Thanks, I look forward to that. If he owns the copyrights vs licensing as there shouldn't be any form of licensing if it has been fully purchased. After that, I suggest setting up some kind of non-profit holding company to assign the assets to. Then the assets can be licensed using anything from like a MIT license so both commercial and non-commercial use of the rights can be employed for the copyrighted stuff. As for patents and trademarks, that can be somewhat a different issue. Inexpensive NCLs for non-commercial use where as commercial use may require something that will help finance the holding company operations which can be held by a collective of members/shareholders or whatever. I'll be in favor of such a membership as well. Agreements like, we members with licenses don't go after others because they happen to use the trademark or ROMs or whatever. We just strive to co-exist. I am not 100% sure the status of trademark matters. This way, we all can find some way of moving forward. It's just an idea but I am certainly an interested party about the matters. Thanks for the info. > > On August 26, 2017 at 2:07 PM David Holz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On 08/26/2017 09:17 AM, Jim Brain wrote: > > > > > > On 8/26/2017 10:47 AM, email@example.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > that sounds fishy by itself - either copyright is transferred to you, > > > or you > > > licensed the IP in question and pay royalties for it. AFAIK there is > > > no legal > > > scenario in which you both register the IP on yourself AND pay > > > royalties for > > > it to a third party. it doesnt make a lot of sense either (only the > > > owner of > > > the IP can register it, and the owner does not pay royalties to > > > himself). > > > > > > Maybe it's just a lack of understanding of copyrights. Not everyone > > > understand the intricacies. Maybe it is safer to say he purchased > > > rights to those copyrights, and he needs to pay a royalty on any > > > sales, as part of the rights purchase contract. But, like you, I know > > > of no scenarios where one can purchase a copyright and then still have > > > to pay a royalty. But, like on JiffyDOS, I licensed the IP, and my > > > contract asks for a royalty payment. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > Yeah, all I'm doing is relaying what he was saying. He's certainly > trying to figure out all the legalities as things progress. His endgame > is to find or establish a foundation which would own the C=/Amiga > copyrights and steward the IP, instead of being held by a for-profit > company. He is trying to get all the legalities cleaned up first, and > figuring out how such a foundation would be funded and have lots of > members or whatever. He's being open about all of this, and wants > people to know that it's 3rd parties pushing him to pursue some of these > cases because of their claimed stake, but he hasn't written all this up > online yet. > > I personally think that it can be made a lot simpler, and involve > letters going out saying that the new owners of the IP are not honoring > contracts established with the prior owners, as many companies have done > in the past. Because really, from a sensible and ethical viewpoint > these products are a dead market business-wise anyways, and if you have > enough to claim to own it, you can do what you want with it and let the > community openly modify & thrive with it. But this is his project, and > he's doing what he thinks is the proper way forward. > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-08-26 23:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.