20 Sep, 2009, Katiara wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, that would be me, not Kayle. As Davion has met both of us, he knows I have boobs. Kayle does not.

I don't consider any mud competition. I believe a MUD is built on its players and the way the staff work for the players. I am not even open.

Why was this posted? I felt injustice for people. I do understand that a mud needs to protect itself. I would never ask a mud to pull an area I built for them. However, I would like to be able to offer it to anyone else also. In fantasy muds, this is a big thing you know? To me, this reads as you can't offer your own area to be used by others thus taking away your own rights.

I didn't do this to bash his mud, it isn't even open anymore. However, it was said to a great builder about his own areas - "I don't want my areas on someone else's mud." Well, they aren't his.

I know everyone can come up with a reason for and against this but it really comes down to what is right. I feel it isn't right to take away someones right to something.
20 Sep, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
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.


And then you unagree.. honestly.
20 Sep, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Regardless of how 'unfair' you see it to be, and regardless of the fact that the game is now closed, it was horribly rude of you to make such a post in a public community defaming someone's reputation for something that is not very bad at all.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
At least under the license they still have those rights. They just agreed not to do anything with them.

I guess I don't get it. You have something, but cannot do anything with it, nor will you ever be able to do anything with it. I'm not seeing the difference?
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I guess I don't get it. You have something, but cannot do anything with it, nor will you ever be able to do anything with it. I'm not seeing the difference?

I'd rather have a copy of my work, and not be allowed to do anything with it, then not have it, and have to watch someone do whatever they want with it.

I have an enormous amount of respect for builders. They put hours and hours of work into something (not unlike coders) and maybe I'm alone here, but I like to show that respect by giving them a copy of their area, even if they might not be able to use it anywhere else via an agreement between me and the builder, or because of file format differences. Because it's horribly unfair to ask someone to dedicate hours of their life to crafting something and then give them nothing to show for it. As a coder, I don't really have to worry about this, because my work is protected by copyright, not just Intellectual Property rights. Builders don't have that same luxury, and I guess I just find it a little unfair that we have that extra layer of protection that they don't. So when they get shafted by some inane clause in a hidden section of some rules, I tend to take offense to that, even if I'm not directly affected by it. Maybe I'm an Idealist. But I think that /that/ is what's bullshit.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Why do you think that builders don't have copyright?

I think the problem here is that the clause is "hidden", not so much the contents of the clause itself.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Do they have copyright? And if so, doesn't that supersede any rules we make anyway?
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, why wouldn't they? In any case, copyright isn't inviolate: you can still sign away copyright. In fact, that happens very regularly in several industries.

So even if I have copyright, if I sign a deal with you saying that I transfer my rights to you, I don't have that copyright anymore – because I gave it to you.
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm. Learn something new everyday. Didn't know copyright protected an area as well. I thought they only fell under IP laws.
20 Sep, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Hmm. Learn something new everyday. Didn't know copyright protected an area as well. I thought they only fell under IP laws.

And you seemingly ignored the more salient part about copyright being signed away…
20 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Didn't ignore it. I knew copyright could be signed away.
20 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Copyright covers more or less everything you write. It's hard to define setting stats of a mob as "writing" or otherwise "creating", but certainly area descriptions would be completely covered.
20 Sep, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Do they have copyright? And if so, doesn't that supersede any rules we make anyway?

Any original creative work that is set in a fixed medium in the USA is considered to be the property of the creator, and they own the Copyright.

They can license their work any way they want (within legal reason).

Transfer of Copyright is a bit different then licensing, and many places do it by a "Work made for Hire" approach. If a creator receives consideration for doing their work (eg. working for someone and getting paid by them to produce content) they are often not the owner of the copyright, but instead the person providing the consideration is the owner. This is still usually set out in contract form beforehand.
20 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus beat me to it, but yes.

The builder owns the copyright.

That copyright cannot be transferred to someone else without either a work for hire agreement or a signed transfer form. I suspect neither of which Banner is getting from the builders he hired.

@Zenn: I'm not a rival to him and I think the policy is reprehensible. If that's bashing, then so be it.
20 Sep, 2009, Zeno wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
@Zenn: I'm not a rival to him and I think the policy is reprehensible. If that's bashing, then so be it.

Seconded.

I think a policy along the lines of "won't remove your area after something comes up and you get angry, demanding it be removed" is fine but wording it in a way that it seems to say you own their IP of the area too is too far.
20 Sep, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Has this not been discussed before(somwhat recently), by our own neighborhood armchair lawyers?

Someone brought up the example of programmers working for companies. If you program something for, say, Google, it's Google's code, not yours.
20 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
Has this not been discussed before(somwhat recently), by our own neighborhood armchair lawyers?

Someone brought up the example of programmers working for companies. If you program something for, say, Google, it's Google's code, not yours.


It has, and in the case of working for companies, there are signed and notarized legal documents on file to back up the work for hire claim. That's standard practice.

What isn't standard practice is a bunch of people getting together as hobbyists to create something and then one of them going "oh by the way, all this stuff belongs to me now and you can't have copies of it." Or, if it is standard practice, it's a rather disturbing trend that makes me glad I'm not involved in that side of things anymore.

In the case of SW MUDs it would be rather interesting to see what Lucas has to say about the idea that someone creating a derived work with Star Wars content is claiming things as copyrighted to him.
20 Sep, 2009, Dean wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
One would imagine Lucas would want to squish him like a bug. :lol:
20 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
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.


http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license....

"A transfer of one of these rights may be made on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. The transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement."
20 Sep, 2009, Asylumius wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Mabus said:
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.


http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license....

"A transfer of one of these rights may be made on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. The transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement."


FWIW, that sounds like less than an official notarized contract. A napkin would probably do, as long as the signatures are valid.

Either way, this guy obviously didn't have that.
40.0/115