On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:30:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/21/03 7:30:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > <<Interesting revisionist history.
> > >>
>
> Howdy, Bryant. I wouldn't call it revisionist history entirely. I would say
> that I wouldn't agree with Ryan that things were per se derivative (since the
> rules and rules concepts seem to derive minimal or no protection from
> copyright law, except for the verbatim expression of those rules), but I
> would say that in the '80s and '90s publishers _were_ threatening legal
> action based on claims of derivation.
Sure. But to claim that people were meticulously seeking out permission
in each case of magazine publication... and let's remember that the guy
who asked the question which set this off is essentially talking about a
/fanzine/.
> Of course, your citations of the Copyright Office are well taken. But I
> think there's a distinction between what IS derivative, and what the major
> game publishers were willing to CLAIM back then to be derivative and threaten
> legal action over.
Agreed. You could expect legal action, justified or no, if you published
a supplement.
--
Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Channeling is just bad ventriloquism. You use another voice,
but people can see your lips moving." -- Penn Jillette
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
