21 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
This is not dissimilar to how the "big boys" do it. Many games use an approach quite the same.

They do, but for non-exclusive rights (and often as part of a contract, which requires consideration). I'd certainly be interested to see how any of the big games handle exclusive rights within their terms of service.
21 Sep, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
They do, but for non-exclusive rights (and often as part of a contract, which requires consideration). I'd certainly be interested to see how any of the big games handle exclusive rights within their terms of service.

This looks pretty "exclusive":

World of Warcraft - Terms of Service
Quote
Ownership.
All rights and title in and to the Service (including without limitation any user accounts, titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialogue, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, "applets" incorporated into the Game Client, transcripts of the chat rooms, character profile information, recordings of games played using the Game Client, and the Game Client and server software) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors. The Game and the Service are protected by United States and international laws, and may contain certain licensed materials in which Blizzard's licensors may enforce their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.


They state they even own the character names and chat room logs.

How about this:

Eve Online - EULA
Quote
You hereby irrevocably and without additional consideration beyond the rights granted to you herein, assign to CCP any and all right, title and interest you have, including copyrights, in or to any and all information you exchange, transmit or upload to the System or while playing the Game, including without limitation all files, data and information comprising or manifesting corporations, groups, titles, characters and other attributes of your Account, together with all objects and items acquired or developed by, or delivered by or to characters, in your Account. To the extent that any such rights are not assignable, you hereby grant CCP an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, assignable, royalty-free license, fully sublicensable through multiple tiers, to exercise all intellectual property and other rights, in and to all or any part of such information, in any medium now known or hereafter developed. The foregoing assignment and license in this paragraph shall not include User Content (defined below).

And:
Quote
You hereby grant CCP an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, assignable, royalty-free license, fully sublicensable through multiple tiers, to exercise all intellectual property and other rights, in and to all or any part of your User Content, in any medium now known or hereafter developed.


So it seems either these two companies, and many others, are in violation of the law or licensing of rights can be done through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements.

I believe it is the latter.
21 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
Typically such games have a more explicit agreement, though, such as actually checking a box acknowledging that you read and agree to the ToS. This is different from merely stating somewhere in the game that if you play you have agreed to xyz. Whether or not this difference means anything in court is up to the courts to decide.
21 Sep, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, all, I think the point of this post has been made.

Builders need to be more aware of building areas on muds becuase you need to first read their agreements carefully, and keep copies of your areas that you create.

As a mud owner if a person asks for their .are file, I will give it to them. I don't need to state law cases or whatever. I think most admins are going to be like this, and if they are not, then they are upfront about what they intend to do.

People just go around in circles in these threads and nothing is ever accomplished. That's how this site has been for the last 6 to 9 months. So many posts just delve into who can argue the best. Let this thread now die in peace.

<Forest Gump>And that's all I have to say about that.</Forest Gump>
21 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
So it seems either these two companies, and many others, are in violation of the law or licensing of rights can be done through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements.

More likely they're hedging their bets (also note the whole "If any part of the EULA is held invalid or unenforceable…" disclaimer). These would also be most likely treated as contracts, as I mentioned in my previous post, as there is consideration. Still interesting reading though.

Note that 'character names' don't fall under copyright law anyway, so I'm not quite sure what sort of ownership they're trying to claim. The 'transcripts of the chat rooms' is more valid to this thread, but could be meant as a compilation (in which case the copyright wouldn't extend to the individual parts).
21 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
The court moves to remove the people that attended the mudmeet as witnesses on the grounds that they were all drunk, the entirety of the event. :lol:


Not the /whole/ time. There was time in the morning in transit to the bars where no one was drunk yet. Hungover maybe, but not drunk yet.
21 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
There was time in the morning in transit to the bars

Well, some people were transiting more in the afternoon than the morning… not that I'll name any names or anything. :wink:
21 Sep, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
This is not dissimilar to how the "big boys" do it. Many games use an approach quite the same. We do it merely for the "CYOA" situations.


Sure, but can you post an example of the "big boys" using the mechanism to request "exclusive" rights, as opposed to "non-exclusive" rights.?

Note Skotos and Achaea surely don't as I've shown. Maybe you mean bigger like…
Second Life said:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab: (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service,


OBEdit:
Sorry I didn't realize we had a second page and you posted an example.
21 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Quote
There was time in the morning in transit to the bars

Well, some people were transiting more in the afternoon than the morning… not that I'll name any names or anything. :wink:


Lol. Yeah, some people missed lunch and had to have a nasty artichoke dip. :P

[Edit:] To correct the dip type.
21 Sep, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
EVE Online is based in Iceland…
However, it doesn't apply to user created content anyway…
Quote
To the extent that any such rights are not assignable, you hereby grant CCP an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, assignable, royalty-free license, fully sublicensable through multiple tiers, to exercise all intellectual property and other rights, in and to all or any part of such information, in any medium now known or hereafter developed. The foregoing assignment and license in this paragraph shall not include User Content (defined below).

C. User Content


WoW doesn't really allow user created content either, except for chat.
21 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
To the extent that any such rights are not assignable, you hereby grant CCP an (…) assignable (…) license

Wait, what?
21 Sep, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Quote
To the extent that any such rights are not assignable, you hereby grant CCP an (…) assignable (…) license

Wait, what?


Assignable copyrights versus assignable license.
21 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh. I wasn't sure what the context was in that quote; that clears things up.
21 Sep, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Oh. I wasn't sure what the context was in that quote; that clears things up.


There is a fundamental difference in the games, WoW and EveOnline, versus SecondLife, Achaea, and Skotos (Castle Marrach, Eternal City).
You former only allow users to post messages, maybe create a title, etc.
The latter games allow users to create and introduce significant content of their own creation into the game.
21 Sep, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
There is a fundamental difference in the games, WoW and EveOnline, versus SecondLife, Achaea, and Skotos (Castle Marrach, Eternal City).
You former only allow users to post messages, maybe create a title, etc.
The latter games allow users to create and introduce significant content of their own creation into the game.

We don't have any "builders" we do have player generated content. Players are able to construct their own housing estates and customise them if they wish. While essentially private in nature they do become part of the game world and are covered by our general terms of service, in particular:
Quote
By submitting Content to the Company for inclusion on the Service, you grant the Company a world-wide, royalty-free, irrevocable and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the Service.

We don't ask for exclusivity because we don't require it (I don't care if someone wants to use their content on another MUD or forum or whatever) and as a principle I think that content creators shouldn't be asked to give up more rights than are strictly necessary for maintaining the game. We also don't include a provision for reassigning the license (though perhaps legally we should) and also specify some limits as to what we can use the licensed content for.
100.0/115