30 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
Tell me how do you prove even 50% of a probability that someone copied something?

You have to prove that it is "more likely than not". If there are hundreds or even dozens of identical messages in exactly the same place in both MUDs, then it is more likely those messages were copied than that the author coincidentally used exactly the same wording. That shifts the burden of proof to the MUD owner.

Nathan said:
Consider for a moment that copyright might really be set up on shaky foundations. Why should you be able to copyright something if someone else can think of it?

Because then nothing could be copyrighted.

Nathan said:
If two people managed to independently write down significantly similar novels, who should be able to benefit from them?

Both of them.

Nathan said:
If you know of something that says I can't use the same sentence as someone else without crediting them regardless of whether I am aware that they wrote it or not, do cite such a thing.

I already did (Heim v. Universal Pictures), and as I've already explained twice now: "A single sentence won't usually meet the criteria for creativity, but if (for example) you copy a novel then you'll be judged on the total amount of copying, not on a per-sentence basis. The same with a MUD - if you copy one message it's unlikely to be a copyright infringement, but if you copy dozens of messages it's much more likely that an infringement will be found."
01 Oct, 2014, Newt wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Why y'all always gotta take your guns to town?

erdlUyllN..."> erdlUyllN..." type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350">
03 Oct, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
@Kavir
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the messages thing. As far as I am concerned, individual messages are not and do not ever constitute a work in and of themselves. And yes, I suppose that means that I place very little value on your many "well crafted" messages no matter how much time you spent on them. It's very different than a novel and I doubt you could prove anything about a novel because unless it's a really high number of lines or those lines are consecutive then it's iffy at best. Fifty similar or identical lines from a thousand page book is very different than ten five line paragraphs from the same book. A conversation between two characters is very different than a little bit of description. Not only that, but the degree of copying is irrelevant until you prove that there is copying at all.
03 Oct, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the messages thing. As far as I am concerned, individual messages are not and do not ever constitute a work in and of themselves.

I've cited a court case where the judge stated that a certain six-word sentence would be protectable, and quoted a legal scholar who explained how smaller efforts just require more creativity. I've yet to see anything backing up your claims other than wishful thinking.

It's also been explained to you (multiple times) that the messages in a MUD aren't a work in and of themselves, they're part of a larger work - they're part of the MUD itself. The MUD is protected by copyright law, and that doesn't mean you can copy the bits you like.
03 Oct, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the messages thing.


Translation: I am unable to admit when I've been proven wrong, so I'm going to attempt to appear to be taking some sort of "high road" to end the conversation so I'm not forced to continue to defend an indefensible position.
03 Oct, 2014, alteraeon wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan, you can disagree all you want about whether or not messages in a mud are copyrightable, but when you disagree with existing court precedent, you're probably wrong. If you're ever sued for copyright infringement, I strongly suggest you hire a lawyer, because you don't know what you're doing.

Dennis Towne

Alter Aeon MUD
http://www.alteraeon.com
03 Oct, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
@Hades_Kane, @alteraeon Just so we're clear, there's really no need for you to belabor Kavir's point to make yourselves feel good.

alteraeon said:
Nathan, you can disagree all you want about whether or not messages in a mud are copyrightable, but when you disagree with existing court precedent, you're probably wrong. If you're ever sued for copyright infringement, I strongly suggest you hire a lawyer, because you don't know what you're doing.

Dennis Towne

Alter Aeon MUD
http://www.alteraeon.com


Just so we're clear, perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of law/legal precedent in this particular regard, but laws do things that make no sense all the time. Just because something is law does not make it right, only legal. I am highly unlikely to ever be sued, because in general I take care to not infringe copyright.
03 Oct, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Just because something is law does not make it right, only legal. I am highly unlikely to ever be sued, because in general I take care to not infringe copyright.


There is a huge chasm between what is "legal" and what is "right." When you discuss whether or not you are infringing on someone else's copyright, that is a "legal" matter. When you are discussing whether or not it is okay to infringe on someone's copyright based on the amount of work you are copying or infringing upon, that is a discussion of whether or not it is "right."

Maybe you've been arguing the morality rather than the legality, but the legality of the matter is clear. The morality of it is up to the various individuals to decide for themselves.

I would argue that copying a dozen messages from Diku is in fact a legal infringement, but I would not make the claim that copying a dozen messages from Diku is a moral slight against Diku at all.

And contrary to your assertion, there's no "trying to make myself feel good" by backing up another poster who is, in fact, correct in this debate vs. someone who isn't. Particularly in such a small community, attitudes like the one you have been presenting that seem to advocate the dismissal of respecting other code authors' work and abiding by licenses based on an "I don't agree with it" sentiment is a hazard to such a community with tangible harm, and as someone who respects the work of those who contribute to our community, I feel very strongly about maintaining a positive influence toward that aim.
06 Oct, 2014, Cratylus wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
in general I take care to not infringe copyright.


This is the point, here, to focus on. You're being helped to understand copyright. If you insist on debating from a proven wrong position, then it is hard to say what it is you are or are not infringing, since you may not accept the correct definition of the term.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
06 Oct, 2014, Cratylus wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Just like old times up in heah.

70!
06 Oct, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Just like old times up in heah.

70!


I know right?
06 Oct, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
Also, this is appropriate to this thread:

http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=mudl...
60.0/72