09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Civil courts, even when deciding tort cases, still base their decisions on laws and statutes (and legal precedent etc.). But, even assuming that you are completely correct, if in the end of the day you are deemed to be in the wrong by a court of law and must shut down and/or pay damages, I'm not really sure what practical effect the distinction carries.
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Greyankh said:
As previously stated, there are many, many, muds out there that I believe do not have permission. The Wheel of Time genre, DragonBall Z, and a load of others.

Some have permission, some don't. Those that don't run the risk of being shut down by the copyright holders. The question is, are you willing to take that risk as well?

I suppose if getting shutdown was your main risk, then I say go for it. There are tons of muds that step on the toes
of copyrights. I suppose the main question, is: Has any mud ever been shutdown, or it's staff sued in the history
of mudding?
09 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
I suppose if getting shutdown was your main risk, then I say go for it.

So you don't see a problem with being forced to shut down the mud after investing thousands of hours working on it?

And yes, some copyright holders actively persue muds based on their work.
09 Dec, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
WizardofTheCoastlawyer logs in.

>yell you're violating copyright laws! Shut it down!

Sorry, you'll have to level first due to spammers.

>mutter
WizardofTheCoastlawyer mutters angrily.

>say Fuck it, I quit!;quit
09 Dec, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
So you don't see a problem with being forced to shut down the mud after investing thousands of hours working on it?

Of course that would be horrible, but it just doesn't seem likely to happen. Also, I was only saying that if you were not at the risk of being sued, then wasted time isn't as much of a risk. There are Tolkien based muds that have
large player bases, that have been around for a long time.
09 Dec, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Are there many examples of MUDs being 'forced' to shut down? I can understand that a MUD owner would shut down his game after a threatening email, but I wouldn't call that force.
09 Dec, 2009, Mudder wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
It would be very easy to simply re-open under a different name too.

EDIT: I would imagine they would target the hosting server with an e-mail at the same time as the MUD owner. The host likely cares much less about the game and much more about the copyright issue at hand.
09 Dec, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
That said, I agree that the general sentiment of people here is that it is ok, if you're doing it for free etc.


No it's not okay.
And since WoTC specifically prohibits muds based on their works, it should be pretty obvious what will happen.
All it takes is one person to refer the mud to the property holder.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. My statement had absolutely nothing to do with what will or will not happen if a MUD is referred to the property owner. I was making a statement about what the general sentiment regarding the "okness" of themed MUDs is – not a statement about what people thought the legal status was.

And on that note, I did say the "general sentiment", not "everybody including Tyche". :wink:
09 Dec, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I was making a statement about what the general sentiment regarding the "okness" of themed MUDs is

Maybe we should conduct a survey…

I would agree with you that in general it seems like we as a community think it's "ok" to use somebody else's IP without their permission in this way. People who misuse diku IP are (rightly) condemned by the community, yet when it comes to other IP we don't seem as concerned. Is this a fair observation? If so, why do you think that is?

My own view is that as a community that creates IP we should respect the rights and wishes of others that do so. I suppose somebody running a small hobby MUD based on <insert stolen IP here> is in reality doing very little harm, but I certainly don't take those people as seriously as I would otherwise.
09 Dec, 2009, Skol wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
No it's not okay.
And since WoTC specifically prohibits muds based on their works, it should be pretty obvious what will happen.
All it takes is one person to refer the mud to the property holder.


Has this changed Tyche?

Reason I ask is that I'd been using it under fansite rules (with all linked logos, copyrights stated). Also directly linked on the dragonlance and dlnexus websites (both licensed by wotc). I guess my point is that I'm not sneaking around with it (google dragonlance mud), and have used it under the guidelines I found posted. All copyright artwork was granted use by Elmore (and linked back to his site). I do know that they chose not to continue to license the DL brand in D&D in 2007, but I wasn't aware that would retroactively affect things either.
09 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
I would agree with you that in general it seems like we as a community think it's "ok" to use somebody else's IP without their permission in this way. People who misuse diku IP are (rightly) condemned by the community, yet when it comes to other IP we don't seem as concerned. Is this a fair observation? If so, why do you think that is?

