This is almost exactly what I was going to post, but I clicked the forward button and lost all my text in my clipboard.

I hope your not trying to steal my work by re-writing each paragraph so that you now can call it an original work :)

That is incorrect. While it would be kosher and probably good form to credit them for inspiration, it's not legally required.



In the case you listed above, you're absolutely correct about it being a derived work, but not derived as defined by copyright law (see our earlier posts on this; don't rehash it again :P).



This is incorrect as well. There's no clear line between what "starting with someone else's work" includes and excludes. If you start with a blank source file, but have ROM open in another window is that starting with someone else's work? Yes. What about if it's on another computer? Yes. How about printed out? Yes. How about in your short-term memory from looking back and forth? Yes. How about bits and pieces that you remember from years ago? Yes.

Of course not. That would be unethical. :wink:

I am hereby exercising my right to copyright all my previously written text. No persons shall reproduce, copy, dissect, enhance, extend, rewrite, translate, distribute or modify in any fashion the whole, or any part of, said text without explicit written permission. In which case a written permission is granted, it too will then also become copyrighted. No persons shall quote, or misquote, my copyrighted text without explicit written permission. Any persons engaging in such an act will be in violation of copyright law.

With that said, explicit written permission is hereby granted to the Administrators of MUDBytes.
©2008

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A perfect example of completely rotten legal advice. You're going to get someone into trouble some day and won't you be surprised when they decide to get back at you by naming you as the reason they though it was perfectly ok to pull a Medthievia defense.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Not only is it impossible to get in trouble for creating 100% unique, original work, but it's also impossible for me to get in any form of trouble based on anything I've said on this thread.

Feel free to forward the entire conversation to your local law enforcement, though, if you're feeling particularly froggy.

*creates 100% unique, original nuclear warhead, then waits for bush to storm in :D*

Its very correct and i will give an example, A screen play is a total 100% re-write of a novel, poem, real life even or other written work. And you CANNOT write a screen play based on a novel without a license to do so. Code is governed by the exact same laws, you cannot therefor open a copy of ROM in one window and start to write a mud based on it without infringing on its copyright. The ideas, structures, algorithms, functions, methods and design used in ROM are equivalent to the people, places and plot in a novel.

The fact that you can do that and get away with it, does not make it any less legal and IMO anyone who would open a copy of someone elses code with the intent to plagiarize the concepts and ideas is someone of very low morals and without much creativity.

When i am stuck with a problem, i often look at how others solved the problem, i have 20 or more codebases on my computer just for when i get stuck. And while i might look at how they achieved something, i do not copy what they have done, nor do i go in for a cut and paste. Everyone is entitled to use whatever the like for inspiration, but i will say it again, you cannot re-write someone else's work 100% and call it original, it will always be a derived work or a copy of it.

We've given drrck examples, we've given him legal articles and we've given him court cases, all of which prove his claims wrong, but he simply refuses to accept the facts. As I said in an earlier post, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The guy's a menace to any unsuspecting newbies who might read his posts and take them at face value.

:stare:

A screen play based on a novel is quite obviously not a 100% unique, original work.

A mud based on a codebase is quite obviously not a 100% unique, original work.

Good luck with that horribly flawed line of reasoning, and do remember I said if you get named in a lawsuit someday not to be surprised. I never said I was about to call the FBI to come get you. Your advice to people is morally bankrupt at best, and legally dangerous at worst. The evidence and case law does not support your position no matter how much you might want it to.

Agreed.

If you witness me breaking the law, you have a legal obligation to report it or you can be held accountable and prosecuted as well.

Also, none of the cases cited here disprove my position, no matter how much you might like them to.

You must be living on the anti-Earth or something then since you seem to believe that the opposite of reality is actually reality. To each his own I suppose.

So then, if your using a mud, even 'changing' it 100% which doesnt necessitate it being 100% original per se,
you agree it is based on something else. That by itself would make it a derivative, and bound as a derivative.

Your trying to claim allot of things, and without any backing, or legal precedence call people wrong,
or tell them they have no idea what they are talking about. Thats fairly interesting considering they
have cited actual cases, that speficially list relevance.

Your logic is pretty far out there, and you even just admitted you would still be a non unique nor
original codebase, being from another.

So, established codebase -> 100% edit of code, which going back to KaVirs filtration process doesnt
even remotely mean it would pass this == 100% original, unique work?

How, exactly, do you arrive at that conclusion? Secondly, why even start with a codebase in the first place?

I know this has been done to death, but I simply cannot fathom how you claim to know better then these people
when you cannot grasp simple logic. For your code to be considered 100% original and unique you need to jump
through a hell of allot of hoops.

The end product is NOT the key here, it doesnt matter if you create that tic tac toe game off of DikuMUD, and
then try to assume its some new game not legally bound by the DikuMUD terms. Unless you can prove that beyond
fair use, and common practice means, everything else is not similar to a DikuMUD system. That means everything
internal and by look and feel.

Seriously.. You used an iPod example I believe earlier, its not as simple as just etching and the example doesnt even
remotely fit compared to what you are claiming is possible.

If I take a copy of Ultima Online, created a server with it, and 'changed' everything 100% so its entirely a space sci-fi
sim that doesnt mean the code and systems used therein are 100% unique and original. Chances are, as KaVir
has pointed out for the nth time, that these systems would still match a filtration and I would be called on infringing.

That I added a custom character to each line of code, or change a variable name on each line doesnt mean its 100% original,
simply that I changed a variable or put a customer character in. The systems and overall design (look/feel) could easily
still match up.

-Syn

Also agreed; however, if your code is 100% original and unique, not just 100% changed, then you have nothing to worry about because anything that is 100% original (by definition) is not a derivation. And since I'm a soothsayer, I can already see that someone is going to come back with another translation analogy, to which I'll have to point out that translations are not 100% original, blah blah blah.



From what I remember, there have been only two unique cited cases on this thread. Neither of them were prosecuting works which were 100% original (hence the verdicts), and only one of them was prosecuting a work which was 100% changed (and was originally found innocent of infringement).



I can barely understand most of this. I'd appreciate it if you rephrased it in sentence structure.

As for why start with a codebase in the first place: because most hobby MUD enthusiasts don't have the luxury of a development team. Simply put: it's easier. It would be even easier still just to rip it, but that's crossing the line.



None of these people "know better" than I do. They each have their own opinions, the same as I do, and we're all entitled to them. Some of them have forgotten that, though, and act quite immature as a result.



This is just outright incorrect. Copyright law only protects the end product, not the method of creation; so yes, it is the key.



You're right, it doesn't; but if they aren't 100% unique and original, then you're infringing, and you're talking about a situation which I don't condone.



Agreed again, but you're not arguing against me - you're saying the same thing I have been.

It's certainly possible to have a translation where the words are 100% original and unique. But copyright protects more than simply "words" or "code". Of course this has already been explained to you, repeatedly, with references to court cases…



It protects each and every product.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/t...

"When the first segment of code is rewritten, the new code will be an infringing work if it is substantially similar to the original code, or may be an infringing derivative work if it is a reimplementation in a different programming language. That reimplemented first segment is combined with the remaining parts of the original program to form an intermediate version. Subsequent modifications produce another work. So when you have completed the piecewise reimplementation, you have a set of works, each of whose creation infringes the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright of the original program."