copyright. TSR is _not_ legally obliged to oppose things like
the use of "armor class" or "rounds", and TSR's opposition to them cannot be
justified by noting that TSR has to protect their copyright.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
Stephan Schulz
[Regarding this newsgroup:]
|> They couldn't shut it down, but they could take us all to court. Even if
|> they didn't win (which in my mind they wouldn't), it would be a pain in the
|> neck.
No, T$R cannot take "us all to court". They can try it, but even in
the US at least 90% of the cases would be dismissed immediatly - most
people posting here do (demonstratibly) neither violate trademark nor
copyright law. Countersuits for
The term dnd is not trademarked, and is not copyrightable. It is also
not a derivative work (it's to short to be a work at all). So the
newsgroup is entirely save (an interesting question might be whom to
sue for creating it...David Lawrence for issuing the newgroup
message?).
What is illegal is the net.dark.sun.handbook, which uses T$R's
trademark "Dark Sun". New spells using T$R's notation might be
problematic as derivative works, but I doubt it - it would have to be
tested in court, though.
Terms like Armor Class, Round, Turn etc. are completly save. As far as
I know T$R has got some kind of legal claim on the term "saving
throw", but I do not remember the particulars. Remember, game systems
are not copyrightable. They might be patentable (Parker has a patent
on Monopoly, as far as I know), but no RPG has been patented yet.
Given the state of the hobby, with any number of commercial and free
systems sharing any number of mechanics it would be very hard to
defend the patent against "prior art" claims.
It's funny that T$R might run into it's own trap with the mud. If they
want to use any of the available game drivers they will encounter some
problems. The copyright for the LPMud driver (Amylaars), for example,
is shared by 50 or so coders, and most of them have different terms for
allowed use (none of them allows commercial use, as far as I know...).
I do think that most other gamedrivers have a similar history.
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as stsc...@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WinningerR
hal...@dso040.sch.ge.com (David Halm) writes:
"If you create something original, even using their "system," then it's
not a copyright violation."
Not necessarily. (shrugs, realizing "we're back to this again!")
WinningerR
"If whatever you develop is an original creation, and not a "copy" of
anything appearing in one of TSR's copyrighted books, then the answer
to all of your questions is "No." Why?
Because you can't copyright ideas, concepts, or systems."
Totally false. If you publish something (ie. post it on the Net) visibly
DERIVED from their copyright work, it IS a copyright violation. This is
why, I can't simply scrape up some bucks and publish my own STAR WARS
novels without Lucasfilm's express approval.
It's true that you cannot copyright a "system," but the courts have yet to
decide whether or not a "gaming system" is the same type of system the
copuright laws speak of.
WinningerR
<jgo...@eternal.pha.pa.us> writes:
"Then they should stop reading this newsgroup. I'll be damned if I'm
going to stop talking about something purely on the basis of making a
company I've invested (by buying products) happy. I'll just sell the stuff
I own, and NEVER play or buy their games again. Word of mouth and all, ya
know?"
It has nothing to do with this newsgroup and it never did. It has to do
with modules, etc. uploaded to public sites. TSR has done everything in
its power to make YOU happy. There will be licensed AD&D materials
available over the Net. What else do you want?
Brian Trosko
: It has nothing to do with this newsgroup and it never did. It has to do
: with modules, etc. uploaded to public sites. TSR has done everything in
: its power to make YOU happy. There will be licensed AD&D materials
: available over the Net. What else do you want?
I want a few things.
1. I want to see this disclaimer for myself. I want to know that this
disclaimer will not give TSR any sort of right to use my work, derivative
or not, without my permission. I don't want to upload something to the
ftp site and find out 3 weeks later that TSR is claiming that it belongs
to them. When you submit a work to Dragon magzine for publication, you
are paid for your work, but you lose all right for that work, since it is
a work for hire. I want to be sure TSR doesn't creatively interpret the
law (again) and come to the conclusion that they gain the rights to my
work simply because I've uploaded it. Copyright law cuts both ways; if
they give me the license to produce a derivative work, that work is
*mine* until such time as I release it into the public domain.
2. I want a mirror site. There is no justification whatsoever for TSR's
refusal to allow any true mirrors.
3. I want to hear all about this from the mouth of Rob Repp. I don't
want to hear it second-hand from someone who claims to have heard it from
him at the con. And if he's going to post to the group about TSR's new
policy on this issue, I want him to remove that line from his .sig. I
want a post about the new policy devoid of any of his personal opinions. I
want the facts on TSR's stance, plain and simple. I understand why the
disclaimer is in his .sig, but I want any confusion on the issue to be
avoided. Perhaps he should make one post purely regarding the policy, and
another post purely regarding his opinions on the policy. The latter post
would be the place for his disclaimer.
That's what I want.
