Hey, so you know this "space marine" thing?

[Dannyalcatraz]

brand protection is generally via trademark rather than copyright

Brand protection is also done via copyright, especially in the form of performing artists withholding their IP from the market, either permanently or temporarily. Prince, Robert Fripp, Jimi Hendrix etc. all have unreleased tracks that may never be released because they would not fit with the high standards of their brands. (And all the other reasons sited above.)

They have even sued- successfully- when such tracks were leaked.

 

[Balesir]

I'm probably misunderstanding you. But if I didn't retain the copyright on, say War of the Burning Sky or ZEITGEIST, I wouldn't have ever produced it.

I think you misunderstand. Do you have any intention to withdraw those series from sale, either to pimp another series you have or to reduce competition for another producer, or "just because"? If not, then you're all good from my perspective. If you are making the product commercially available, then you can keep the copyright as long as you like. "Making the product commercially available" could mean anything from making it in limited editions for sale yourself to licensing it to another publisher - take your pick.

Brand protection is also done via copyright, especially in the form of performing artists withholding their IP from the market, either permanently or temporarily. Prince, Robert Fripp, Jimi Hendrix etc. all have unreleased tracks that may never be released because they would not fit with the high standards of their brands. (And all the other reasons sited above.)

They have even sued- successfully- when such tracks were leaked.

OK, I should have said "IME" about brands, but in these cases had the tracks/performances ever been made commercially available previously? If not, see my comment on this above.

As an aside, I'm honestly surprised that Hendrix has any unreleased tracks remaining. He (sadly) isn't/hasn't got a live "brand" to protect now, and I have recordings by him that are, honestly, more "interesting" than "good" - but the man produced such heights of "amazing" and had such wide ranging influence that I'm happy to cut him some serious slack...

 

[Morrus]

OK, I should have said "IME" about brands, but in these cases had the tracks/performances ever been made commercially available previously? If not, see my comment on this above.

So, do I have this straight? You feel that if someone like Hendrix make something he's embarrassed by, or feels is sub-par, or is too personal, or for any other reason decides he doesn't want to distribute it, you feel you have a right to it which overrides his own wishes? That he is obligated to either sell it, or let you have it for free?

That's an oppressive creative environment, man. I wouldn't want any part of that.

 

[Balesir]

So, do I have this straight? You feel that if someone like Hendrix make something he's embarrassed by, or feels is sub-par, or is too personal, or for any other reason decides he doesn't want to distribute it, you feel you have a right to it which overrides his own wishes? That he is obligated to either sell it, or let you have it for free?

Um, no. What I'm saying is that three steps are needed:

1) Someone creates something that contains IP.

2) They sell, license or otherwise distribute the said IP - giving it away would count.

3) They deliberately withdraw it from sale or availability in order to pimp some other product or reduce competition for some other product, or otherwise pursue some other agenda than simply making money or reputation from the IP.

As an aside, 'making it available' would include allowing a second hand market, which is one reason the matter was far less an issue before the days of electronic publishing where a (legal) second hand market is somewhat tricky.

So, taking WotBS as an example, as long as it's available - either through subscription to ENWorld, as an ebook via DTRPG or wherever, or as a hardcopy book or whatever - it's all good. Or you might license it to a third party publisher. Or even sell the IP outright - all good. But, if you decide to make it unavailable (legally) in any form in order (in your belief) to boost sales of Zeitgeist - not good.

Edit to add: if, on the other hand, you had a sequel - let's say "Peace of the Burning Sky" - that you decided not to publish or make available at all, then the restriction to "keep it available" would not kick in, since there is no "availability" to maintain.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Morrus]

So, taking WotBS as an example, as long as it's available - either through subscription to ENWorld, as an ebook via DTRPG or wherever, or as a hardcopy book or whatever - it's all good. Or you might license it to a third party publisher. Or even sell the IP outright - all good. But, if you decide to make it unavailable (legally) in any form in order (in your belief) to boost sales of Zeitgeist - not good.

Is that any clearer?

But what if I simply don't want to sell it? What if it was a personal endeavour with deeply emotional content for me? Say, I wrote it with my deceased wife or something, and just want to hang on to it as my personal connection to her memory, unsullied by commercialism? (I don't have a deceased wife, by the way, and didn't write it - don't worry, it's just an example!)

