[Azhon]

<Deleted>

[Darrik]

I'd be curious to find out exactly what the circumstances were that the FBI stepped in and arrested someone for using your MUD's code? I believe this is an issue where others would be interested as well.

Although I admit I'm skeptical.

Darrik Vequir

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Darrik @ June 02 2003,12:18) I'd be curious to find out exactly what the circumstances were that the FBI stepped in and arrested someone for using your MUD's code? I believe this is an issue where others would be interested as well. Although I admit I'm skeptical. Darrik Vequir

The exact circumstances aren't something I'm going to talk about but involved two aspects, the sum of which led to the involvement of the FBI:
1. The kid stole our code by hacking into a backup machine we were using for awhile at our ISP, Wolfpaw. This in and of itself isn't a big deal. If he can't run it, it's of little value.
2. The kid proceeded to try and run a copy of Achaea briefly.

The FBI won't touch this sort of case unless there's at least $50,000 in actual or potential damages involved. I had to actually show them revenue documentation and so on to prove that our codebase is worth well into the 6 figures. (Really, they weren't very friendly at all. They acted as if they were doing me a favor rather than doing their freaking jobs enforcing the law.) Just from the conversations I had with the agent I was dealing with, I also don't think they would have lifted a finger had not both #1 and #2 happened, though it's possible I"m being unfair to them.

--matt

[Traithe]

Any luck getting ahold of the T-Ent people today? I'm really curious to hear what they have to say.


-T.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ June 02 2003,16:56) Any luck getting ahold of the T-Ent people today? I'm really curious to hear what they have to say. -T.

Nope, not yet. I sent them an e-mail this morning and gave them a call but got voicemail.

There's actually a reasonable chance, I suppose, that they want to pretend products like yours don't exist. If they don't acknowledge your existence they may save themselves the trouble of shutting you down without risking their material entering the public domain.

I will certainly post here when or if I hear anything back from them.

--matt

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by If they don't acknowledge your existence they may save themselves the trouble of shutting you down without risking their material entering the public domain.

Or they might, in fact, recognize the value of fan fiction/derivative works in generating interest in their IP.


-T.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ June 02 2003,17:55) Originally Posted by If they don't acknowledge your existence they may save themselves the trouble of shutting you down without risking their material entering the public domain. Or they might, in fact, recognize the value of fan fiction/derivative works in generating interest in their IP. -T.

Yeah. Tolkien stuff sure needs more interest.

The whole "It might benefit them." argument is a straw man anyway. Both the law and common-freaking-courtesy demand that you ask permission before using someone else's stuff, regardless of whether YOU think it might help them or not (you are not in any position to judge that).

--matt

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by Both the law and common-freaking-courtesy demand that you ask permission before using someone else's stuff

My sincerest apologies if at any time I have been anything less than courteous to you, or any other.

At any rate, I wish you continued luck with your efforts to contact Tolkien Enterprises. Until then, as Brody so eloquently stated earlier: the windmills, I believe, are that way.

All 1.4 million of them.

Take care.


-T.

[Burr]

Originally Posted by Both the law and common-freaking-courtesy demand that you ask permission before using someone else's stuff, regardless of whether YOU think it might help them or not (you are not in any position to judge that).

The fact that Traithe sent a written proposal as requested shows that he did ask permission. The question is not of whether permission was asked, but of whether or not it was granted (according to legal and/or moral definitions).

Legally, a written proposal is an offer under contract law.  Traithe sent a written proposal, as was expressly requested by the offeree.  Therefore, I would guess that the best defense could be found under the contract law, specifically in relation to implied contracts.  The failure to expressly deny permission after Traithe sent a written proposal as requested might be interpreted legally as an implied acceptance.

Thus, Traithe's actions might be perfectly legal, both technically and in the spirit of the law.  Of course, in the case of contract law, there would be the question of whether or not value is being given in return, something required for a contract to be valid; but I suppose it might be said that, simply by creating a MUD for Tolkein fans to play in, Traithe may be giving value.  Of course, I'm no expert on contract law, so I may be wrong all the way around.