Brian "Cover my ass" Trosko
Scowling Jim Cowling
Colman Reilly <cre...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>>TSR could receive legal council to do the following:
>
>>- Prohibit public Internet providers from carrying rec.games.frp.dnd as
>> such forums can infringe on laws regarding 'the transmission and/or
>> storing of copyright materials into a retrieval system (electronic,
>> mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise).
>
>line could infringe, as could any photocopier. Please get a sense of reality
>here.
What nobody's brought up is that in no way do the net.books infringe on TSRs
copyrights. Fair use includes satire and literary criticism. The net.books
are just that -- literary criticism. Making use of source material in
this way, particularly because it's not for profit, is not an infringement.
At least, that's the way it is in the Great White North.
See, there are two types of infringement (remember, I'm talking about Canada,
but I'm sure it's similar in the US): criminal and civil. If I photocopy
a book and sell copies, that's criminal. If I photocopy a book and keep it
for my personal use, it's actionable in civil court. If I mention a
character in a book, or quote a short passage, in a work of my own creation,
that's fair use. Using the AD&D rules as a reference for an original work,
in my mind, is also fair use.
And if such a work is not-for-profit, it's only actionable civilly, and TSR
has to prove financial loss to gain any sort of settlement.
And, if the defendant is Canadian, they have to come *here* and battle it
out.
Which is why I'm on my way to grabbing every net.book and related item. If
this situation becomes distasteful (ie, if TSR decides to make the One True
FTP site pay-for-use, or if they get uppity, or if I just wake up grumpier
than usual) I'll set up an FTP site right here outside the US where they
have to come get me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......The Rev. "Scowling" Jim Cowling......scowling@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca......
...Moderator: rec.arts.comics.info....FAQKeeper: rec.arts.comics.marketplace...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trosko
: And, if the defendant is Canadian, they have to come *here* and battle it
: out.
: Which is why I'm on my way to grabbing every net.book and related item. If
: this situation becomes distasteful (ie, if TSR decides to make the One True
: FTP site pay-for-use, or if they get uppity, or if I just wake up grumpier
: than usual) I'll set up an FTP site right here outside the US where they
: have to come get me.
Last I checked, Canada was also a signatory of the Berne Convention. It
would be just as easy for TSR to go after a Canadian site in Canadian
courts as it would be for them to go after an American site in American
courts.
Timothy Toner
Supreme Court said it was okay to take a song, goof up a few lyrics
(for those not in the know, 2 Live Crew did a send-up of Pretty Woman),
keep the SAME BEAT, and the same inherent meaning (both songs are about
looking at women, the 2 Live Crew's version being a tad more explicit),
and all would be well. However, the problem with literary criticism
falls in the definition of Fair Use, which is generally considered
15% of the text in question. But that's the problem: no one's set
an absolute. 15% is a nice guideline, but if you plagarize 1% blatantly
(giveing no credit whatsoever), they can _theoretically_ sic someone on
you. This was one of the MANY problems Kinko's, a nationwide copy store
had with its Courseworks department. Professors would make packets
consisting of 20 different sources, some no more than the paragraph, and
because of that annoying, "No part of this book...blah, blah, blah," the
publisher had every right to screw them on each paragraph. Kinko's, a
nationwide chain bent to the pressure, and dissolved their HIGHLY
profitable Coursework division. And don't use the not-for-profit argument.
That only figures in when it comes to non-punative damages. You can still
get royally reamed, and not make a red cent.
Ultimately, remember the little recalled case of Frank Herbert v. George
Lucas, nicely hushed up. Herbet sued Lucas, claiming that Star Wars was
derivative of Dune, and won. Period. That seems to fit your definition
of fair use pretty well. George came up with an idea that was based on
Dune, but didn't use anything specific: just general themes, and lost
hard and fast.
I DO like your idea about setting up the canuck site. As a signor of
the Berne Conventions (which created a international copyright agreement),
the US and Canada have similar laws, but you may have different
interpretations of those laws. Still, it's evil, and I like it. When
can we stop on by to worship at your altar, O mighty reverend?
Brian Trosko
: Ultimately, remember the little recalled case of Frank Herbert v. George
: Lucas, nicely hushed up. Herbet sued Lucas, claiming that Star Wars was
: derivative of Dune, and won. Period. That seems to fit your definition
: of fair use pretty well. George came up with an idea that was based on
: Dune, but didn't use anything specific: just general themes, and lost
: hard and fast.
Wow. Never even heard of that. Can't say the two seem all that similar
to me, but If Herbert won....wow. Were there any damages awarded?
an...@orion.alaska.edu
right to determine who is radical and sane on this group. Funny, you
think most of us radicals are full of shit and you know what, that's what
I thought of your friggin postings. As was pointed out earlier,
TSRatbastards depends upon gamers for income, we don't need them for
jack shit (that's the uncalled for swearing someone complained about). If
they wanna play hardball, they can bring it on. I for one will fight them
and they can slap all the lawsuits they want on me and whoever else won't
cow-tow to their party line (like you two have). They might be able to
win in court, but "we" radicals will win on the streets.
