Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Additional clarification requested on FASA Copyright Issues
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:55:12 -0500
To : Tom Dowd <FASATom@***.com>
Cc : Shadowrun Discussion List <shadowrn@*****.nic.SURFnet.nl>,
NERPS Working List <nerps@*****.nic.SURFnet.nl>

Hello again,

This is a follow-up letter to the one that I sent you last month
inquiring as to FASA's position on issues of the Internet and copyright
concerns. Unfortunately, it was not until just recently that I received
your reply, most likely because the computer I originally mailed you from
was shut down in mid-August.

There are several issues that, as both mailing list administrator and
interested party, I would like to get some clarifications on.

1) Part #2 of your letter begins "Any electronic material that includes or
reference any of FASA copyrights or trademarks must include the
statement (in all copies)" [it then goes on to list this
statement.]

The question arises as to whether this applies to the mailing lists.
Would any mention of any FASA term, product, or name require the
inclusion of that entire statement? If this is the case, it will
have the effect of virtually shutting down ALL communication with
regards to your games not only on mailing lists, but also on
UseNET or any other electronic forum.

If point #2 of your letter only applies to electronic publications,
such as the NERPS or NAGEE e-books, a clarification is needed.
In addition, the concept of what exactly a "publication" is needs
to be dealt with. Certainly, a message posted to UseNET can be
said to have been "published" in a way, as could an e-mail message
posted to a public mailing list.

2) My second question is as to the NERPS manuals. Certainly your letter
allows for the continued production of NERPS books (I know of at
least two that are already in pre-production). But, there are
two issues that need to be addressed.

The first issue is related to point #2 of your letter. NERPS
ShadowLore and NERPS Foundations were both released PRIOR to
receiving your letter. Neither of them have the exact wording
that your spelled out in your letter. Instead, wording similar
to that used in the NAGEE was used. I'll repeat the core of it
here, but I do not have a copy in hand, so this is from memory.

Shadowrun is a registered trademark of FASA Inc. They actually
make money off the game
This compilation copyright 1994 by Robert A. Hayden
The copyright of each article is held by the original author

The question is, essentially, "Is there going to be a problem?" I
can re-press the postscript and RTF images to include new wording,
if you feel it is necessary.

In addition, with regards to the NERPS manuals, there is the question
as to the distribution via paper. When we started NERPS way back
when, we wanted to produce something of high quality that was
still free, using an idea similar to the freeware concept in
software. It would allow people to use the product for free and
actually required that nobody make any money off of it, but it did
allow for covering the cost of the media (which is for paper,
binding, and postage).

Following the instructions in point #4 of your letter, this practice
has ceased. Unfortunately, there are many issues that have come
up that need to be further clarified. For example:

If you have to pay to print out a copy of the NERPS manuals on a
laser printer, is that a violation? What if you have to pay for
space to even STORE an electronic version of the book?

If a person has a copy of the manual, and a friend wants to make
a photocopy at Kinkos, are they prohibited because they would have
have to pay at the counter when done? If so, who is liable for
that violation?

If I print out a copy of the manual, your wording prohibits me
from mailing via U.S. Mail that printout to a friend. It would
also technically prohibit me from carrying it on a flight if I
went to visit them by aircraft.

Because of these logistical nightmares, I am wondering if explicit
permission can be given specifically for NERPS (and perhaps NAGEE
as well, but I am not part of that production) that allows for
money to change hands to cover the cost of the media and for
shipping, but not for contents. This is a practice similar to
that used by shareware distributors.

By giving explicit permission that covers ONLY the NERPS publications,
you would not, I believe, be endangering your copyrights or
trademarks as you have not "failed to act" on any perceived
copyright violations (but, of course, you are best advised to
consult with a copyright attorney, because I am very likely
wrong.) This would be consistent with the concerns you outlined
in paragraph three of your original letter.


I'd like to thank you for your time. I feel that these issues are
important and need to be addressed so that FASA and other gaming
companies can make the best use of the Internet possible, and still
maintain control over their intellectual property.

If I can be of further assistance or if you need additional detail, please
feel free to contact me via e-mail at hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu or
via telephone at (507) 389-2032.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,


Robert A. Hayden

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else
Message no. 2
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Additional clarification requested on FASA Copyright Issues
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 14:50:26 -0500
This is a reply I just received from Tom Dowd.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 15:35:45 EDT
From:FASATom@***.com
To: hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
Subject: Re: Additional clarification requested on FASA Copyright Issues

Dear Robert:

Good to hear from you again; I'd figured there were site problems. :) Here
are my replies to your requests for clarifications:

>>>>>1) Part #2 of your letter begins "Any electronic material that
includes
or
reference any of FASA copyrights or trademarks must include the
statement (in all copies)" [it then goes on to list this
statement.]

