11 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I saw a topic on mudconnect that made me think of something. Would the diku licensing allow for administration to reward players with in-game bonuses/equipment/stat increases/whatever for effectively *voting* that particular mud into a position where the administration would receive a cash prize? For instance, SuperMudVoteContest.com decides to award a 100 dollar prize to the #1 ranked mud each month on their list. MudXYZ decides they want that 100 dollars so they offer players a Floppy Axe of Doom as a reward for voting for MudXYZ at SuperMudVoteContest.com. MudXYZ ends up being the number 1 mud for the month, and gets a 100 dollar prize. Did that administration effectively reward players with in-game material in exchange for 100 dollars?

DISCLAIMER
I am not involved in anything like the above nor do I know anyone that is. I am not at all familiar with Diku or it's
apparently confusing license. As far as I know, MudXYZ and SuperMudVoteContest.com are both made up. Don't
flame me or I will go home.
11 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
This is more of a legal question, not really a license question. And frankly I doubt that you will get a terribly useful answer without consulting a lawyer, and even then you'd likely have to go to court to get a real decision. I won't even try speculating as to the answer. :smile:
11 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Well, that's a tricky one. The admins of the game itself are not charging their players for access. The prizes are being given out just because people voted. The cash money to the #1 ranked MUD is paid by a 3rd party website who is not party to the license agreement, and is also not paying the prize as a condition for accessing or playing the game. If I were on a jury in a civil trial for this case, I'd be voting in favor of the defendant just based on what you've given me. Since I can't see burden of proof being made that the admins are providing in-game benefits for cash.
11 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson - I lean the same way actually. There seems to be a lot of different interpretations about the license though so I was curious as to what others would think. Something like that might very well come up in the community one day. =)

(Once again, I have absolutely nothing to do with Diku derived codebases. At all)
11 Aug, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The cash money to the #1 ranked MUD is paid by a 3rd party website

Chris Bailey didn't specify - it could well be that SuperMudVoteContest.com and MudXYZ are owned by the same person. What then?

Like most such questions it's a grey area that would depend on the specifics and require a court ruling to be sure. This whole thread smells of flamebait, to be honest.
11 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Well if the MUD is owned by the same person who runs the website (you're changing the scenario!!!) then they've got ethical problems already just because mysteriously the MUD's owner now holds the #1 vote spot.

But in that case, did the prize money ever change hands? Has the owner actually made anything? Or does this new scenario assume the website acted more like a corporation paying a salary to an individual?
11 Aug, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
This whole thread smells of flamebait, to be honest.


Hah, my initial reaction to seeing the title on the front page was "Oh god, not another!"

But based on the situation you've described, I'd think probably not. I tend to be pretty rigid in my interpretation of the license as well :p

One thing I would point to is how it seems acceptable to use the website to generate revenue (such as banner ads, selling merchandise, etc.) and so really, there doesn't seem to be a restriction on making money from anything related to the MUD, just from the MUD itself directly.

Would it be against the license to encourage your players to visit your website and get banner rotation from something like Google ads?

Really though, I think this entire thing is so murky, and so far from being able to give a definitive answer, it's probably not really even worth discussing with anyone who isn't well versed in the law.
11 Aug, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not changing the scenario, I'm just pointing out that this whole trollscenario is extremely vague and wide open to interpretation.

It wouldn't be the first mud voting website where the owner's mud holds the #1 vote spot, though…
11 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
The original scenario did not include details that the website owner was also the owner of the MUD.

Since CB didn't specify, you're asking about that does indeed change the scenario.

And maybe my troll detector is down, but I don't see this as being anything more than the usual legal question. Most of them are extremely vague and wide open to interpretation. That's why you need courts to get involved, and why I answered it through the eyes of myself being on the jury - because civil trials in the US tend to be jury driven and juries are asked to make the final decision based on their knowledge of the law and the evidence presented. Experts are not the ones making the actual decisions.
12 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir - I wasn't trying to troll in any way. I was simply curious about other peoples take on the hypothetical situation. In the scenario I envisioned the voting website was not owned by the mud administrator. Thank you for your input though guys. =)
12 Aug, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The original scenario did not include details that the website owner was also the owner of the MUD.

Precisely, that was my point - it simply didn't specify, so you can't assume either way. Perhaps they're the same person (although Chris Bailey has since clarified that that's not the case). Perhaps they're husband and wife. Perhaps they're business partners. Perhaps - as you suggested in your post - the website really is an unrelated third party.

To go back to the original post:
Chris Bailey said:
Did that administration effectively reward players with in-game material in exchange for 100 dollars?

Obviously they did, but that's not the real question. The question is whether said activity falls within the scope of the licence. And the answer is that it's a grey area - even more so than most licence questions.

The situation is basically this: The player performs an activity in exchange for in-game benefits, and the mud owner earns cash from that activity.

There are various websites where you can earn real money by writing and submitting articles. What if you provide your players with a list of articles you want written, and offer them 1 in-game credit for every cent you earn from their article once you've submitted it. You've basically turned your mud into a virtual sweatshop, but it's the same type of situation as described previously - you're rewarding players with in-game benefits in exchange for real money, it's just that the players aren't paying you directly.
0.0/11