 

[Balesir]

But what if I simply don't want to sell it? What if it was a personal endeavour with deeply emotional content for me? Say, I wrote it with my deceased wife or something, and just want to hang on to it as my personal connection to her memory, unsullied by commercialism? (I don't have a deceased wife, by the way - don't worry!)

Heh - sorry, I must have crossed your post with my edit to my last post. The answer is that if the work has never been "available", then there is no "availability" to maintain. If the work was never distributed, then there is no revocation of the availability.

 

[dm4hire]

I think a better way to explain it would be to use a game like Alternity. Which for the most part appears to have been abandoned and thereby would be exempt from copyright protection if WotC failed to renew the product line. Any attempt to renew protection through trademark or copyright in order to deny the public the ability to work with the materials would be invalid since they aren't actually perpetuating the IP. However if WotC renewed the copyright or even trademark and actively published a second edition or re-released the first edition then they could justifiably enforce their IP rights.

(Side note 1: Granted making OP PDFs available fixes that issue and glad they have renewed their venture in that territory.)

(Side note 2: Yes I would love an Alternity 2e or clone. )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ok, I see what you're trying to say, but my opinion remains unchanged. If I have created something, made it commercially available, then decided it needed to be removed from the market, that is still perfectly legitimate use of copyright.

For example:

1) if I rethink its quality, I may wish to remove it from availability because it could damage the value of my future releases or personal marketability. (This is similar to "Alan Smithee" films.)

2) if I remove it from the stream of commerce, I may be doing so to keep its unit price high. By controlling rarity, I will also keep rereleases of that material- if any- in high demand. This is perfectly fine economics. This also lets me maintain quality control.

(There is an old saying- stuff sold by the ounce is always better than stuff sold by the pound. Its not necessarily TRUE, but it is a fundamental tenet of marketing and branding.).

3) I may have decided that its continued existence in the marketplace might be personally or economically harmful to myself or a third party.

 

[Balesir]

Ok, I see what you're trying to say, but my opinion remains unchanged. If I have created something, made it commercially available, then decided it needed to be removed from the market, that is still perfectly legitimate use of copyright.

Well, we may just have to disagree, but one last thought: if you create and distribute a book, you aren't allowed by copyright (or any other IP right) to go and confiscate the books you sold. Why should you be allowed to (effectively) do this for non-(legally)tradable creations, such as electronic files? That's the key difference I see; with a physical publication you can't "revoke" the ownership you transferred, but with the electronic-age idea that you don't own what you paid for, you just have a license to look at it, the purchaser's rights have been significantly diminished.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why should you be allowed to (effectively) do this for non-(legally)tradable creations, such as electronic files?

Apples and oranges. Its the difference between renting an apartment and buying a house: its two similar but very different bundles of rights being transferred from one party to another.

Posession of a physical book is usually acquired via a sale- an irrevocable transaction. Most electronic files transfer the right of possession and use only via a license, which is, and always had been, a revocable transaction. That economic battle was lost when people kept paying for licenses instead of demanding actual transfers of ownership. And because there has been no large vocal and consistent demand for actual sales of programs & data, no business I can think of has attempted to use the sales business model in electronic data.

Its one of the reasons I buy CDs and not lease mp3s from iTunes or anyone else.

And this isn't new to the electronic age. License type agreements are ancient, and they are everywhere. Actual ownership of property is, historically speaking, comparatively rare, and only in the modern age has it become so commonplace that everybody enjoy those kinds of rights.

IOW, the reason it is allowed is because that is the nature of the contracts we have been agreeing to. If (however unlikely) everyone in the computer market decided they would no longer agree to licensing software & files and instead demanded true sales- and actually stuck to that resolve, refusing to pay for updates to software, getting the latest games, buying the newest hardware, etc.- the companies doing the programming would either have to go with a true sales model or shutter their doors.

But that ISN'T going to happen.

For one thing, the licensing model lets us get things cheaper (short term) than if we buy them. Some of my law books were $400 each. Used. That's for something I'd only need for a semester or two, and it was a rare class that only used one book. A licensed electronic version today might only cost $20 a semester.

Who would be getting in line for upgraded software every couple of years if you only got the same utility advances you get under a licensing agreement if each iteration cost 10-20x for a sale?

Also, things that are licensed tend towards more uniformity of quality and functionality than thongs that are sold. If I want to buy an electric guitar from Gibson or its subsidiaries, I can spend anywhere from $100 to $35,000. At every stage, you will find variances in the quality of materials used and overall quality control.

There really isn't the same kind of variance in Microsoft Office.