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

Mon Jan 24 11:44:12 EST 2022

I, also have no objection to copyright laws: indeed, they are there to
protect us from people pinching our work.

The things I object to are as follows:

1. The concept behind copyright is to make sure the copyright holder
profits from their work.

1.1. If the copyright holder is not making further efforts to profit from
their work (by either further attempts at marketing and/or
repackaging their work), should the possibility not be there for someone
else to either:

1.1.1. Offer a profit-sharing arrangement to the copyright holder for some
sort of repackaging of their work.

1.1.2. Offer a not-for-profit version of repackaged work.

2. The length of time that copyright lasts for is far, far too long for
software as the rate of computer system development
and change makes that software unusable remarkably quickly.

I am well aware that copyright is very complicated and my answer to the
original question was based on 3 ideas:

1. My #1.1.2. above.

2. That mimicking the functionality of software is not, in itself, a
serious sin (c.f. Open Source Office suites that mimic
the functionality of Microsoft Office).

3. ReactOS

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:28 PM Graham Samuel via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> As the one who started this thread, I just wanted to say I agree
> wholeheartedly with Richard in his attitude to copyright works. My own
> problem arose (long ago) when in Richard’s words, I tried to reach the
> creator (strictly speaking the copyright owner, as the work includes
> copyright material from different sources, collected and licensed by the
> publisher of the CD-ROM which I wanted to revive for new media). I  made
> the mistake of mentioning copyright in my first attempt to communicate, and
> got a boilerplate reply which didn’t cover my case. I made quite big
> efforts to find an individual to correspond with, but failed. So, if I do
> the job now, it will be as a hobbyist and it will come under the “private
> study” rules, I suppose.
>
> As an aside (OK, pretty OT), the history of copyright protection is quite
> fascinating. At one time, the USA was a major defaulter (see for example
> https://www.alcs.co.uk/news/charles-dickens-copyright-pioneer)
>
> Another area of interest, which if it weren’t so OT, I’d like to hear
> Richard’s views on, is the ongoing battle between the VPN-using community
> and the increasing number of streaming services. I guess most people here
> know what I’m talking about.
>
> Graham
>
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 01:24, 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the Agents
of a large number of governments in secret. The parties to this email do
not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any
related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting,
disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received
this communication in error, please delete it immediately.