.
-Bill Knight
"The Guardian"
AN...@acad2.alaska.edu
.
Bring it on, I'll be waiting.
Norman Mcnerney
> They have made a compromise, now it's our turn.
BU>Going from completely unreasonable to mostly unreasonable is not a
BU>compromise.
> TSR has licensed a site (at ftp.mpgn.com) and has offered us the
> ability to put all the .net books, monsters, and other dnd stuff back in
> their place, at the new site. [further stuff showing T$R has no
BU>clue how the Internet works deleted]
> After hearing all the other options, this is the only sane one that
> works. The minor inconvenience of posting a disclaimer and not having a
> mirror are, IMHO, offset by never having to worry about your creation being
> purged, and being able to end the great TSR/T$R debate once and for all.
BU>Well, it certainly does for me. T$R from now on.
Lets also consider WHY TSR wants everything in one site. I can imagine a
fair bit of censoring by them. Also I would not be surprised to see them
come out with a statement that all files stored at this site become the
exclusive property of TSR. bad news for TSR freelancers. Why pay freelancers
when you have FREElancers (namely us). Anyway thats one possibility.
The second one. Gather all the AD&D files under their umbrella and that
gives them an exclusive commodity. I mean it would be the only place the fils
would be available so we'd HAVE TO go to TSR for the material. What if
TSR wanted to get into the so-called electronic highway as a player? We
could be eventually talking TSRNet or a gaming oriented version of Genie
or Compuserve. Virtual gaming is going to explode at some point and TSR
must have looked at this by now. Thing is if you start a pay service you
should have something people want. How about tons of exclusive files on
AD&D? Would be a nice starter for them wouldn't it? We could support
this argument if we knew a few things. Who authorized use of the SSI
type game engine for use for online multiplayer gaming? Was it TSR or SSI?
If it was SSI it could be one of the reasons TSR split away from them. They
may want to develop their own software to which they hold these rights.
TSR may want to have there own real-time online game system as part of a TSR
online service. Just a thought.
Maybe the above ideas are far fetched but just thought I'd mention them.
THE CRYSTAL GRYPHON BBS (416)422-3835 (9600) (416)429-4236 (416)422-3696
(2400)Specializing in support of Roleplaying Games through files and message
bases.
---
* DeLuxe2/386 1.12 #2814 * Norman....@canrem.uucp
Peter Maranci
latest news on the hobby in each issue. However, I've totally missed the
announcement from TSR about their new policy vis a vis the Net.
Could someone please send me the the original text of TSR's post?
I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.
-->Pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts
Editor, Interregnum roleplaying/science fiction APA -- email for info.
mar...@max.tiac.net pe...@slough.mit.edu ru...@trystero.com
Jeff Gostin
(WinningerR) writes:
> It has nothing to do with this newsgroup and it never did. It has to do
> with modules, etc. uploaded to public sites. TSR has done everything in
> its power to make YOU happy. There will be licensed AD&D materials
> available over the Net. What else do you want?
I beg to differ. They have made a good, positive effort. But I'm
still not happy. I want to have an UNHAMPERED way to send around net.books
bearing TSR product names (Darksun, etc) legally. If this involves
_reasonable_ disclaimers, that's fine. I'm willing to compromise, but I
have to see a true willingness to do so on TSR's behalf. What they've done
is a good start, and I most certainly appreciate what they've done so far.
More work is needed, IMHO, especially on the topic of net.books.
You mentioned AD&D licensed materials being available over the net.
Can you (generally speaking) give me/us an idea of what type of product
that might entail? I'm not challenging what you are saying -- I have no
reason to doubt your words. I just don't understand what it is you are
referring to.
Jeff Gostin
> 3. I want to hear all about this from the mouth of Rob Repp. I don't
> want to hear it second-hand from someone who claims to have heard it from
> him at the con. And if he's going to post to the group about TSR's new
> policy on this issue, I want him to remove that line from his .sig. I
Agreed. Better yet, what would be the chance of getting TSR to mail
anyone who wants it a copy of a letter stating their new policy, on
official TSR letterhead, signed by someone (or someone's secretary, more
likely) who is in a position to say so? This would be best. The legal
status of the Net has yet to be determined. As such, an on-paper signature
is still legally binding...
--jeff
Pat Berry
>TSR must legally protect their copyright.
Or . . . what?
>TSR is not some sort of chimera-like
>monster. It is doing what the law of the United States says it must do,
>and we shouldnÕt blame them for that.
What does the law say TSR must do, and why? If you're repeating the popular
myth of "you have to protect your copyright or you lose it", it isn't true.
Trademarks work that way, but not copyrights.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick M. Berry | Now you be sure to dress warmly on those other
Cary, North Carolina, USA | planes of existence.