The question arises as to whether this applies to the mailing lists.
Would any mention of any FASA term, product, or name require the
inclusion of that entire statement? If this is the case, it will
have the effect of virtually shutting down ALL communication with
regards to your games not only on mailing lists, but also on
UseNET or any other electronic forum.<<<<<

No, this does not apply to discussion, but rather to file postings which are
distributable. Copyright infringement problems would, however, apply to
postings as well.

>>>>> If point #2 of your letter only applies to electronic publications,
such as the NERPS or NAGEE e-books, a clarification is needed.
In addition, the concept of what exactly a "publication" is needs
to be dealt with. Certainly, a message posted to UseNET can be
said to have been "published" in a way, as could an e-mail message
posted to a public mailing list. <<<<<

No, again, we're talking primarily about files that are intended to be
downloaded and/or have a use beyond a simple read. That's were the problems
stand.

>>>>>2) My second question is as to the NERPS manuals. Certainly your
letter
allows for the continued production of NERPS books (I know of at
least two that are already in pre-production). But, there are
two issues that need to be addressed.

The first issue is related to point #2 of your letter. NERPS
ShadowLore and NERPS Foundations were both released PRIOR to
receiving your letter. Neither of them have the exact wording
that your spelled out in your letter. Instead, wording similar
to that used in the NAGEE was used. I'll repeat the core of it
here, but I do not have a copy in hand, so this is from memory.

Shadowrun is a registered trademark of FASA Inc. They actually
make money off the game
This compilation copyright 1994 by Robert A. Hayden
The copyright of each article is held by the original author

The question is, essentially, "Is there going to be a problem?" I
can re-press the postscript and RTF images to include new wording,
if you feel it is necessary. <<<<<<

I don't think it'll be a problem since the wording was made in good faith.

>>>>>In addition, with regards to the NERPS manuals, there is the question
as to the distribution via paper. When we started NERPS way back
when, we wanted to produce something of high quality that was
still free, using an idea similar to the freeware concept in
software. It would allow people to use the product for free and
actually required that nobody make any money off of it, but it did
allow for covering the cost of the media (which is for paper,
binding, and postage).

Following the instructions in point #4 of your letter, this practice
has ceased. Unfortunately, there are many issues that have come
up that need to be further clarified. For example:

If you have to pay to print out a copy of the NERPS manuals on a
laser printer, is that a violation? What if you have to pay for
space to even STORE an electronic version of the book?<<<<<<

No, that's not a violation since the costs are not connected to the nature of
the material. I know this sounds wonky, but we're on tricky ground. The only
restrictions are the ones I listed. I wouldn't worry about anything else.

>>>>>If a person has a copy of the manual, and a friend wants to make
a photocopy at Kinkos, are they prohibited because they would have
have to pay at the counter when done? If so, who is liable for
that violation?<<<<<

That might be tricky since Kinko's won't photocopy copyrighted matieral. They
lost millions of dollars in a lawsuit for having done that. But,
theoretically speaking, I wouldn't worry about that either.

>>>>>If I print out a copy of the manual, your wording prohibits me
from mailing via U.S. Mail that printout to a friend. It would
also technically prohibit me from carrying it on a flight if I
went to visit them by aircraft. <<<<<

Huh? I don't see where that would be true at all. Ah, no I see. You are being
too specific about the wording, or perhaps I was not specific enough. No
money can change hands for the purposes of specifically profiting from the
copyrighted material. For example, we regularly foward copyrighted material
to authors via US mail. You receive magazines through the mail. Are those
violations? Nope, because the US Mail isn't making money specifically from
the material.

>>>>> Because of these logistical nightmares, I am wondering if explicit
permission can be given specifically for NERPS (and perhaps NAGEE
as well, but I am not part of that production) that allows for
money to change hands to cover the cost of the media and for
shipping, but not for contents. This is a practice similar to
that used by shareware distributors. <<<<<

I'll check with the powers that be, but I doubt it. Again, you're worrying
too much about it. The problem comes exclusively from person X paying person
Y specifically to send them copyrighted material.

>>>>>By giving explicit permission that covers ONLY the NERPS
publications,
you would not, I believe, be endangering your copyrights or
trademarks as you have not "failed to act" on any perceived
copyright violations (but, of course, you are best advised to
consult with a copyright attorney, because I am very likely
wrong.) This would be consistent with the concerns you outlined
in paragraph three of your original letter.<<<<<

What you are speaking of is by definition a "license". I will check with the
powers that be and see what happens. The problem is that licenses are legal
agreements which must be made with a legal entity, be it a person or
corporation. I don't think you can issue a license to a non-specific thing
like an FTP site.

>>>>>I'd like to thank you for your time. I feel that these issues are
important and need to be addressed so that FASA and other gaming
companies can make the best use of the Internet possible, and still
maintain control over their intellectual property.

