Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (
More info?)
"Dan D. Cyr" <dancyr@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:41891909.2030807@execpc.com...
> I guess that is what I was getting at. For some reason MJB seems to
> think I am advocating taking the bread out of the mouths of starving
> rule set writers,
No, I don't think that at all. This discussion was about work long since
lost to distribution, NOT new work that is trying to be sold today. Please
don't mis-state my position simply to suit your change in the argument. And
the cliche about the 'starving-rules' writer is not the issue - NOBODY I've
ever met got rich writing wargame rules for HISTORICAL gamers. Everbody I
ever met did it for the love of the game - but took their beatings in the
market and lost their naievity very quickly.
> but I'm just suggesting that if a writer wants to
> leave something behind to reflect their work, putting the rules out
> there is one way. This is already happening on the
> freewargamesrules.co.uk <http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/> web site
> which has a number of formally "commercially sold" versions of rule sets
> available. If a writer does not want to publish their rules again, why
> not donate them to the public?
So that's your reasoning - put your work into public domain so you will be
remembered? What happens when your name becomes un-attached from said piece
of work in the digital format it is scanned into or it gets incorporated
into someone else's 'masterwork' and all attribution is lost? So much for
being remembered.
>
> If they don't want to, don't. No one is judging.
Didn't say you were. I think you've got a good idea IN THEORY. But there
are lots of problems with giving-up rights to intellectual property.
For example: I develop a set of world war II air combat rules. Good game,
fun to play, I sell a bunch of 'em. But not enough to justify a second
printing or I just get bored with trying to deal with what is essentially a
vanity project. 'poof' - the game is gone from the market. So I give-up my
intellectual property rights to air combat game version 1 and put it into
public domain. Now a year passes and things change. I'm interested in air
combat again and I decide to dust off my old game and re-do it. I re-write
air combat game version 1 as air combat game version 2, find some more
capital and decide to re-publish.
Except who owns the rights to my original idea? I don't - I gave 'em up
when I put 'em into public domain. So I could find myself in competion with
MYSELF if someone decided air combat game version 1 was actually saleable -
or get sued for using my original ideas myself if I decide to sell air
combat game version 2. Witness what has been going on with Linux versus Red
Hat versus all the other operations trying to sell versions of formally
public domain computer operating systems.
And if you think this is far-fetched, it's already happened once to me.
After I'd moved out of town, a set of land rules I designed was 're-done'
and 're-titled' by a couple of my friends and published locally in a very
limited way without either my knowledge or consent. And when I was later in
negotiation with a company to publish my work, including the land rules I'm
describing, the fact came out that there were legal concerns about
authorship of both sets of rules, my original and the faux-copy. The issue
of ownership of intellecutual property scuttled the entire deal. So unless
the people who took my ideas in whole and printed them with their names as
authors are willing to admit that's what happened, I can NEVER publish my
original ideas.
<shrug>
>
> There have been hundreds, if not thousands of sets of rules sold over
> the counter since the 1960s, and most died quick and quiet lives, having
> short print runs and limited distribution. Just as Magweb has managed
> to preserve the many no longer available magazines of this hobby to
> share with new readers, why not an effort to preserve the rules for
> those who were not there in 1974, or 1987 when a set of rules was
> available for a short time? If an author thinks he can sell them, then
> re-publish for heaven's sakes, but otherwise why not donate it to a
> source which will make it available to the public?
I am in agreement with you it would be a good and useful resource - provided
you can figure out a way for the author to keep control of his work. And
public domain is NOT necessarily the best way to do that.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram