Re: Asimov & *LACK* of respecting programmers choices

[richard.b@genie.com]

> .... The
>reasons for the copyright no longer exist, and, as can be seen, the

Bzzzzt... Copyrights exist so that your work is not copied by another
person. By copied, we're talking a re-creation of a work, using the original
as a base or working idea. The "copying" referred to as piracy may not be
particularly relevant at this stage (open to argument), but the writes of
the original author to the original IDEA or WORK *IS* very much still
valid. FWIW, the Id guys obtained PERMISSION to rework Wolfenstein, they did
not simply copy the idea because it was so old.

>I am assuming the
>programmers feel this way because I (as a programmer) do, all my co-workers
>do, and because I firmly believe that almost all programmers do to. I'm not

I know many who do not..

>Sorry, I'm going to assume that this is the way it is. I'm not going to
>track down the 10,000 authors to "ask them". On the author hand, you are
>assuming the opposite (and choosing to ignore that the reasons for the
>original copyright are gone). I'm sure you won't ask the 10,000 authors
>either.

So we should make "assumption" and "personal opinion" a legal loophole?

>the copyright isn't a method of simply preventing a game from being copied,
>but more importantly protects the game's title, art, music, rights to a
>sequel, etc. And that is a protection a company will not (and should not)
>give up.

But you said above that you thought the original reason for copyright no
longer exists. Why do you now think the publisher should not give up the
rights? You must think there is a reason. You're contradicting yourself.

>these wishes. Most of us don't agree with your interpretation (that the
>copyright still makes sense, etc. see above). If YOU wanted to respect

But some of us do, and the law just happens to conincide with our opinions.
Until everybody agrees otherwise, the law stands. End of story.

Regards,
  Richard Bennett
--