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

[Jhaelen]

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?

This reminds me of Franz Kafka: His greatest works were published post-humously against his wishes (he wanted to see them destroyed). I think we can all be thankful that his friend decided not to heed his wish.

Or take Tolkien: It's a similar situation (and thematically more appropriate for the site).

I wouldn't go so far as to say the public has a 'right' to anything, but I can see how it can be for the greater good to override an author's wishes regarding publishing his works (post-humously, at least).

 

[jasper]

Oh no no no . NOT greater good, greater greed. Greater uppitnest. It is author work, if he wants his unpublished works chopped up, and lit on fire for viking pyre. Then friends and estates must obey.

 

[Balesir]

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.

That's because it's not physically possible to have a "sale" of electronic data, any more than it's really possible to 'sell' an idea, due to the simple necessity of duplication during the transfer process and to enable use. You're right that we're in the electronic age - but the law hasn't really taken any cognisance of that, yet.

In other words, I'm well aware of the differences between licensing and purchasing, and that (perforce) electronic media have slewed into a 'license' business model, but I'm saying that the form that is, as you say, ancient, is not fit for purpose under the present legal regime. It's creaking under the strain, and it needs to change. Is this a political question (in the wider, non-party political sense)? Yes, of course! The shape of the law in general always is. The fact that a form of business model that really fits electronic IP to everyone's satisfaction has not been developed yet is plain for anyone to see. What should be done about it is not so plain - and what will be done is utterly obscure! However, I don't think the suggestion "well, if you want real ownership go back to dead tree version" has legs for more than the short term...

 

[billd91]

Oh no no no . NOT greater good, greater greed. Greater uppitnest. It is author work, if he wants his unpublished works chopped up, and lit on fire for viking pyre. Then friends and estates must obey.

I have a limited tolerance for this viewpoint. The author's dead. Publication of his materials can't bother him anymore. He's no longer in control. If he wanted his works destroyed, he should have destroyed them himself.

 

[jasper]

So, if you drop dead today, I can log on tomorrow as Billd91. Thanks, here take this blue pill and go down the rabbit hole. Just because you a fan of an author,singer, E.G.Gynax does not give you the power to create/publish works in a dead man name.

 

[billd91]

So, if you drop dead today, I can log on tomorrow as Billd91. Thanks, here take this blue pill and go down the rabbit hole. Just because you a fan of an author,singer, E.G.Gynax does not give you the power to create/publish works in a dead man name.

If you wanted to collect, edit, and publish my papers, you'd have to get them from my wife first. She'd be the owner of them after my death and could do whatever she wanted with them, including sell them to you if she wanted. That's an analogous situation.
Logging in as me? That's not publishing my stuff after I'm dead. That's a different topic.

 

[jasper]

And if I find a bunch of your campaign notes(you left in my house) or emails, could I publish "Letters to Jasper of Billd91 Buccaners campaign"? Or if both of you drop dead, and the trashy "Gor" short story you half wrote as joke, and buried under the floorboards of your Summer Cabin are discovered, can I publish them? Even if you told me you never wanted to publish either of those works?

 

[billd91]

And if I find a bunch of your campaign notes(you left in my house) or emails, could I publish "Letters to Jasper of Billd91 Buccaners campaign"? Or if both of you drop dead, and the trashy "Gor" short story you half wrote as joke, and buried under the floorboards of your Summer Cabin are discovered, can I publish them? Even if you told me you never wanted to publish either of those works?

Knock yourself out. I think all that anyone should really be concerned about (those still living and wanting some integrity in the process) is that if you're going to publish someone's stuff posthumously, you publish their stuff and not misattribute your stuff under their name. That would be fraudulent on your part. But if you publish my stuff after I'm dead and no longer control anything I have left behind - pfft, like I care anymore.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's because it's not physically possible to have a "sale" of electronic data, any more than it's really possible to 'sell' an idea, due to the simple necessity of duplication during the transfer process and to enable use. You're right that we're in the electronic age - but the law hasn't really taken any cognisance of that, yet.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

At its core, all a sale is is a transfer of a bunch of rights, enforceable in a court of law. A license is the transfer of of similar, but more limited enforceable rights. Sales of ideas happen every day.

If I were to sell you an electronic data file- say..."my only digital copy" of one of my compositions or a jewelry design- you would be able to enforce it in court. You could make me delete it if you wanted if the language of the contract of sale were properly worded.

But nobody does that.

The sale of a data file- duplicated for use- is no different than the sale of a book duplicated for use, legally speaking,

 

[dm4hire]

Following up on what I last wrote and responding to Danny I’m wondering if a better way to put it is that the owner of the IP must be actively using it and able to prove it. So in terms of someone retaining copies and then slowly releasing them in order to inflate the price that would indeed prove they are actively using it. The owner when filing the claim must be able to show the court that they have a reasonable continued interest and purpose for failing to keep the product active.

If we continue to use Alternity as the example WotC could keep it off the market if they can prove that their intention is to release it in limited quantity. Perhaps they have 500-1000 copies in storage they plan to release every couple of years in small quantities. I would accept that as they are doing limited print release. Another acceptable method would be if they incorporate in their business plan that they will be releasing anniversary products or rereleases every five years or so. I think we can agree that both those and similar methods are valid.

What I’m getting is a publisher/author releases a book and twenty or thirty years after it has gone out of print they should be considered forfeit on copyright if they haven’t or can’t produce reasonable proof that they are using it. Thus it moves to public domain. I know of very few companies that don’t continue to use their IP in some form. So it wouldn’t be much of an issue except in areas of interest such as ours where games die out from lack of interest.

Another exception I just thought of would be material tied to an overall IP such as Star Wars or Harry Potter that have broad areas of coverage. In those cases the trademark would allow it to continue but that would be more of a Trademark concern then I think. Perhaps that is an addressing issue that should be modified. By which I think materials related to trademark of such scope should be covered differently when more than one area of the law is covered. Maybe create a new level of trademark that covers mass market IP.

That would give Disney their satisfaction, but at a higher cost since they would be paying for blanket coverage. Of course I would still allow for parity and allowances that are not meant to cause indemnity or harm to the owner, such as a kid printing a t-shirt they created with Mickey for personal use and not for resale and similar areas.