-=- Team OS/2 -=- | -- Dr. Beverly Crusher, to her son
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Delisle
> TSR has done everything in
> its power to make YOU happy. There will be licensed AD&D materials
> available over the Net. What else do you want?
Well, since you asked...
1. Like everyone else, I want to see the disclaimer. It does the net no
good to find out that everything with Ye Olde Disclaimer becomes property
of TSR. Public domain, I can handle... but not work for free.
2. It's my understanding that "offensive" materials will not be allowed
on the site. I want an explicit statement of what is and is not
acceptable, and not just "well, so and so didn't like this idea, and I
didn't think it was Politically Correct to mention such and such."
3. No editing is done to submissions, with the exception of putting on the
disclaimer.
4. One or more mirror sites. As a user of the ftp.mpgn.com site before it
shut down, I remember the fact that it allowed _4_ FTP users on the system
at once. Given how difficult it was to get on the system, I think that
number would need to be raised. And no, staying in the single digits is
not good enough. Neither are the teens.
5. The authors of rejected materials are told why their materials were not
placed on the site. The reasons should be specific, and on a line-by-
line basis if need be. Form letters are not acceptable.
6. The biggie: A statement in the disclaimer that all restrictions on
re-uploading materials are REMOVED if the ftp.mpgn.com site ceases to
allow free access to the materials, and another licensed site does not
provide free access.
Why is #6 important? Without it, there's nothing preventing TSR
from allowing pay-only access to the site in 6 months, or even six weeks
after net.stuff is uploaded. IMO, if TSR _doesn't_ put such a statement
somewhere in the disclaimer, or site policy, then they're planning to
do it. (At least, there's nothing to discourage them from doing it, except
net.public.opinion, and we've seen what they think of that.)
--
---------------------------------
Joe Delisle
j...@clark.net
By sending any email to me, you grant permission for it to be posted publicly.
S. Keith Graham
>WinningerR (winni...@aol.com) wrote:
>: It has nothing to do with this newsgroup and it never did. It has to do
>: with modules, etc. uploaded to public sites. TSR has done everything in
>: its power to make YOU happy. There will be licensed AD&D materials
>: available over the Net. What else do you want?
>2. I want a mirror site. There is no justification whatsoever for TSR's
>refusal to allow any true mirrors.
Just as trivia, their "agreement" present excludes AOL, CIS, or Genie
from having any downloadable files. (Lets see them convince CIS to
eliminate their files. That'll be an amusing lawsuit.)
It also blocks "Gaming BBSes" from mirroring the files (and the sites
may not have ftp access for users, or even mail-ftp for users.)
Not to mention the problems with net.bandwidth overseas.
I think T$R gets to go back to the drawing board, but we'll see.
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Curtis Shenton
>In article <alias.360...@fred.nb.ca>, al...@fred.nb.ca (Belrose The
>Blue) writes:
>
>"a short while later TSR publishes something
>very similar, then I might think they stole the idea from me. While it
>may have been an innocent coincidence, it could lead to problems for TSR,
>potentially even lawsuits."
>
>Yes, you've stumbled on to one of the VERY big problems in the whole
>thing. In fact, this might be one of the problems that forced TSR to start
>all of this.
I'm sure it is. Let's say some gamer came up with a game world that was
basically post holocaust in flavor. Earlier civilizations had been wiped
out by realy powerful magic and only a few really powerful beings like
super mages, dragons, and a few undead controlled civilization. And
let's say this was before Dark Sun. Now in this hypothetical example
that's the similarity ends here. All the details are different, no
defiler magics, no wizards lords becoming dragons, etc. Maybe the gods
are gone in both just to make the similarity close enough that people
might start suspecting TSR ripped this off. Now if TSR didn't rip this
idea off and in this hyopothetical example they didn't they could still
get sued when they came out with Dark Sun if this net.post-holocuast.dnd
world was on the net. So I can see that TSR wants to protect itself.
But you know what? If this same world was posted for GURPS for
example the odds of them being sued are just as great and all the
disclamers in the world won't help them since only AD&D stuff is going
to have them. And I'd say there is alot more generic and other system
gaming material on the net than there is AD&D material. So I think the
minmal protection this offers compared to the ill will they are
generating is a probably a bad trade off.
But I do think TSR has good reasons to be worried even if I
disagree with their approach so far. But until we see the disclamer and
see if they are willing to address concerns like the lack of a mirror
site and their reasons for their policy there's no need to go around
tearing our collective hair out shouting the sky is falling. :)
Curtis Shenton
>
>I want a few things.
