Classic DOS Games Forum

Terrific, thank you. That went really well, and it's easily the most in-depth interview I've done so far.

I see that you've posted the interview on pasteldefender.com. I really appreciate you doing the interview, but I had kind of a "lawyer moment" when I saw that the entire interview was on your site. Your website has a copyright notice at the bottom, proclaiming all content to be your intellectual property ("All Website Contents, including all characters, images, artwork, text, and any other contents are Copyright © 2004 by Jennifer Diane Reitz All Rights Reserved Worldwide"). I have a similar copyright notice on my site to declare everything on the site my intellectual property ("This website is Copyright © 2005-2008. All software is © its respective owner.") There seems to be a copyright conflict.

My feeling is that you consented to be interviewed for Classic DOS Games, so the copyright belongs to Classic DOS Games. It also appeared on my site before it appeared on yours, so I was the first to declare ownership of that material. Anyway, I don't want there to be any ill will between us. I've really enjoyed talking to you, and I'd like to chat some more in the future. I just feel like I have to protect my business, and I wouldn't want to lose my rights to any of my work because I failed to defend or exercise those rights. What I think would be reasonable to both of us is if, instead of posting the entire interview, you could reprint excerpts, and then have a "click here to read the rest" link to the interview at Classic DOS Games.

Do you have a real Kaya-wood goban? I have a plywood goban and a folding cardboard one, like a Monopoly board.

DOSGuy

Hello!

Please, do not be at all disturbed by any of that crap. Just to ease any fuss, let me state now, that I, Jennifer Diane Reitz, hereby give you, DOSGuy of ClassicDosGames.com, complete and totally free use of the interview we did together, as well as the additional email interview questions, and, anything else I may have written to you, for the purpose of posting on your website, as you see fit, in perpetuity, and that we both may use this content however we like, period. Also, I offer that you may make use of any and all artwork associated with Boppin', including screenshots, website art from my windows version avaliable free from my site at Jenniverse.com website, here http://jenniverse.com/boppin%20main.html to illustrate or enhance your interview, or any redistribution of the now freeware original Boppin' games, or the current freeware windows version, as you see fit. Signed Jennifer Diane Reitz, etc. etc.

Seriously, I am pretty easy going about such things. I really am. I do the copyright notices for two reasons - one, it's standard boilerplate just in case some corporate asshat decides to cause me trouble, and two, it makes me feel better to have fancy copyright notices, as though anything I made actually mattered at all. A little bit of pretension to prop up my broken ego. That's all there is to it. In any case, you have clear and free use now, so enjoy.

Yes, I do have a kaya-wood goban. Last year, one of my spouses, Eldenath, saw one on ebay or somesuch. She is always trying to find me things I have always wanted. The person selling it didn't want much for it, really only a few hundred bucks, but what they really wanted was someone who would cherish it. They wanted someone to care about the board, about having it, and who would take care of it properly. They had to move to another country, they needed money, and they needed to get rid of all of their stuff reasonably fast, because of a new job. I got the board for such small money primarily because I wrote a very heartfelt letter about how much the board would mean to me, and how I would truly value it. Apparently they saw the truth of my heart. So that's how I got my board. It would be considered a total steal at that price, no question, but I don't look at it like "oh, I got a thousand dollar plus board for chump change". Rather I look at it as there is this beautiful board passing through my life, and I get the honor of taking care of it and play on it.

So, first thing I did when it arrived, was go out and get the correct oils to clean and help it, did a little repair on one of the sculptured legs, and did my best to restore it as best I could. It is perhaps a little old, and just a tiny bit warped, despite the great thickness, and it needed a little attention. Needless to say, it is a prized possession, and much nicer than my home-built board, made from a butcher's block.

I wish you were near Olympia. I would invite you over for a game and some green tea!

Jennifer ^.^

Hi Jennifer.

I would definitely love to come over to play Go. You and I have a great many common interests. I'm sure that we have many more to discover. Are you, by any chance, a Transformers fan?

