Reviving CD-ROM material [was: Re: Livecode and interactive video]

[Richmond Mathewson]

Thank you, Richsrd Gaskin.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, 03:26 Richard Gaskin via use-livecode, <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the mention, Jeff. Without your adding that here I would
> have missed Richmond's reference; he's among a small number of members I
> generally don't read anymore (so much to learn, so little signal in a
> noisy world...)
>
> FWIW I agree with what you wrote, and felt it was important enough to
> quote it in whole below. Thank you for taking the time to write that.
>
>
> Richmond's original comment about me was:
>  > Richard Gaskin will probably now come after me with the castrating
>  > irons.?
>
> How you arrive at your legal and ethical choices is entirely up to you.
> Unless it involves my work it doesn't affect me. Knock yourself out.
>
>
> For the other readers here, I don't mind sharing a personal opinion on
> copyright law:
>
>
> There are some details of US copyright statutes I don't much care for,
> particularly the control one giant American corporation has held over US
> copyright expiration ("Steamboat Willy", I'm looking at you).
>
> But overall I not only do my best to conform to US and applicable
> international copyright law per the terms of the contracts I sign, I
> wholeheartedly celebrate it.
>
> IMO the Berne Convention, which lies at the heart of most copyright law
> among signatory nations, exemplifies a profound wisdom we all benefit
> from, esp the readers here, since most of us earn our living from
> intellectual property.
>
> It holds that at the very moment of the creation of any original
> creative work, the creator of that work has sole authority over it.
>
> Let that sink in. Savor it. It's wonderfully delicious.
>
> It recognizes that creative effort is a uniquely valuable human
> activity, and maintains as a matter of international legal guidance the
> sanctity of the act of creation.
>
> Man, if nations could agree on anything else so beautifully principled
> our Spaceship Earth might be a paradise. :)
>
> I love it so much that when I come across old works I'm interested in
> that appear to be abandoned, I try to reach the creator or current
> rights holder to see what can be done to re-use it.
>
> It's the least I can do. If I am to embrace the excitingly bold spirit
> of the Berne Convention, I'm obliged to not only enjoy its fruits but to
> also honor its responsibilities.
>
> It is not for me to assume control of any other creator's work.
>
> In honoring copyright, I'm creating of a world where copyright is honored.
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Systems
>
>
>
> Jeff Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Richmond,
> >
> > And I’ll be right there with Richard.
> >
> > Just because it’s not being supported does not remove copyrights. You
> know that’s a stupid argument. Maybe fine with your own morals but it’s not
> how copyright works. As a content creator for over 4 decades of my
> professional life I really hate that attitude of self justification. Fine
> for your own use but if you want to redistribute it then get the rights.
> Not for profit label has nothing to do with the rights involved.
> >
> > I have experience working in and with media companies and licensing
> others’ materials and having others licensing ours. We were told all the
> time by management and legal to not respond to requests to license unless
> management was interested in the proposal and they would handle that. I
> thought it pretty strange that a denial letter could cause any issues and
> may have just been paranoia or don’t waste your time but those were the
> instructions.
> >
> > Getting an odd bob out out of relicensing an old project involves
> figuring out who you are getting in bed with and if you even want to get
> into bed with them in the first place, time to come to an agreement,
> research out the original projects licensing (media projects are rife with
> licensed media that at times are not transferable or require additional
> permission and/or payments), create and agree on a contract, deliver the
> goods, then make sure everything is being done as contracted. That’s not
> simple and all the steps cost time and money and usually folks are not
> willing to pay much for the rights to cover these costs, let alone a profit.
> >
> > I’ve done this process a couple of times with old projects and it was
> way more work than I thought it would be and that was with a very good
> relationship with the rights holder (I built the original product for them)
> and in good rights situations. One was easy and owner was happy with a
> handshake on the deal until I had a product to sell and then we would pen a
> contract. I totally trusted him he would honor the handshake (and I’m still
> absolutely sure he would have, very good chap), but a year and a half later
> he ended up having to sell the rights, so our handshake of course was no
> longer good. He was transparent about all this and I just did the hand
> shake as it would have been a good chunk of change with lawyer to pen the
> rights contract and I didn’t have a publisher onboard yet. So even in the
> best of situations things can go sideways on these kinds of things and life
> is not as simple as you think it is Richmond.
> >
> > I was approached by an old employer about resurrecting an old commercial
> cdrom project. I knew the rights had changed hands a couple of times, so my
> first question was who has the rights now and have you secured them? His
> response was well it’s abandoned and one of the publishers that were
> distributing the product to the education market (that wanted to partner
> with him on this deal) thought they could do it under their publishing
> agreement. Again I questioned did they have a full rights deal or just a
> publishing contract (I knew from the original days on the project we had
> very specific publishing contracts with different channels like Apple,
> media distributor and some educational publishers and they were rabid about
> retaining the work’s rights). Response was they feel confident they could
> stretch it legally. He then tried to say well we could construe this to be
> in then public domain as most paid for with public/private partnership
> money from NSF and EPA grants. I had to laugh in his face as they had made
> sure that even with this public money the company had complete rights to
> everything. I said I’d be happy to talk to him (and spend my own time)
> about it once he can put through the lawyers. He did and planning abruptly
> stopped.
> >
> > The real killer usually is that media licensed in the original work was
> not contracted for sub licensing, transfer, or reuse or requires new
> payments. Sounds like something most would plan for to allow better life
> for their products, but I was amazed how many times this was not done or,
> at times, even thought of.
> >
> > Sorry I’ve been around this tree too many times.
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>