>
>1. I want to see this disclaimer for myself. I want to know that this
>disclaimer will not give TSR any sort of right to use my work, derivative
>or not, without my permission. I don't want to upload something to the
>ftp site and find out 3 weeks later that TSR is claiming that it belongs
>to them. When you submit a work to Dragon magzine for publication, you
>are paid for your work, but you lose all right for that work, since it is
>a work for hire. I want to be sure TSR doesn't creatively interpret the
>law (again) and come to the conclusion that they gain the rights to my
>work simply because I've uploaded it. Copyright law cuts both ways; if
>they give me the license to produce a derivative work, that work is
>*mine* until such time as I release it into the public domain.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. I'll be quite suprised if TSR has
anything but language protecting their licences it's not totally
unimaginable that their could be language that either gives TSR the
rights or in some way removes your rights to what you have written.
>
>2. I want a mirror site. There is no justification whatsoever for TSR's
>refusal to allow any true mirrors.
Well I'd like to hear TSR's justification for this policy if they do
stick with it. And I'd hope they would be willing to listen to and
consider and reasonable objections and alternatives proposed to them.
>
>3. I want to hear all about this from the mouth of Rob Repp. I don't
>want to hear it second-hand from someone who claims to have heard it from
>him at the con. And if he's going to post to the group about TSR's new
>policy on this issue, I want him to remove that line from his .sig. I
>want a post about the new policy devoid of any of his personal opinions. I
>want the facts on TSR's stance, plain and simple. I understand why the
>disclaimer is in his .sig, but I want any confusion on the issue to be
>avoided. Perhaps he should make one post purely regarding the policy, and
>another post purely regarding his opinions on the policy. The latter post
>would be the place for his disclaimer.
Sounds like another good idea to me. The policy when it is announced
should be quite clearly an offical statement from TSR.
>
>That's what I want.
>
>Brian "Cover my ass" Trosko
Curtis Shenton
I do recall hearing about this a looong time ago when Star Wars first
came out. Tatooine(sp?) and Dune have a lot of similar ideas, desert
planet, nomadic raiders, etc. Plus the only commodity we ever heard of
was "spice" and a few other concepts that were a bit more of a jump
probably comparing the BG to the Jedi or something. I do wonder if
Herbert won or if it were settled out of court. That's what happened
when Harlan Ellison sued Cameron over Terminator. He claimed it was a
rip off of two of his stories. Cameron settled out of court because of
one fact, without which I think he would have had a good chance to win
IMHO since the stories aren't that similar, someone came forward who
said they had talked with Cameron who had talked about the two stories
and sited them as his sources of inspiration. Lucas may have decided to
just settle out of court with an agreement from Herbert not to mention
this again.
Glen Barnett
>In article <alias.360...@fred.nb.ca>, al...@fred.nb.ca (Belrose The
>Blue) writes:
>
>"a short while later TSR publishes something
>very similar, then I might think they stole the idea from me. While it
>may have been an innocent coincidence, it could lead to problems for TSR,
>potentially even lawsuits."
>
>Yes, you've stumbled on to one of the VERY big problems in the whole
>thing. In fact, this might be one of the problems that forced TSR to start
>all of this.
Total bull. As long as they don't infringe copyright (e.g. by copying
parts of the text), I don't see that there is anything stopping them
producing something along the same lines.
(Otherwise, someone with an evil streak could shut down whole
economies in short order.)
YOU DON'T GET COPYRIGHT ON IDEAS. It is the actual documents (works)
that copyright pertains to.
This is as silly as some of TSR's claims about what they hold rights to.
Glen
Kendall Bullen
TP> Has anyone figured out exactly what purpose the No Mirrors clause
TP> servers anyway?
Or, heck, the "one site only" clause, of which "no mirrors either" is a
sub-clause? If one site works, then one million do; if a million sites are not
tenable to them, then there's no logical reason why one would/should be
allowed. Ya can't have it both ways, TSR.
Kendall
Kendall Bullen
SK> If they sent a Cease and Desist order to the top 20 major news
SK> propagation sites, I believe that 80% of the messages would not get to
SK> most sites, effectively killing the group, provided the sites
SK> complied.
If that unlikely event were to happen, I'm sure that people would work around
it in a matter of days, if not hours. I doubt that TSR could shut down the
entire Internet, and that's what they would have to do the shut down this
newsgroup; otherwise, people will circumvent those propagation sites.
SK> And many of those major news sites might think "its not worth it to
SK> spend $200,000 to defend rec.games.frp.dnd" in court.
They might have enough foresight to realize what a hideously dangerous
precedent it was, however, and might not make such a shortsighted decision as
you suggest.
SK> Even if they went after individuals, if they sent orders to the top
SK> 500 or 800 posters, that would mostly shut down the group. There are
SK> many more readers than posters.
Fortunately, most of us don't follow 'orders,' since we're not in the army.
:)
SK> T$R can tie this up in court indefinately if they so choose. And if
SK> they have lawyers on staff that are bored, it could happen. :-/
But would they? This is all pure hysteria.
SK> UseNet news is a whole new territory, and the laws surrounding it just
SK> aren't written yet. (Nor is case precedent, nor is...)
