20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
It's not entirely unreasonable to have an irrevocable license to reproduce be part of the agreement between MUD and builder, nor is it that terrible to have said license also be exclusive. That said, the problems here are really something else, and the license is just icing on the cake, judging from information available to me at present.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
It's not entirely unreasonable to have an irrevocable license to reproduce be part of the agreement between MUD and builder, nor is it that terrible to have said license also be exclusive. That said, the problems here are really something else, and the license is just icing on the cake, judging from information available to me at present.


I have no problems with exclusive rights to use an area. I have issues with claiming that an area built by someone else is not their intellectual property but your own.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Well, that's not so uncommon, is all that I'm saying. People sign away IP all the time, although usually money is involved. Furthermore, the practical difference between giving a MUD exclusive license to use an area forever, and giving them the IP, is rather small.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
I'd never ask a builder to grant me exclusive rights to an area, or to sign over their intellectual property rights. Only thing I'd ask is for a non-revocable right to use the area. Especially if the area was a core part of the game world. And I'd never not provide a copy of an area to it's author. It's just not right. They put a lot of time, effort, and thought into it. It's theirs. They deserve a copy to use as they see fit.

[Edit:] Forgot a word. :P
20 Sep, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
I'd never ask a builder to grant me exclusive rights to an area, or to sign over their intellectual property rights. Only thing I'd ask is for a non-revocable right to use the area.

That is up to each game. It should be available before a person chooses to provide content, at which point it is up to them to decide if they want to continue.

From our game's Terms of Service:
Quote
All content created by user while using services of ToC gives a non-revocable exclusive license by user to ToC and is done without compensation for the content generated by the user. User agrees and acknowledges that ToC can use, modify or delete this content without liability or notification.

Simple, to the point and legal.

Our builders (and other content providers) follow pretty much the same. We have never denied anyone a copy of their work, but I cannot remember anyone ever asking for a copy.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
What would they be able to do, out of curiosity, with this copy, considering that the license granted was exclusive? I suppose they could keep it on their hard drive to admire, but would you allow other things?
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
That's not even close to the rule in the initial post. You're using a non-revocable exclusive license. Banner was simply claiming IP Rights because it was built on his mud. And as I just found out, denied someone a copy of their work, who had put well over 3 months of work into the work in progress area they had, and a lot more than that into the 2 completed areas that they'd built as well.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
What practical difference is there, though, between IP rights and an exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable license? It's not like you could do anything with the work anyhow. There is a difference of principle but at present I'm not seeing one of practice.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
It's the principal of the thing mainly. It feels downright underhanded to just claim someone's rights to their work. At least under the license they still have those rights. They just agreed not to do anything with them.
20 Sep, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
I also see no issues with claiming exclusive rights to someone else's intellectual work if it was part of the original agreement. That is fairly standard practice - for instance, publishing houses typically own the rights to authors' novels. That's about the closest parallel to this scenario. The only difference is in whether the author keeps a copy. With a novel, if the author failed to keep the original manuscript, he or she would have to go out and purchase a copy of the finished product from the publishing house just like any one else. With a MUD, if the author failed to keep the original area he or she built, then it is his or her own fault for not doing so. The argument about the intellectual work being entered via an online creation tool and stored in an inaccessible format, thus making it impossible for the author to directly obtain a finished copy, is invalid. That argument assumes the author has any claim to the format in which the intellectual work is stored. The format is proprietary and owned by the administrator of the game. The author's intellectual property is limited merely to the characters and sequence entered into the online creation tool. Those can be maintained by the author, and are all that can be rightfully claimed. However, as David pointed out, what good does having any copy of this intellectual work do if someone else owns the exclusive rights to it?
20 Sep, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Don't you just love the fact that everyone here bashing Banner is from a rival game?

I had the same basic policy. My only condition was that you got a copy if the game closed.

It's really not that horrid, nor is it as rare as you think. I've been shafted by more than one builder in the past, and that's why _I_ had such a rule.

Banner probably is the same way.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
Don't you just love the fact that everyone here bashing Banner is from a rival game?


Actually, I wasn't "bashing" Banner. And I certainly wasn't doing it as a rivel. SW:TSW isn't even open. Can't be a rival. I was actually discussing this as a former staff member.
20 Sep, 2009, Scoyn wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
I know some people are bashing Banner, and others aren't. And some are curious, and some have run into this problem before. But in regards to Banner, I just have this to say: Leave the poor guy alone. It's not his fault he's young and thinking with the wrong head. He can't control it. >.>
20 Sep, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
I see..

So the fact that you also run a Star Wars game did not influence your decision to post one of his rules, hyping it up needlessly to make it sound horrible? A fairly common one (if just a tad different) at that?
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Nope.

I wasn't going to contest his policies while his mud was open. Since he closed it, that failed to matter. And I don't run a Star Wars game. I code on one. I run a Medieval Fantasy MUD.
20 Sep, 2009, Davion wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
I see..

So the fact that you also run a Star Wars game did not influence your decision to post one of his rules, hyping it up needlessly to make it sound horrible? A fairly common one (if just a tad different) at that?


It wasn't Kayle who posted it…

Btw, this is beating a dead horse. What exactly is the point of warning builders of a MUD that doesn't exist? Sounds more like gloating to me.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
It just dawned on me.

The reason this is so common among star wars muds apparently, is because they're so isolated from each other. There's no cooperation. I guess the main issue I have with this is because I run a Medieval Fantasy MUD, and for the most part have always played on them, where this sort of thing isn't common. Because we're not afraid of competition. Because most Fantasy MUD owners are aware of the fact if your mud is fun and interesting, people will stay, no matter what kind of content you have, and whether they've seen it a hundred other places.
20 Sep, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Katiara said:
Katiara the Awesome
Owner
Star Wars: The Sith Wars
{Open-ish Alpha - Info on website}
IMC Contact: Katiara@SWTSW


You see my point now, Davion.
20 Sep, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Seems kinda BS to me to pull out a perfectly legit policy and beat some guy up on it. You're not forced to accept those rules, you choose to when you choose to build for it. Kinda disgusted that this has been brought up in such a negative tone.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
You see my point now, Davion.


I still don't.


kiasyn said:
Seems kinda BS to me to pull out a perfectly legit policy and beat some guy up on it. You're not forced to accept those rules, you choose to when you choose to build for it. Kinda disgusted that this has been brought up in such a negative tone.

Not really, You agree to build and then you find out about that little bit of policy.
20.0/115