OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mwittig]

I'll say it again: the fact that multiple books use it (without explanation or citation) does not make it right.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I'll say it again: the fact that multiple books use it (without explanation or citation) does not make it right.

You know that it's in the interest of the applicant to choose the latest reasonable date, right?

@lowkey13 , please spell it out for him in black and white without any snark, because he really doesn't get it and needs to understand.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

And as everyone else is saying to you, if you can establish (through actual evidence) a different date ...

then you'd have done a great thing! You would then be cited and feted as someone who has done good and serious research. You have not done that.

But I will try one last time.

The date is arbitrary. As you know, these copyrights were mass submitted in 1972. They were not contemporaneous with the actual publication dates.

If you're familiar with the topic you know that a selection of the 1st or the 15th indicates that the individual in question is most likely choosing a random date*; in addition, the actual retail practice back then means that this particular date, which fell on a Saturday, is certainly wrong.

Moreover, we can easily see that there are three copyrights submitted for three different products, in 1973, that all claim the exact same date. We further know that this is impossible, because contemporaneous evidence is that Chainmail. Dunkirk, and Alexander were released at different times.

So we know that this is an arbitrary and incorrect date that does not suffice as evidence of publication date.

Finally, while today we are used to the perpetual copyright, it wasn't always that way. From 1909 on it was a 28 year term, renewable once. 1971 is an important date (think Berne treaty), but long story short, it is and was common practice to affix a reasonable, but later, date of publication on a copyright registration, especially back then.

So long as it's not a knowingly bad date (years off, for example) it won't invalidate the registration. It's presumptively valid.

This gets into a slightly different issue w/r/t to the difference between copyright (creation), copyright (publication) and copyright (registration) dates, but the long story short is that the date chosen on the registration as a publication date will usually reflect a later date.**


As always, advise is what you pay for it, etc. etc.


*Weirdly enough, no one ever chooses the 30th!

**Absent a slightly different issue not relevant here.

You did good.

 

[mwittig]

The date is arbitrary. As you know, these copyrights were mass submitted in 1972. They were not contemporaneous with the actual publication dates.

Chainmail's application was signed by Lowry on Dec. 31, 1971.

If you're familiar with the topic you know that a selection of the 1st or the 15th indicates that the individual in question is most likely choosing a random date*;

It almost certainly is not completely random. I would think it was an estimate of when one of the three products first went on sale, perhaps rounded to a half-month. The application states: "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed."

in addition, the actual retail practice back then means that this particular date, which fell on a Saturday, is certainly wrong.

Hobby stores are open on Saturday, I would not assume that.

Moreover, we can easily see that there are three copyrights submitted for three different products, in 1973, that all claim the exact same date. We further know that this is impossible, because contemporaneous evidence is that Chainmail. Dunkirk, and Alexander were released at different times.

So we know that this is an arbitrary and incorrect date that does not suffice as evidence of publication date.

That is an assumption, and likely an incorrect assumption. There's no reason to think the date is completely arbitrary; the application spells out in plain English that the applicant is supposed to give the date the product was first sold.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Chainmail's application was signed by Lowry on Dec. 31, 1971.
View attachment 115525


It almost certainly is not completely random. I would think it was an estimate of when one of the three products first went on sale, perhaps rounded to a half-month. The application states: "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed."

View attachment 115526


Hobby stores are open on Saturday, I would not assume that.


That is an assumption, and likely an incorrect assumption. There's no reason to think the date is completely arbitrary; the application spells out in plain English that the applicant is supposed to give the date the product was first sold.

Look man, you're just making stuff up. You say things like "no, it's not like that. It's got to be like this instead" and you appear to think that that's a reasonable argument. Some of the things you are asserting could be true, but you don't do any of the work necessary to establish how or why that might actually be the case.

In contrast, lowkey is someone who has done actual legal scholarship. They've explained common copyright application practice to you in great detail, and provided information specific to the time period in question. You could accept lowkey's expertise, or you could verify the veracity of what they're saying for yourself by educating yourself on the subject. You could talk to an IP lawyer or a legal historian. You could talk to a publisher.

But you're not going to do any of that. You'd prefer to just conjure counter-arguments out of thin air because it's easier and it's less likely to force you to confront the possibility that you might be wrong.

 

[mwittig]

Look man, you're just making stuff up.

Those scans don't look made up to me. The directions that Lowry likely read that instruct him to "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" don't look made up. Lowkey may have some legal training, but by saying "the date is arbitrary," he makes it sound like Lowry rolled dice in deciding on May 15, 1971, and that was almost certainly not the case. Maybe Lowkey can clarify what he meant by "the date is arbitrary."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

Those scans don't look made up to me. The directions that Lowry likely read that instruct him to "Give the complete date when copies of this particular edition were first placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" don't look made up. Lowkey may have some legal training, but by saying "the date is arbitrary," he makes it sound like Lowry rolled dice in deciding on May 15, 1971, and that was almost certainly not the case. Maybe Lowkey can clarify what he meant by "the date is arbitrary."

Maybe arbitrary should have been qualified. Maybe lowkey should have said "largely arbitrary" or "somewhat arbitrary". However, the omission of an appropriate qualifier doesn't invalidate lowkey's point, which was extremely well articulated. I understood it perfectly clearly.

Let me break this down for you.

1. When I say you're making stuff up, I don't mean you're forging the documents. I mean you're asserting things about the significance of those documents that aren't well founded.
2. The form provides a particular instruction to the applicant. That is a piece of evidence in favour of your assertion.
3. Lowkey has explained to you how that instruction is interpreted in actual practice. Specifically, that the dates are chosen somewhat arbitrarily and tend to be later than the actual date of publication. That is a piece of evidence against your assertion.
4. Three different games all have the exact same copyright date. That's a piece of evidence against your assertion.
5. There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence from contemporaneous sources that puts the publication date at March 1971. That's a bunch of evidence against your assertion.

So maybe the inference you're making about the significance of the date on the copyright application could be incorrect? Do you think that might be possible?