If I can be of further assistance or if you need additional detail, please
feel free to contact me via e-mail at hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu or
via telephone at (507) 389-2032.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,


Robert A. Hayden<<<<<<

Hey, no problem. Thanks for asking and following up. If you need more, just
let me know. As always, I can be reached at FASA at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, Extension
xx.

Adios!

Tom Dowd
FASA
Message no. 3
From: Doc X <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: Additional clarification requested on FASA Copyright Issues
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 17:16:14 -0400
Something that I have a question about. It seems that Tom is saying one
thing while meaning another.

> >>>>>In addition, with regards to the NERPS manuals, there is the
question
> as to the distribution via paper. When we started NERPS way back
> when, we wanted to produce something of high quality that was
> still free, using an idea similar to the freeware concept in
> software. It would allow people to use the product for free and
> actually required that nobody make any money off of it, but it did
> allow for covering the cost of the media (which is for paper,
> binding, and postage).
>
> Following the instructions in point #4 of your letter, this practice
> has ceased. Unfortunately, there are many issues that have come
> up that need to be further clarified. For example:
>
> If you have to pay to print out a copy of the NERPS manuals on a
> laser printer, is that a violation? What if you have to pay for
> space to even STORE an electronic version of the book?<<<<<<
>
> No, that's not a violation since the costs are not connected to the nature of
> the material. I know this sounds wonky, but we're on tricky ground. The only
> restrictions are the ones I listed. I wouldn't worry about anything else.

So, if you want to print out or store an original copy of NERPS, this is
perfectly legal.

> >>>>>If a person has a copy of the manual, and a friend wants to make
> a photocopy at Kinkos, are they prohibited because they would have
> have to pay at the counter when done? If so, who is liable for
> that violation?<<<<<
>
> That might be tricky since Kinko's won't photocopy copyrighted matieral. They
> lost millions of dollars in a lawsuit for having done that. But,
> theoretically speaking, I wouldn't worry about that either.

This is not an academic problem (i.e. a problem which one need not worry
about because it won't happen). There are several other places which
will gladly print out copyrighted material (or rather, allow you to print
it out yourself on their machines) for the price of the copies. This,
Mr. Dowd says, is perfectly legal as well.

> >>>>>If I print out a copy of the manual, your wording prohibits me
> from mailing via U.S. Mail that printout to a friend. It would
> also technically prohibit me from carrying it on a flight if I
> went to visit them by aircraft. <<<<<
>
> Huh? I don't see where that would be true at all. Ah, no I see. You are being
> too specific about the wording, or perhaps I was not specific enough. No
> money can change hands for the purposes of specifically profiting from the
> copyrighted material. For example, we regularly foward copyrighted material
> to authors via US mail. You receive magazines through the mail. Are those
> violations? Nope, because the US Mail isn't making money specifically from
> the material.

So, you can also send a copy of NERPS through the mail (as long as you
don't profit from it). This is the third legal hurdle that must be crossed.

Given that you can

A) print copies legally (as long as the only expense is price of materials)
B) make copies of these originals and have them bound (again as long as
the only money changing hands is the cost of copying and the price that
the binder charges).
and
C) send copies via mail (as long as the only expense is the prices
charged by the mail carrier).

it seems that Rob's project of sending people bound and signed copies of
NERPS should be perfectly legal as long as Rob doesn't personally make
any money off of it (which, if I may trust my often faulty memory, is
exactly what was taking place).

The parts of the whole are legal, therefore the whole should be legal.
Someone please point out the fault in my logic (assuming there is one).

> >>>>> Because of these logistical nightmares, I am wondering if
explicit
> permission can be given specifically for NERPS (and perhaps NAGEE
> as well, but I am not part of that production) that allows for
> money to change hands to cover the cost of the media and for
> shipping, but not for contents. This is a practice similar to
> that used by shareware distributors. <<<<<
>
> I'll check with the powers that be, but I doubt it. Again, you're worrying
> too much about it. The problem comes exclusively from person X paying person
> Y specifically to send them copyrighted material.

This argument doesn't wash because person X is not getting payed, he is
the middleman (who doesn't recieve a commision).

> Hey, no problem. Thanks for asking and following up. If you need more, just
> let me know. As always, I can be reached at FASA at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, Extension
> xx.

I was going to try to call this phone number, but couldn't figure out
which number was the 'x' key ;-)

Doc X
*****************************************************************************
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * PGP and Geek Code available *
*********************************************** via WWW and upon request *
* Will code HTML for food * KIBO #7 * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; *
*****************************************************************************
-----------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"On the subject of galactic peace, I am long past innocence and fast
approaching apathy. It's all a game -- a paper fantasy of names and
borders."
-- Londo, "Midnight on the Firing Line"

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.