Yup, and I doubt that everyone on the Internet would sit by while TSR waged war
in court and created chilling precedents. Perhaps the EFF would take an
interest, they seem more farsighted than you seem to think the rest of the
Internet is.
Kendall (speculating as much as you are :)
WinningerR
writes:
"I want a few things."
Okay, now you're getting somewhere. Tell TSR what you want and maybe they
can give it to you.
I don't think you have to worry about TSR claiming ownership of your
ideas. Believe me, TSR employs enough game designers with more than enough
of their own ideas. I don't know anything about mirror sites, etc.
WinningerR
scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
"The net.books are just that -- literary criticism."
Not the ones that I've seen.
WinningerR
than...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com (Timothy Toner) writes:
"Ultimately, remember the little recalled case of Frank Herbert v. George
Lucas, nicely hushed up. Herbet sued Lucas, claiming that Star Wars was
derivative of Dune, and won. Period."
Really? I thought Lucas simply settled out of court to avoid paying all
those legal fees.
WinningerR
writes:
[...good points...]
Okay, this is the sort of thing we should be using this space for. Joe's
points are all interesting and I wouldn't be surprised if TSR granted many
of them -- I doubt you'll ever get a guarantee of "specific line by line"
reasons for rejected items, though. I don't think anybody has the kind of
time it would take to write such rejections.
Personally, I don't understand why any items should be rejected at all,
assuming they meet the guidelines (aren't offensive, include the
disclaimer, etc). Are so many materials likely to be uploaded that the
site will fill up?
WinningerR
Keith Graham) writes:
"(Lets see them convince CIS to eliminate their files. That'll be an
amusing lawsuit.)"
It wouldn't even take a lawsuit.
WinningerR
Shenton) writes:
"Cameron settled out of court because of one fact,"
Ellison didn't sue Cameron and Cameron didn't settle. Ellison sued CAROLCO
the studio that produced TERMINATOR and owns the property. Carolco settled
out of court simply to avoid the legal fees associated with a lengthy
lawsuit (ie. in the end, it was cheaper to simply buy Ellison off than try
to fight him, no matter how wrong he was). Cameron was very unhappy that
Carolco settled the suit -- he still claims he had no exposure to
Ellison's material at all. (See Cameron's recent interview in PREMIERE
magazine).
Brian Trosko
: pete...@fys-hp-1.risoe.dk (Thomas Petersen) wrote to All on 8/25/94,
No, I can understand the 'one site' rule, but not the 'no mirror' rule.
TSR obviously wants to control the material on the one site, which would
be impossible for them if there were many sites. But a mirror would be
under their control every bit as much as the one site, since a true
mirror won't accept uploads. Really, I just don't think the folks at TSR
understand how any aspect of the net works.
Brian Trosko
: In article <33os22$g...@netaxs.com>, btr...@netaxs.com (Brian Trosko)
: writes:
: "I want a few things."
: Okay, now you're getting somewhere. Tell TSR what you want and maybe they
: can give it to you.
I just did, in the post you quote. I'm waiting for a response.
: I don't think you have to worry about TSR claiming ownership of your
: ideas. Believe me, TSR employs enough game designers with more than enough
: of their own ideas.
This still doesn't rule out the possibilty that I will produce something
better then their designers, or even something on par. IMO, the Dark Sun
handbook is on par with TSR freelancers. No offense, but your assurance
doesn't especially put me at ease. I still want to see the disclaimer.
: I don't know anything about mirror sites, etc.
Apparently, neither does TSR. But I'm willing to wait and see what they
have to say.
Yo! Mr. Repp! Where you be?
--
"In this connection, I think a moral and decent thing to do - for people
who read my posts - is to contribute to the nearest newsnet fund some $
per postings of mine that they read." - Alex Abian
"The 'god' of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF RENEGADE SPACE
CANNIBALS..." -Rob McElwaine
S. Keith Graham
>Total bull. As long as they don't infringe copyright (e.g. by copying
>parts of the text), I don't see that there is anything stopping them
>producing something along the same lines.
>(Otherwise, someone with an evil streak could shut down whole
>economies in short order.)
>YOU DON'T GET COPYRIGHT ON IDEAS. It is the actual documents (works)
>that copyright pertains to.
>This is as silly as some of TSR's claims about what they hold rights to.
Actually, you can copyright characters (Scarlett O'Hara) and "stories",
provided the story is detailed enough.
There are numerous cases of people being sued for stories that are
obviously taken from other works. (Including movies based on fiction;
stories that are just "too similiar" in dozens of details, BUT NOT
ANY IDENTICAL TEXT.)
Now if T$R can copyright a character (Tensor) without any long
fictional work to back it up (that I have ever seen published, at least),
or if T$R can justify that they aren't providing the "building blocks"
for other people to make stories, and thereby giving an implied license
to distribute them (and other story elements), the courts have yet to
decide.