With regard to the interview, it goes a bit beyond the issue of ownership. When I conduct these interviews, there are two motivations: personal and business. I enjoy asking the questions and getting to read and share the answers with my visitors. Classic DOS Games is also a business in the sense that I derive (a small amount of) revenue from it. I add content to the site to entice new visitors and new donations.

My fear is this: if the interview appears in its entirety on your website, all of your visitors will link to the interview on YOUR site on their blogs, Digg the URL for the interview on YOUR site, and anyone doing a Google search for the interview will find YOUR site because of its greater popularity and larger number of incoming links. I will derive virtually no benefit from the interview. The business part of my motivation was to attract your fans and visitors to MY site, have people Digg MY site, and improve MY site's Google rank. That's selfish of me, but it's not personal, it's business. (God, I sound like Donald Trump)

I would like to think that we both have a lot of goodwill towards each other right now. I was very pleased with your willingness to be so honest and thorough in your responses. I was grateful that you consented to be interviewed, and I feel a real kinship between us. I hope that you, likewise, feel goodwill towards me. I realized that a lot of shit gets flung in your direction, and I wanted people to hear from the real Jennifer Reitz, and come to have the same respect for your work and intelligence that I have. I think you look very good in the interview, which I suppose is the reason why you wanted to have the interview on your website.

So, we have goodwill, and that's what I'm trying not to lose now. My feeling is this: you consented to be interviewed by Classic DOS Games, and ownership of the interview lies with Classic DOS Games. It would be the same if you had done an interview for Time magazine or Larry King Live. If you later decided to include the interview in your autobiography, you would need Time Warner's permission, which they would likely grant in order to get a free plug in your book. I am, likewise, willing to let you reprint excerpts of the interview on your website in order to get a free plug for my website. I wish I could afford to be as generous as your "we both may use this content however we like" sentiment, but I really can't. I haven't worked since September 28, I've exhausted my Employment Insurance benefits, and the stocks I sold last year to get me through the winter have come back to bite me in the ass in the form of a huge tax bill that I can't afford to pay. Classic DOS Games is a little fish in a big pond, and I'm working my ass off to find some way to differentiate myself from the competition. I have to find a way to bring in visitors, and exclusive content is one of the few means I have of doing it. If Classic DOS Games is the exclusive home of the full interview of Jennifer Diane Reitz, then that's a reason for people to visit. I can't lose this opportunity.

I want to reiterate the personal half of my motivation. I don't interview classic DOS game authors to exploit them! I didn't interview you for the sole purpose of deriving personal gain! I chose to pour my creative energy into a website about DOS games because that's my passion. I thoughtfully choose my questions for each interview to give the interviewee's fans the answers to the questions that they would want to ask. I ask each and every interviewee if they would like to promote anything so that they can derive benefit from the interview, too! I do my honest best to ensure that the relationship is a two-way street. I hope that people who read the interviews on my site will visit the interviewee's website and purchase any games that they still sell. I hope that you will see an increase in visitors coming from my website as a result of the interview. So you see, it's not just business, it's also personal.

This has gotten rather long, but I wanted you to understand how this affects me, and I wanted to maintain the goodwill that exists between us. Maybe we can collaborate again at some point in the future! In the meantime, as a business person, the presence of the entire interview on any of your websites is damaging to me. I must assert ownership of the interview, and ask that you not reproduce the interview in its entirety. If you could trim it down to a few excerpts and then post something like "The rest of the interview can be read at <A href= "http://www.classicdosgames.com/interviews/jenniferdianereitz.html" >Classic DOS Games</A>", that would be fantastic. Linking to my website helps me and doesn't hurt you, but reprinting the entire interview screws me out of the traffic that would otherwise have come to my site. Classic DOS Games is to me what your webcomics and art are to you. It is my creative outlet, my gift to the world, my legacy and, at the moment, my only source of income. I have no choice but to vigorously defend it. I hope that I won't lose your friendship for doing so.

Sincerely,
DOSGuy

Hello, DOSGuy.

I have to say... I am more than a little shocked by your stance with regard to our little interview. Seriously. My posting of it, most likely an incomplete version to begin with (you have asked me many, many more questions since) in my own, personal, hidden-away comic news/comic blog was done only because I was so happy to be interviewed. Nothing more or less, like a little innocent puppy, I was feeling happy and excited.

Hardly anyone reads my little 'latest comic news' section, indeed, hardly anyone reads my comic, to be honest. We are talking obscure piled on top of obscure. You talk about business issues... in my entire career as a cartoonist, I have sold 300 books of my old Unicorn Jelly, all of them at cost, with no profit whatsoever. I'm not famous for this, not noticed for this, and not making money off of this. It's just my little latest news for my obscure comic, and nobody, nobody is going to link to it, digg it, or any other kind of acknowledgement of it. They haven't for the past six years, It is inconceivable that the latest little interview I do is going to suddenly tip the cosmic balance and get me my very first link. It's not going to happen.

Do you hear what I am saying here? If anyone links to that interview in my comic blog area, it will be the first link I have ever had specifically to it, in six years of running things.

If you have gotten even one link to your website, you have done better than my 'latest news' section in the entirety of its existence.

This is why you do sound like Donald Trump. I agree. You sound really possessive, really hard-ass, and are frankly, rather silly. If you are grasping, clutching at exclusivity with regard to an interview with a has-been, total failure game designer like me, under the assumption that it will make you ANY money at all, and acting like this even after I freely opened up to you all of my art regarding Boppin', and every other material I have put up, for you to use, just to be nice... I mean, seriously, do you hear yourself? Really, just stop and think about what you are saying here. You are coming at me like this was some big corporate NDA situation you must vigorously defend?

You have severe delusions of my adequacy and importance my friend, and, I offer, also of your own. This was all friendly stuff. We are very small potatoes here, very insignificant blips on the radar of life, and being clutching and grasping is not a pretty thing at this level. Not only is it utterly silly, but it also... really smacks of the neurotic and the petty. Can you not see that, if you really think about it?

I've been nothing but nice, nothing but helpful, right? I've never treated you in a business way one bit. I am not, nor do I intend to, deal with you in a business manner. This isn't business, this is just a friendly interview. Nowhere, before any of this began, did you indicate anything about it being 'business'. If I knew it was all money oriented, I would not have bothered to answer your questions at all. I wanted to be friendly, not a profit center. Don't treat me, or my stuff, as product. I'm not for sale, and I'm not here for you to make money off of, unless you intend to give me a sweet, sweet piece of the pie.

Your request is not merely unreasonable, it is out of line. I don't know whether to feel anger... or pity.

I will comply with your request the second I see your check, paying me for the interview. If this is all commerce with you, then you had better pay me.

Do you see the absurdity of this now? Please do, you seemed so very nice, before. You really did. You seemed like a nice person until this letter. I felt good about you. I really did.

I mean, you liked Go, and Dr. Who, and you weren't an asshat about my gender history, and your questions were pretty good, and you were polite. I liked that.

Listen: if you are going to go all grasping and Trump on someone, warn them before the interview. You have to do that. You can't come and act friendly, never mention money and commerce, and then suddenly turn all 'I gotta defend my interests' on them. That is misrepresentation, can't you see?

You really need to make it clear to people, before you get them to do things for you, just how clutching and grasping you intend to be, you need to make the difference between 'let's be nice friends' and 'this is hard-ass business' separate and clear. You failed to do that. You will inevitably piss folks off acting like that. You will make people mad at you, and then word will get around, and people won't want to do stuff for you. Is that understandable? Don't misrepresent your intentions. It just makes people angry... or hurt. And either is bad.

I am very, very sorry that your website is your only income. I dearly hope that you are exaggerating for effect. But if not, I really feel for you, your situation must be just desperate, which might explain your impolite actions here.

Listen, Let's just allow things to stand as they were understood from the beginning, which is that this whole thing is us being nice and friendly. You can still be free to use all the stuff I offered, including my responses to your interview. Why should I have to take that away, or demand that you do not publish it? I won't ask for money - so long as you make no demands of me, either. Just play nice, OK? You are not, I assure you, losing a damn thing from my using part of whatever finished interview you may put up in my stupid 'latest news'. According to my internal counters, only three people have even read it since I posted it. If you can make a profit off of three people, you let me know the secret, because I want some of that.

Sorry for going on so long, but I have gone through anger, disappointment, and a desire to try to educate you back into reason in the course of this response. In short, you are acting very neurotic and silly about this, and it rather bothered me. Don't be like that. You must be better than that, no matter how hard things are for you right now.

So, let's just let this go, right? If you intend purely business interactions with someone, then make that really clear up front, no more misrepresentation, OK? And if you do intend a purely business interaction, then be prepared to pay for what you get. The best thing to do, I think though, is just to play nice. Nice does not involve what you wrote to me, below. That wasn't nice at all. It was cold and hard.

So, here's the deal: if you want to be friendly instead of hard with me, then please, all my offers still stand, and everything is happy and good!

If you want to insist further on the terrible importance and value of our interview with regard to your financial bottom line, then please let me know, and I will send you my bill and rate card for interviews (print and radio), personal appearances, and use of copyrighted materials. I think we can come to an arrangement below the four figure mark. I can even have our attorney draw up a contract (or just use the boilerplate I have here), and one of my family is a registered notary republic, so that comes gratis.

Seriously... see how silly all of this is? It is silly. I'm silly, and you are silly, and your demand was silly too. Very silly.

Let's not let it be anything other than silly. Fair enough?

I did not need to read this tonight. Dammit. You seemed so nice.

Jennifer Diane Reitz
Accursed Toys Inc.

Jennifer, I'm sorry, but I don't see what I've done to warrant this kind of reaction. You were aware that you were doing an interview for my website, and it goes without saying that interviews are the property of the interviewer. John Passfield and Ken Silverman -- and probably others -- were kind enough to mention and link to their interviews on their websites without me asking them to, so that their fans could read and appreciate what they had to say. That's the level that these interviews occur at. Both of those gentlemen could charge a fee to be interviewed by, for instance, Electronic Gaming Monthly or Wired, since those companies are large, profitable organizations who use the interviews to increase readership through the sale of their magazines. They didn't ask me for compensation because they know that I operate a small, free website that operates at a loss and depends on donations. Their compensation is the opportunity to promote themselves and their work, and the traffic that my small website sends them. I've never had this discussion with anyone else because it's simply understood that interviews become the property of the interviewer, whether they're for the New York Times, Conan O'Brien, or Classic DOS Games.

You seem very focused on the concept of Classic DOS Games as a business, and I did my best to explain why it is so much more than that. It is a hobby, a passion, an otaku, a creative outlet, and an opportunity to improve my skills in web design, database management, forum management, and small business administration. Life is a learning experience, and we gain valuable experience from every project we attempt. Classic DOS Games is many things, and somewhere on that list (somewhere very near the bottom I expect), it is a small business. So is pasteldefender.com.

You say that no one is linking to your website, and I don't have access to your server logs to disprove that claim. Alexa shows 30 significant websites linking in, and Google shows 40. There are probably far greater numbers of links on forums and bulletin boards, and personal blogs. The numbers increase to 53 and 127 for Alexa and Google, respectively, for jenniverse.com. I'm not suggesting that you run your websites like a business or attributing capitalist motivations to your projects. I'm saying that "word of mouth" (in the form of links) -- from both your fans and foes -- brings traffic to your website just as it does to mine. That traffic doesn't bring significant revenue to either of us, but that's not really the point.

Jennifer, what bothers me is that you're making me out to be a villain for expecting what any reasonable person would: ownership of my copyrighted material. You're also suggesting that my motivation for interviewing you was purely business, which I took great pains to disprove. I created Classic DOS Games because I love DOS games, and every month thousands of people visit because they do, too. Some of them appreciate my efforts enough to donate money, which I greatly appreciate and desperately need. I think what I've asked is perfectly reasonable, and what anyone in my position would do. While no one can guarantee the generosity of any visitor, it is at least possible that the presence of the interview on your website will damage me financially, which I'm certain that you don't want to do. You also appear certain that the presence of the interview on your website will not benefit you in any way. If it might hurt me and can't hurt you, then why make a big deal out of this request? Is there a reason why it's so important to you to refuse, other than righteous indignation that some profiteer has tried to use your celebrity to enrich himself? That really isn't the case, Jennifer! I interviewed you in good faith, you consented in good faith, and we both got something out of it. What you get out of it is the gratitude of my visitors, increased awareness of your websites and webcomics, and a permanent link to jenniverse.com. What I get out of it is the right to be the exclusive location for the interview to be read. It's a good deal.

What I'm hearing is that you now feel taken advantage of, so you mentioned lawyers. While you can certainly waste a great deal of both of our money, I don't think that the law is on your side. You consented to be interviewed, and by doing so you abandoned your right to your responses to me. The law doesn't allow for a person to request compensation after the fact, any more than it allows you to deliver a pizza to someone's house that they haven't ordered and demand compensation. While it's true that we never discussed exclusive ownership of the material, for which I do apologize, ownership will default to me. You consented to be interviewed. I assumed that you would have no problem that, and I'm very sorry that you do. Nevertheless, title has passed to me. That's simply the way it works when you give an interview, and I'm sorry that it took you by surprise.

Once again, Jennifer, you're making me defend myself using very unflattering language. You've taken umbrage to the concept that I would want exclusive ownership of something that I have a right to. You've taken further offense to the idea that I might hope to earn revenue from your responses, which isn't even directly true. What I want, as any webmaster wants, is to provide quality content to my visitors in the hope of increasing traffic to the site. That isn't morally or ethically wrong! That's the way the internet works. When I have seen others be unfair to you, I reserved judgment and took the time to write questions that would let the world see the real you. I respected and admired the person I saw. I felt real friendship between us. I made a very small, perfectly reasonable request, and took great pains to explain why it was important -- and potentially harmful -- to me. It's such an easy request for you to grant. Should we lose our friendship over it? It wouldn't be unreasonable even if Classic DOS Games wasn't my only source of income, but for now it is. I don't think it's unreasonable, but even if it is, isn't it worth indulging me to do something that costs you nothing to make me happy? You've sold 30 books, and an average donation to my site is $20, so I submit and accept that neither of us stands to gain or lose very much over this issue. What we're in danger of losing is a more valuable currency: goodwill. I'm asking you nicely, Jennifer. Please don't dig in your heels. Please don't turn this into some moral conflict that you have to win to make a point. It's just a short interview. Anyone who would read it on the news page of Pastel Defender can follow the link to it on my website. It costs you nothing. It means something to me. It's not a big deal, and it's certainly not worth being stubborn about. Why make an enemy out of friend? Let's have peace and friendship between us, and goodwill between our websites. Let's just link to each other and be happy.

DOSGuy

Hello, DOSGuy.

You brought up the matter of money, and the matter of your reason for demanding exclusivity for the interview, I responded.

Just answer me this, OK?

1. An interview is a cooperative venture. In copyright terms, your questions are your property, and my answers are my property. Isn't it silly to demand, stridently, that you alone have ownership of our shared effort?

2. Nowhere did you state that this interview was going to be your professional property before we began. Why did you fail to mention this important detail?

3. Since you failed to make the interview a business matter at the start, why exactly am I expected to do anything you demand, now that you suddenly change the tone of the situation?

4. Why the hell can't we just share, huh? I'm already offering you more than the interview itself, just to be nice!

The reason I am not just obeying you is because I find all of this very rude. Very hard-ass here. I can't stand that. Why do you think I am no longer in the industry? I cannot abide people being hard-asses over insignificant crap. And this is insignificant - except, of course, for how abused I now feel. That is significant to me, at least.

You are fussing over a person's obscure diary, a 'latest comic news' personal blog, where I talk about my life to the very, very few that even give a damn. This is what you are being hard ass about. My online diary. This is a threat to you? A girl's diary?

I am appalled. That is why I am not just obeying you. I am appalled at your behavior over this. Do you understand? Appalled.

Answer my four questions, and if you can make a case beyond 'do what I say' or 'I own you', then I will listen.

Jennifer

1. An interview is always the exclusive property of the interviewing entity. I've tried to give relevant examples, such an interview appearing in Time magazine or an appearance on Larry King Live.

2. Since that's the case, I didn't expect it to be necessary to explain that it would be the case for our interview as well. It was never necessary in any of my other interviews. I will, of course, explain that prior to all future interviews, but the fact remains that it goes without saying.

3. Everything that any website does is "business", even if there's no money involved. You create a website hoping that people will go to it. You add content to give them a reason. That's "business": the business of running a website. I'm not talking about anything grander than that.

4. I explained that having the whole interview on your website would cause the interview to be linked to. You know as well as I do that people discuss you, both favorably and unfavorably, and link to your websites and forum threads. Maybe there won't be a lot of links to this interview, but if there are any, I don't want to lose them. But here's the brilliance of my proposed solution: we can both get traffic from the interview! You can post excerpts of the interview on your site which may cause people to visit. You can then link to the remainder of the interview on my site, and some of the people will follow it there. I'm proposing a solution whereby we can both get visitors, as opposed to the current situation where people will simply read the interview on your website and leave. Why should only one of our websites benefit when we both can?

You talk about your generosity with regards to allowing me to use screenshots and material from Boppin' to enhance the interview. We both know that limited use of screenshots is legal under "fair use" principles, and there are 39 screenshots of Boppin' on MobyGames (14 Amiga and 25 DOS), as well screenshots on independent review sites all over the internet. Screenshots for almost every game ever made appear on Wikipedia, which explains their rationale with the following "fair use" legal explanation:

"This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

* for identification and critical commentary on

* the computer or video game in question or
* the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
* on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Wikipedia:Non-free content."

I am, of course, not using either the interview or the screenshots to directly generate profit, so I'm probably legally entitled to include screenshots anyway, but I do appreciate you explicitly giving your consent. I accept your position that you are showing me generosity, but I ask you to accept my position that I am also showing generosity to you. I asked you to promote anything you wanted to promote in one of my questions, and the interview links to your website. Beyond that, I am granting you permission to place excerpts of the interview on your website even though I'm entitled to ask you to remove the entire interview. We are both being generous with our rights, and we can both derive benefit from the interview. I would call that win-win. Why isn't that a reasonable outcome?

Hello.

I'm tired of this. I consider you ethically and morally wrong on all points, but, I just don't want to feel bad dealing with this anymore. I have deleted all mention of you, the interview, and all links to your site that were part of my blog entry.

You may be the most petty man I have ever met, and I assure you, as a long time professional in the games industry, that is quite a statement.

Make certain that from now on, up front, before you interview anyone ever again, that you explicitly lay down the ground rules. I don't care what you imagine 'goes without saying'.

I... feel sorry for you. I hope you get well, soon.

Jennifer.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and I think you focused unduly on the word business. I hope that, if you are ever interviewed again, you'll ask about the arrangement before you begin so that you're not surprised. Interviews always belong to the interviewer, regardless of the industry. I'm sorry that you disagree with that, and found it so offensive when I made a very small request and insisted on the same treatment that any other organization would have asked for in my place. This was a difficult lesson for both of us. I will make the rules clear before every other interview I do in the future, and I advise you to do the same. Anyone who ever offers is going to insist on ownership. Now you know.