I think that is a fair observation. I think it is due to an "us" vs. "them" argument. It's ok to "use" (i.e. steal, technically speaking) a theme because we are not theme creators, we are code creators. It's not ok to "use" somebody's code without permission, because that means that somebody might use my code without permission. In other words, what is essentially theft is ok as long as it's not ok to steal something you create.

This is related to the 'harm' metric: it does programmers harm (even if just in principle) if their work can be used without permission, whereas it doesn't really do them harm if some other random thing is used without permission.

I also think that people view code theft as copying, and world theme a tribute of sorts. There's a difference between copying code, and writing a story in some setting – or between copying that story, or portions of it, and writing a story inspired by the original. Not sure how much of a difference, but one nonetheless.
10 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
People who misuse diku IP are (rightly) condemned by the community, yet when it comes to other IP we don't seem as concerned. Is this a fair observation? If so, why do you think that is?

I'm not sure that that's really a fair observation. Personally I believe in respecting the wishes of all copyright holders, but I'm not going to actively defend them based on my own interpretation of their wishes. I know the Diku team's view, because I've spoken to them about it on a number of occasions, but I've no idea what the wishes are of most novel authors.

Of course as a mud developer, the issue of mud copyrights is of more personal interest to me. Perhaps if I were a writer I'd be more knowledgable about the wishes of other authors - but that doesn't mean I have any less respect for their rights.
10 Dec, 2009, Koron wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Barm said:
Because infringement is not a criminal act and people do not get sent to jai for it

Something can be against civil law without being criminally illegal, and without anybody going to jail for anything. If your claim is that "illegal" == "criminally illegal", that clears up the distinction you're trying to draw (civil vs. criminal court cases), although I don't agree with that overly narrow definition of "illegal".

This is technically correct in that you don't go to jail for breaking civil laws. What you go to jail for is breaking the court order to stop breaking civil law you violated. So yes, you can go to jail for the act of breaking a civil law because it also happens to break a criminal one in the process.

That said, I think the OP should take the satire way out–don't directly copy the world, just make fun of it. :biggrin:
10 Dec, 2009, Koron wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Greyankh said:
Now, I fortunately, have an out. Since I am a licensed educator, highly qualified(Under the NCLB Act), I am allowed to reproduce, copy, and use 80% of any material as long as I maintain it as an educational use. Therefore, I shall be making my game as an educational game. All I need to do, is give credit to the source, which I plan to do anyway. I will have a command <credits> which will list all the materials and sources I use, along with special thanks to the people here, for offering your insights and help.

This draws my eye. I was under the impression that the educational application of the fair use doctrine was interpreted to be about 20%. I didn't know NCLB expanded that. You don't happen to have any specific statute to back this up, do you? Does this apply to all levels of education, or just those below the collegiate level?
10 Dec, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Skol said:
Tyche said:
No it's not okay.
And since WoTC specifically prohibits muds based on their works, it should be pretty obvious what will happen.
All it takes is one person to refer the mud to the property holder.


Reason I ask is that I'd been using it under fansite rules (with all linked logos, copyrights stated). Also directly linked on the dragonlance and dlnexus websites (both licensed by wotc). I guess my point is that I'm not sneaking around with it (google dragonlance mud), and have used it under the guidelines I found posted. All copyright artwork was granted use by Elmore (and linked back to his site). I do know that they chose not to continue to license the DL brand in D&D in 2007, but I wasn't aware that would retroactively affect things either.


I think WoTC allows you to use the D20 ruleset, released as the Open Gaming System, but you are not allowed to call it D20, nor are you allowed to use any of the characters or materials from the full D20 campaign settings. I'm not sure how the view older material. I'm pretty sure they'd smack you for trying to open, say, a Magic: The Gathering MUD, at least if it came up on their radar.
10 Dec, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Greyankh said:
Now, I fortunately, have an out. Since I am a licensed educator, highly qualified(Under the NCLB Act), I am allowed to reproduce, copy, and use 80% of any material as long as I maintain it as an educational use. Therefore, I shall be making my game as an educational game. All I need to do, is give credit to the source, which I plan to do anyway. I will have a command <credits> which will list all the materials and sources I use, along with special thanks to the people here, for offering your insights and help.


