Search results

Exactly. I'd suggest that probably every game designed from the mid-eighties onwards had a unified die mechanic. In fact, I seem to recall that this was generally the criticism thrown at 2nd Ed D&D (that it *didn't* have a unified die mechanic).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying that when you said: "It will not be a good game for people who want an ad hoc quickie one-shot adventure with a "bring your own PC" approach." ...what you were actually meaning was: "If you have a group of players who have previously played...

Sorry, are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed? Erm... GURPS? D6 Star Wars? The various White Wolf systems? Just off the top of my head...

If it was me, I think I'd say something like: If you've been given this PDF book by a friend, or have found it on an Internet site somewhere, you might not be aware that it's actually a commercial (i.e. non-free) product. If you fall into this category, and you like our book and are going to...

Well it's interesting that you say that because your example does actually illustrate the difference between the legal definition of the crime of "theft" and the common word usage of the word "theft", and its associated words. Cheating in an exam in clearly not legal theft. But from a language...

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the forum software's "smileyfication" subroutine doesn't recognise British swearing? (Or is it just that British swearing doesn't offend Eric's grandma?)

Okay, just to try and nail this particular pernicious line of argument... Okay, I admit it. I liked Britney Spears' single "Everytime" enough that I went out and bought the CD. I like it. It was a nice tune. It gave me pleasure to listen to it. Alright! There you go! Are you happy now? Does...

There are two issues you are missing here: 1) If your job is creating gaming materials then you are likely to develop a greater quantity of gaming materials due to the fact that you simply have a lot more time to do it (than if you are doing it in your spare time whilst also doing a full-time...

Yeah, but you switched the "little guy" role midway through your argument. In the first half the little guy was the author; in the second half he was the reader. Which (IMHO) means that it hasn't been turned on its head in quite the way you imply.

True, good point. But that's one pretty popular comic, and he wasn't exactly asking for what I'd consider a living wage. (If I only earned $20,000 a year the bank would come and take my house away). I was deliberately picking what I'd consider to be a minimal figure when I picked the $30,000...

Dammit. :( What category were you suggesting that I enter it for?

Agreed. And LOL. :)

I just wanted to say that's a good post. I'm not saying I agreed with every single thing you said, but you made a load of damn good points. (So much so, that I don't really have any response).

No, it was their own recordings, which was why the labels looked pretty stupid. I don't think they actually sued (how could they?) but I think they basically tried to argue that the BBC was undercutting the recording industry by releasing them for free - in much the same way as SCO tried to...

Cool! That's good to hear. I didn't think anyone on ENWorld ever read it. Don't recall anyone mentioning it, anyhow. Erm... when did ask me to submit it for the ENNies? I honestly don't recall that. (Have a horrible feeling this might be one of those "spam filter ate important mail" stories)...

But that means that the artist has to earn their entire income for the work "up front" rather than having it spread over the period in which the work is "used" as happens nowadays. This doesn't (IMHO) make much economic sense, because it requires that the money be generated in one big lump...

To be honest, I'm not quite sure whether you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. It sounds like quite a nasty situation in the recording industry; but I wouldn't want that to be used to take away my rights as a writer. I'd rather that people in the recording industry had more rights...

Okay, fair enough. I accept that the situation is not dichotomous. I suppose a better way of putting it (though still perhaps too definite) might have been: "either you can own intellectual property or you can't". As to your question of what if you have a similar idea to me, the answer is very...

True, but at each point you either own something or you don't. You own the physical media, and you own a license that gives you the right to use the software. You don't own the software. But I take your point that it gets very fuzzy. In the end though, I'm not really making a legal point so...

Yes, but the only reason the writers of the software could license it is because they owned it. If I own something but choose to loan it, or rent it, or whatever - that doesn't mean that I don't own it. I either own a work I've created or I don't. If I own it then I can sell it, rent it, lease...