Whether or not they are patentable is irrelevant, as everyone has made it abundantly clear that we're only discussing copyright infringement here. In this context, the concept/function behind send_to_char() is not copyrightable. The expression of it (read: the source) IS, however - with that I don't disagree; but then, that source would not exist in a uniquely authored work of your own.

Again, if you could refrain from turning the discussion personal, that would be mature of you.

If you create a program utilizing the suggested method I gave in my original post, you would indeed pass this so-called abstraction/filtration/comparison test. After filtering the original code, everything left protectable would not exist in the new game, and thus there would be no legal leg to stand on.



Yes, you listed six but only gave an example of one (user interfaces), to which I responded.



For the 234534th (approximation) time, I said that all game-specific algorithms would have to be removed or replaced. That removes the possibility of the vast majority of your so-called "non-literal elements" remaining in the new code. Good luck prosecuting simply based on "overall program structure", and data structures are dictated by efficiency considerations (to think otherwise is asinine), as are many other conceptual design elements that would most likely make up for the remaining "non-literal elements".



You keep saying this, but I've been asking for an example for days now and you haven't obliged, save to give me the same vague legal terms over and over. If you want to make any progress on this point, provide a MUD specific example of a non-literal element that will remain after filtration, and we can continue from there. If you can't provide even one such example, then I'm inclined to believe that you're arguing theory rather than practicality, and that's just not enough when it comes to any area of law.



Of course it does. Uniqueness is the basis for copyright infringement. A unique work is safe from prosecution, while a derived work is infringing on its derivative.

In your original post you talked about "modifying an existing [game] to the point that all of the code is your own", claiming that if "100% of the code is genuinely your own, then you're OK". The rest of your statements revolve around disagreeing with legal articles and court case decisions and inventing your own legal terms, and are nothing but obfuscation, evasion and backtracking from the real issue, which is simply this: Your claim has been tested in court and been proven false; copyright extends beyond the literal code.

If you want to infringe copyrighted works, then we can't stop you, but (1) don't make excuses to try and justify your actions (because we already know it's illegal, and we're not going to tell you that it's okay), and (2) stop telling other people that it's legal (because they could end up in court if they follow your ignorant advice).

Actually, the "real issue" was whether or not it's legal to modify a MUD until it is a completely unique work. All of the other tangents I've just been responding to as they pop up. You accuse me of evasion and backtracking, but I notice this is the….hmm…4th? post that you've blatantly ignored my prompt for a MUD specific example of non-literal elements that won't be filtered out by your precious abstraction/filtration/comparison test.



Considering the fact that I've never published a MUD (only coded on existing MUDs and worked silently on a pet project - from scratch), I find your unfounded accusations extremely petty and frankly, quite pathetic.

If you want to debate like a grown-up, let me know; until then, I'm done with you.

Does that mean you withdraw your earlier claim about modifying the code, then?

Regardless, I quoted a legal article which covered the second issue as well: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/t...

"Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation."



No, I've given you the examples several times - but like anything else inconvenient to your argument, you just keep ignoring them (well technically you responded the first time to claim the examples weren't valid, so then I cited a case which stated they were, and after that you ignored the examples). To requote myself yet again, "Within the context of muds, non-literal elements might (or might not, depending on the specific case) include such factors as the program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interfaces."

And to (yet again) requote the article from Digital Law Online, "While it seems simple to describe the abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis, the devil is in the details. The abstraction can result in the comparing of hundreds or thousands of different aspects of a computer program if one is not careful … Having performed a thorough examination of the defendant’s code to evaluate the extent of copying, if any, the plaintiff’s technical expert can then prepare a well-focused set of exhibits describing the relevant portions of the plaintiff’s code at multiple levels of abstraction … The court will now have before it a set of exhibits describing a carefully selected portion of the plaintiff’s code, which the plaintiff claims is both protected and infringed. It is now in a position to evaluate the first of these claims independent of the second … After the filtration is complete, the court should require the plaintiff to augment its exhibits with specific references to the defendant’s code, indicating the exact lines of the defendant’s code that it alleges are copied from the plaintiff’s software. (Even where the plaintiff alleges non-literal copying, the plaintiff should be able to cite specific lines of the defendant’s program that embody the non-literal element(s) allegedly copied.)"

See my earlier post for an exact breakdown of the elements that are filtered out - or read the article yourself: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/t...