And until they do decide, its going to be a question of people caving
in, or making possibly unreasonable compromises. And ideally, the case
that does decide the matter will be defended by some high paid copyright
attorneys with a large bankroll behind them. (i.e. probably not from
Usenet)
But we shall see,
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Kendall Bullen
BZ> I while ago I tried to get my underground newspaper a Non-profit Corp.
BZ> status so we'd have cheap mailing rates. I remember that among other
BZ> things, Libraries must file under the same laws to become Non-profit
BZ> Corp. It's a lot of work and alot of money, plus we need a physical
BZ> location, employees, tax records, bylaws, . . . That's only
BZ> Non-profit. I have no idea about the other paperwork.
That's nice, but library does not equate to non-profit. That is a whole other
ballgame, and there are also several types of non-profit -- some of which are
more difficult than others to achieve, obviously.
(I'm still not sure what the point of this tangent is/was, but I just felt
compulsive [what's new? ;] and figured I'd point this out.)
Kendall
Matthew Hickey
>1. Like everyone else, I want to see the disclaimer. It does the net no
> good to find out that everything with Ye Olde Disclaimer becomes property
> of TSR. Public domain, I can handle... but not work for free.
This one I want to see, because here is where most of us will get
screwed.
>2. It's my understanding that "offensive" materials will not be allowed
> on the site. I want an explicit statement of what is and is not
> acceptable, and not just "well, so and so didn't like this idea, and I
> didn't think it was Politically Correct to mention such and such."
I also want to see the list of "taboo" subjects. If it like
anything they put out; sexuality (in any way), overt alcoholism (although
they seem to think you can drink ale all day without ill effects), drug use (
a staple problem in Warhammer), and bizarre religions will be verboten.
>3. No editing is done to submissions, with the exception of putting on the
>4. One or more mirror sites. As a user of the ftp.mpgn.com site before it
>5. The authors of rejected materials are told why their materials were not
>6. The biggie: A statement in the disclaimer that all restrictions on
> re-uploading materials are REMOVED if the ftp.mpgn.com site ceases to
> allow free access to the materials, and another licensed site does not
> provide free access.
> Why is #6 important? Without it, there's nothing preventing TSR
>from allowing pay-only access to the site in 6 months, or even six weeks
>after net.stuff is uploaded. IMO, if TSR _doesn't_ put such a statement
>somewhere in the disclaimer, or site policy, then they're planning to
>do it. (At least, there's nothing to discourage them from doing it, except
>net.public.opinion, and we've seen what they think of that.)
All in all, I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Delisle's comments,
especially #6. If Rob Repp could send us answers _directly making reference
to the above concerns_ then maybe I feel a little more comfortable about T$R'
s action (or at least I won't be so hostile towards them.
>Joe Delisle
>j...@clark.net
>By sending any email to me, you grant permission for it to be posted publicly.
Nightshade
Prophet of the Anti-T$R
Warmaster of the Revolutionary Army of Mystarra
Leader of the Great Reformation
Brian Trosko
: YOU DON'T GET COPYRIGHT ON IDEAS. It is the actual documents (works)
: that copyright pertains to.
Well...sorta. As someone else (WinnigerR?) pointed out a while back, if
I write a story about "Space Knights" who wield "Light Swords" in a
battle against the "Dark King", that's one thing. But if I make that
"Jedi Knights," "Light Sabers," and "Emperor," then I'm probably in some
trouble. Of course, none of those things are copyrighted in and of
themselves (Jedi might be trademarked though), but if I put them all
together in a story, and published it, do you honestly believe Lucas
wouldn't come after me with the Lawyer Side of the Force behind him?
: This is as silly as some of TSR's claims about what they hold rights to.
Perhaps. But it certainly hasn't been tested in court.
Doctor Demento
: TSR has the power and ability to shut down this newsgroup, etc.? Bullshit
: they do...I think everyone gives TSR's lawyers and lawyers in general too
: much credit. I have thought all along, that the best thing to do is just to
: ignore TSR's rantings. Give a cosmic shrug of the shoulders and then
: watch with glee as all their lawyers have a big collective stroke when they
: see that they are not getting their own way. I have two words for TSR's
: lawyers: the second is the name of Dorothy's Aunt, and the first...well, you
: can guess the first.
The first reasonable posting I have read in this string. Congratulations.
Come on, people. Let's be reasonable here. If TSR is going to crack down on
the net then it MUST be planning to crack down on the scores of local BBSes
which have AD&D material, no? And of course it will send police to every
CON that it, itself, doesn't sponsor. And how about the bulletin boards in
gaming shops where people pass along material. One form of publication is
the same as another.
TSR - your overtures at reconciliation aside, you are acting like a group of
snivelling children. What exactly do you think is going to happen if you
stifle conversation in this forum and others like it? People are going to
lose interest in your products, right! And _you_, not us, are going to be
the losers.