Hope you don't teach ethics.
10 Dec, 2009, Barm wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
The WoTC business is kinda fascinating.

Back in 2000, they wanted to bolster sales of their core books and decided to allow third parties to create supplemental material without the hassle or cost of traditional licensing. So they released a metric ton of game content under the Open Game License (OGL) via the System Reference Documents (SRD). Now, they never intended the OGL to serve as 'branding' – that was the function of the D20 Logo/Trademark – which could be used for free but had rules and carried some scary revocation provisions. Publishers could label their books and modules with it to show compatibility to buyers. The 'Dungeons and Dragons' trademark still required lawyers, contracts, and money.

The D20 requires that your material omit character creation and the awarding of experience – gamers were suppose to buy Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master Guides after all. The OGL requires that you clearly identify what parts of your material is Open Game Content (OGC), i.e. taken or derived from the SRD (or original material you were releasing under it) and make it available for others. These provisions made it effectively impossible to create a computer game using the D20 system;

* You cannot create characters.
* You cannot advance characters.
* You have to provide others with all of your SRD derived rules, monsters, spells, magic items, etc in a readible format. WoTC did not consider source code or even XML sufficient. It was pretty clear reading their forums that computer RPGs were not part of their plans – they wanted to move hardcovers after all.

So things sat that way for many years and then another interesting twist happened – the retro clones.

A couple authors wanted to create complete role playing games that paid homage to the early versions of Dungeons and Dragons. Three of the big ones are;

Swords and Wizardry - modeled after the mid 70's brown books Gygax made at his kitchen table
Labyrinth Lord - modeled after the Moldvay/Cook boxed D&D games
OSRIC - which is pretty much 1st Edition Advanced D&D

All three are available as free PDFs or you can order printed versions. I bought the S&W and LL hardcovers froms Lulu, still need to pick up OSRIC.

They forgo the D20 and stick to the OGL (which, unlike D20, is irrevocable). As mentioned above, the mechanics for character creation and advancement were not part of the SRD. Nor were the rules for combat, skill checks, etc. While you can copyright the specific text of your rules, you can't copyright game play, so these authors were able to duplicate these old systems using their own words. There was some controversy over this and some folks expected the WoTC lawyers to shut them down.

I'm curious to see if anyone tries to make a computer RPG using one of these properties – although the snags on sharing OGC would remain.
10 Dec, 2009, Greyankh wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Hope you don't teach ethics.

Really?

Quote
This draws my eye. I was under the impression that the educational application of the fair use doctrine was interpreted to be about 20%. I didn't know NCLB expanded that. You don't happen to have any specific statute to back this up, do you? Does this apply to all levels of education, or just those below the collegiate level?

I stand corrected. Educators are allowed to reproduce 10% of published works, verbatim.

Rest easy, my fair friends. I will be trying my best not to infringe on anyone's right, be it author or agency.
Grey
10 Dec, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Quote
This draws my eye. I was under the impression that the educational application of the fair use doctrine was interpreted to be about 20%. I didn't know NCLB expanded that. You don't happen to have any specific statute to back this up, do you? Does this apply to all levels of education, or just those below the collegiate level?

I stand corrected. Educators are allowed to reproduce 10% of published works, verbatim.


There is no percentage in any statute of U.S. copyright law.
It happens that most educational institutions have as a result of litigation adopted "safe" policies.
See - http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research... and it's links to various policies.
Note that such usage must really be part of a educational setting not a pre-planned plot to invoke "fair use", but spontaneous, limited and brief.
Note that anyone can invoke academic "fair use", being a licensed educator in a state is not even relevant.
While there are "educational games", they don't invoke "fair use" under copyright law.
20.0/93