You all realize, right, that you really are literally going in circles… So many paragraphs are starting with "yet again", "to quote myself again", "for the xth time", "I already said", etc… Is this really necessary? Personally, if you will forgive yet another repetition, I think that the astounding fact that all but one person agree on a legal issue speaks volumes… more volumes than would be created by stating the same things over and over again, in any case. :wink:

I'm with David on this one, some people just can't admit defeat, obviously this is a prime example.

No, and frankly I don't see where that conclusion came from. I just pointed out the main issue that we began arguing about.



I asked for a specific example of what you thought would remain that wouldn't be discarded after filtration after removing all game-specific algorithms and replacing or removing all original code. You obviously feel that there's no possible way to begin with an existing codebase and end up with a unique, uninfringing work, so I'm asking for proof. You quoting me sources about "what may or may not apply depending on specific cases or contexts" is quite obviously generalization (something you criticized me for, no?) and definitely not answering the question. The fact that you refuse to believe in the possibility of creating an uninfringing work inspired by another is also rather ironic to me, considering how much you seem to like to emphasize that IP law is not black and white.



I read the article. It doesn't change the fact that, if you're careful, you can create a work that does not copy any parts of the original work, literal or not. In fact, depending on what kind of end product you produce, you might not even have to be careful. If I begin from ROM and edit each line of code until I have a single player tic-tac-toe game, the odds that I've infringed are… zero. Now scale back this example closer and closer to what ROM is, and at some point along the way, you'll find the happy medium that exists between originality and legality.

Agree on the repetition. Completely disagree on letting popular opinion dictate decisions. I'd hate to see what the world would be like right now if everyone who ever had a majority of people disagree with him/her gave up and hopped on the bandwagon.

I completely agree.

Funny, but that's just like how Congress works, you know.. the people that make the laws.

Actually, it's not. If you have a congressman/woman who votes a particular way just because everyone else around him/her is voting that way, rather than because he/she supports the particular motion, then you ought to be spending your time writing complaint letters to your government, not posts on a MUD thread ;)

Yeah, congressmen don't vote on things that the voters want them to vote on (aka: popular opinion.) Yeah, ok…

I'm sticking a fork in this thread and smothering it with A-1.

While uninformed voters who only vote a particular way because of their friends/family/whatever are certainly out there, you're making quite a liberal (and ignorant, in my opinion) assumption to say that they comprise the "majority".

Hey, look. Here's me not responding.

I think we've reached the end of any useful argument. drrck refuses to be convinced, we obviously can't force the issue, so there's little point in wasting the time trying now. With stacks and stacks of legal opinions and case law from software cases on our side, we should just walk away secure in the knowledge that we know our copyrights from our patents from our trademarks. It's his legal bill, not ours.

You're right. That's why high-profile, blatantly obvious copyright infringements like Medievia haven't and never will be prosecuted. All of your hypothetical case law precedence and stacks and stacks of legal opinions amount to a hill of beans when it comes down to real life situations. If even the worst of the worst are safe from the law, I severely doubt anyone who actively tries to create original software without infringing has anything to worry about, regardless of either of our opinions on the matter.

And for the record, arguing against my opinion on the topic is one thing; accusing me of copyright infringement, when you have no fathomable idea what I have or haven't coded, is quite pathetic (as I've already had to explain to KaVir).

Hold on there. I sure as hell wasn't attempting to justify a Methievia defense by saying it's your legal bill to foot. And just because Hans and the others haven't pursued it yet doesn't mean that Vryce is safe from the law either. So all of those case law precedents that have been mentioned, cited, and backed up by multiple sources, WILL come into play should Mikey ever find himself on the receiving end of a summons to appear in federal court for copyright infringement. The DikuMUD team's inaction doesn't make any of it right, nor does it make it OK for someone else to come along and pull the same thing and point to Methievia as their justification.

Ah, but he is safe; safe because they haven't the means to build a case that would hold any weight in court, and also because the cost of such a prosecution far outweighs any benefits that it would reap.

That said, I would in no way condone taking advantage of this fact, but it stands to reason that anyone actively trying to create a unique work is going to be safe from prosecution either way, and it's up to them to personally decide what constitutes right and wrong as it relates to infringement.

Back in circles again, as I said, there's been plenty of stuff cited and confirmed that would hold lots of weight in court. We can't help it if you refuse to see that for whatever reason. You're advocating a dangerous path for anyone who follows your advice. Put simply, they'd be fools to do so. You're going against everything the case law and precedents on the books already say on the matter.