			    TRAVELLER Digest 173

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) About Dealing with Cold...	by Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
  2) Copyright explained	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:35:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Traveller:TNE mailing list)
Subject: About Dealing with Cold...
Message-ID: <199501251735.AA05675@world.std.com>

>From Hugh Foster's Letter:
>>>I remember reading about the effects of cold from
>Challenge a time ago. I suppose the effects should be
>likewise. So if some of you have <<

Ah, yes.  It was in Challeng 29.  The article was wriotten for Twilight:2000,
and covered: how to create real-seeming weather; the effects of winter season
weather in the environment; and the effects of being in cold weather 
conditions without proper food, shelter or clothing. (I wrote it; I'm 
quite pleased someone else has acknowledged its existence).

It was written for TW:2K v1, but should be adaptable easily enough (it 
treated the effects of cold as fatigue). Some mods should be taken for 
"how cold is it": Winter in Poland or any temperate zone can be 
compensated for easily enough, but that heavy sweater and leather coat 
may not be adequate for Artic exploration!

Perhaps I'll dig that puppy out and look at the article again and post an 
update here...

>There were two superb Gamelords pubs from way back called
>Desert and Mountain environment. These will have excellent
>treatment of such things, if the one I have got
>(underwater) is any guide. As all are now OOP, would some
>lucky collector care to post a summary, laced with
>copyright acknowledegments <g> ?

I never did get the Desert Environment, but I adored the Mountain 
Environment. Gamelords paired these with adventure modules taking place 
in those special environments (Desert with the Dunraiders; Mountain with 
Ascent of Anekhathor(sp)).

Mountain Env was mostly dedicated to types of mountaineering; designing 
mountain terrain (for your characters to then climb) (size of region; 
difficulty; number of pitches; etc). It included a bit about temperature drop
during climbing and a bit about the effects of cold (also of oxygen 
starvation) and chances of accident.

I can dig that out and provide more detail....

						Ted7


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:32:54 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Copyright explained
Message-ID: <sf268ad3.019@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

   I found this "surfing the 'Net' yesterday and thought it was of
revelence to the copyright discussion that was going on a while back.
If you have seen it before, sorry for the repetition.

Ten big myths about copyright explained
July 19 1994, Brad Templeton  address: brad@clarinet.com                     


1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted.

        This was true in the past, but today almost all major
        nations follow the Berne copyright convention.  After April
        1, 1989, everything created in the USA, for example, is
        copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
        The default you must assume for other people's works is that
        they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
        otherwise.  There are some old works that lost protection
        without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
        you know for sure.

        It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
        warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
        different damages, but it is not necessary.  If it looks
        copyrighted, you must assume it is.

2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.

        False.  Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
        court, but that's the only difference.  It's still a
        violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
        heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
        property.

3) If it's posted to USENET it's in the public domain.

        False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
        owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
        as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
        this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
        much like them.

        Some argue that posting to USENET implicitly grants
        permission to everybody to copy the posting as much as they
        like.  This is very probably wrong.  First, the whole
        purpose of copyright is to provide protection to people
        after they freely distribute it.  For example, George
        Lucas still owns Star Wars after broadcasting it on free TV
        or giving copies to lots of people.  Secondly, that argument
        breaks down when one considers what it would mean for you to
        post an MPEG of Star Wars to the net (other than some really
        annoyed people with v.32bis modem feeds.)  All the copying
        would still go on, but clearly without permission since you
        -- unless you are George Lucas -- didn't have the right to
        give permission to copy in the first place.

        (*) It's also in the public domain if the creator has been
        dead for 50 years.  If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
        to the net, let me know.

4) My posting was just fair use!

        See the notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
        the following in mind:

        The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to
        allow commentary, news reporting and education *on*
        copyrighted works without the permission of the author.  In
        this case, the "on" is important.  You must be commenting on
        or reporting about the *work*, not the subject matter of the
        work.  If you could have reported the facts in your own
        words, but didn't to save typing, it's probably not fair
        use.  If you needed to demonstrate something about the
        actual work or writing, then it might be fair use.

        Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
        attributed.  It should not ruin the commercial value of the
        work (which is why reproduction of the entire work is
        generally verboten.)

5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.

        False.  Copyright is *never* lost now, unless explicitly
        given away.  You may be thinking of trade marks, which can
        be weakened or lost if not defended.

6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!

        You can't copyright a name, or anything short like that.
        Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
        song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
        me and my monkey."

        However, you can trademark an adjective, when applied to a
        generic type of product or service.  Like an "Apple"
        computer.  Apple Computer owns that word applied to
        computers, even though it is also an ordinary word.  Apple
        records owns it when applied to music.  Neither owns the
        word on its own, only in context.

        You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
        unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
        make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
        which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
        For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
        would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
        like "mtv."  :-)

7) They can't get me, I'm innocent until proven guilty.

        Copyright law is mostly civil law.  If you violate copyright
        you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
        "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
        law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Sorry, but in
        copyright suits, these don't apply.  It's mostly which side
        the judge or jury believes more.

8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?

        Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
        violations involving more than 10 copies and/or value over
        $2500 was made a felony.  So watch out.  (At least you get
        the protections of criminal law.)

9) It doesn't hurt anybody, in fact it's free advertising.

        It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
        not.  If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
        Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
        them.  Usually that's not too hard to do.  Time past,
        ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
        large and appreciative USENET audience for a fee, but some
        jerk didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
        caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
        pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
        enjoyed it.  Even if you can't think of how the author or
        owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
        hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
        technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.

        To have a copy is not to have the copyright.  All the E-mail
        you write is copyrighted.  However, E-mail is not, unless
        previously agreed, secret.  So you can certainly *report* on
        what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.  You can
        even quote parts of it to demonstrate.  Frankly, somebody
        who sues over an ordinary message might well lose, because
        the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay
        strictly in the law, you should ask first.


Permission is granted to freely copy this document in electronic form, 
or to print for personal use.


...And to answer your question, yes, I did get permission from Mr.
Templeton to reprint his article in this forum.


---Harold

------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 173
***************************