You have not the power, legally or otherwise, to shut down this group. If you
care to sue everybody posting here, I am sure your legal staff will be happy,
but don't expect us to fork up the cash to pay your legal bills. I, for one,
intend to continue to participate in this forum in exactly the same way that I
have in the past.
Kevin Barth
: Greg
: : Ben Zeller
: : PS: TSR has plans in the works for a adnd based MUD. After hearing Rob
: : Repp describe it to me, I have to admit that TSR can do some great things
: : for us, if we let them.
: : --
: : *--------------*---------------------*--------------------------*
: : | Ben Zeller | zel...@mixcom.com | (do NOT use NES address) |
: : *--------------*---------------------*--------------------------*
: : | "Lord, what fools these mortals be." - W.S. |
: : *---------------------------------------------------------------*
: : | Member: LPWI RPGA |
: : *---------------------------------------------------------------*
--
Kevin Barth
ba...@wam.umd.edu
************* GSS/MU d H- s++:++>+:+ g-(?) p? !au a- w+++ v+(-)
The Geek Code C++ UU+ P- L- 3- E---- N+++ K+ W@(W--) M-- V--
Version 2.1 -po+ Y+ t+@ 5 j R G tv b+(++) D- B-
************* e+++ u(*) h! f- r- n-- y+
Larry Smith
Don't be too sure. CompuServe makes their living as an information
service, this is not a lawsuit they will take lightly, nor will they
just roll over for it. The precedent could cost them BIG time.
--
Larry Smith - My opinions alone. lar...@io.com/thes...@mv.mv.com
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take
everything you have. -- Barry Goldwater. Liberty is not the freedom to do
whatever we want, it is the freedom to do whatever we are able. -- Me.
Larry Smith
>Scowling Jim Cowling (scow...@angmar.dataflux.bc.ca) wrote:
>
>: And, if the defendant is Canadian, they have to come *here* and battle it
>: out.
>
>: than usual) I'll set up an FTP site right here outside the US where they
>: have to come get me.
>
>Last I checked, Canada was also a signatory of the Berne Convention. It
>would be just as easy for TSR to go after a Canadian site in Canadian
>courts as it would be for them to go after an American site in American
>courts.
Yes - that's _precisely_ the point. But Scowling Jim has a great
advantage over the rest of us: Canadian Courts are nowhere _near_
as screwed up as ours are. It is far more difficult to browbeat
or intimidate people with court action in Canada - in most civilized
countries, for that matter. In the US, "justice" is what the better
lawyer can get a judge to agree to, they have a higher standard in
the rest of the world.
Oh, and Jim has one other major advantage that will make this batter
much easier: he's dead right.
Larry Smith
WinningerR <winni...@aol.com> wrote:
>Totally false. If you publish something (ie. post it on the Net) visibly
>DERIVED from their copyright work, it IS a copyright violation. This is
>why, I can't simply scrape up some bucks and publish my own STAR WARS
>novels without Lucasfilm's express approval.
IT'S NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IF THAT IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL WORK IS FOR!
Lucas _never_ published Star Wars with the invitation to use it to create
new Star Wars stuff based on it, but that is PRECISELY what TSR did. And
furthermore, it _IS_ legal to publish Star Wars _scenarios_ via the RPG
game license.
Brian Trosko
: You have not the power, legally or otherwise, to shut down this group. If you
: care to sue everybody posting here, I am sure your legal staff will be happy,
: but don't expect us to fork up the cash to pay your legal bills. I, for one,
: intend to continue to participate in this forum in exactly the same way that I
: have in the past.
I must use WinnigerR's trademarked reality alert here:
TSR NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN THIS NEWSGROUP. TSR
NEVER CLAIMED THEY HAVE THE POWER TO SHUT DOWN THIS NEWSGROUP. TSR NEVER
EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO SHUT DOWN THIS NEWSGROUP.
I feel much better now. All of you, either calm down, or crawl back
under the sink. TSR has NEVER implicity of explicity stated that they
have the desire or the ability to shut down this group.
Brian Trosko
: Yes - that's _precisely_ the point. But Scowling Jim has a great
: advantage over the rest of us: Canadian Courts are nowhere _near_
: as screwed up as ours are. It is far more difficult to browbeat
: or intimidate people with court action in Canada - in most civilized
: countries, for that matter. In the US, "justice" is what the better
: lawyer can get a judge to agree to, they have a higher standard in
: the rest of the world.
Oh spare me. I'm quite sure that Canada's courts are every bit as
screwed up as ours. Check out their censorship laws, sometime. I am
*quite* sure that the company will win out over the individual there,
just as it will here.
: Oh, and Jim has one other major advantage that will make this batter
: much easier: he's dead right.
He may be right that TSR won't come after him. He's not right about the
legal issues of the matter.