Even if Traithe's actions turn out to be illegal in a technical, strictly worded sense, whether or something is truly illegal is generally determined by whether or not a person made a reasonable effort to follow the spirit of the law. Traithe has certainly made a reasonable effort to make the right people knowledgeable of his intentions, and his intentions certainly seem to be in line with the norms of the Tolkein community, a community of which the Tolkein industry has ample indication of approval. (And why wouldn't they? The fan community is the main driving force of the industry.) Finally, he has not yet seemed to have broken his promise to remove the mud should permission ever be denied.

I think the difference between Traithe's actions and Vryce's actions should be obvious. Traithe has potential defenses on both the technical and moral side of the law. In the end, Vryce quite obviously had neither.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Burr @ June 03 2003,15:22) Originally Posted by Both the law and common-freaking-courtesy demand that you ask permission before using someone else's stuff, regardless of whether YOU think it might help them or not (you are not in any position to judge that). The fact that Traithe sent a written proposal as requested shows that he did ask permission. The question is not of whether permission was asked, but of whether or not it was granted (according to legal and/or moral definitions). Legally, a written proposal is an offer under contract law. Traithe sent a written proposal, as was expressly requested by the offeree. Therefore, I would guess that the best defense could be found under the contract law, specifically in relation to implied contracts. The failure to expressly deny permission after Traithe sent a written proposal as requested might be interpreted legally as an implied acceptance. Thus, Traithe's actions might be perfectly legal, both technically and in the spirit of the law. Of course, in the case of contract law, there would be the question of whether or not value is being given in return, something required for a contract to be valid; but I suppose it might be said that, simply by creating a MUD for Tolkein fans to play in, Traithe may be giving value. Of course, I'm no expert on contract law, so I may be wrong all the way around. Even if Traithe's actions turn out to be illegal in a technical, strictly worded sense, whether or something is truly illegal is generally determined by whether or not a person made a reasonable effort to follow the spirit of the law. Traithe has certainly made a reasonable effort to make the right people knowledgeable of his intentions, and his intentions certainly seem to be in line with the norms of the Tolkein community, a community of which the Tolkein industry has ample indication of approval. (And why wouldn't they? The fan community is the main driving force of the industry.) Finally, he has not yet seemed to have broken his promise to remove the mud should permission ever be denied. I think the difference between Traithe's actions and Vryce's actions should be obvious. Traithe has potential defenses on both the technical and moral side of the law. In the end, Vryce quite obviously had neither.

Nonsense. Without express permission, it's illegal. The Tolkien people are certainly not required to formally deny him permission. He is required to fomally obtan permission. It's reprehensible.

--matt

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by They're both run by thieves

Originally Posted by It's reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Yes, I don't believe the law deserves to be respected merely because it is the law.

Originally Posted by I'm firmly on the side of believing that infringing on someone else's copyright is wrong.

Here we are... mired in the sticky mess of a conflict of opinions, yet again. While I respect your right to have a viewpoint on the matter, I don't particularly respect your tendency to employ ad hominems (see quotes #1 and #2) without any backing of legal fact or logical consistency.

Until you have one or the other, perhaps you should consider avoiding the use of such tactics on public fora? Name-calling without a leg to stand on, so to speak, doesn't do much for your image.


-T.

[the_logos]

You took the IP and are using it without any permission whatsoever. (You can't even be bothered to point out on your website that you have no permission to be using it and that all the Tolkien material in your world is copyright to Tolkien Enterprises.) You've admitted that you took the IP without permission. Therefore, you're a thief. If you don't like the word, stop stealing. I have no problems calling Vryce a thief, and I have no problems calling you a thief.

--matt

[Traithe]

Hmm. The lack of a notice on the website was an oversight on my part, and one which I'll issue a public apology for - it'll be remedied shortly. However, I have in fact had such a notice within the game's help system for quite some time, as demonstrated below:

[code] > help world_credit
Miscellaneous -> World_credit

Middle-earth and its denizens are the singularly wonderful
creation of the good professor, J.R.R. Tolkien, and thus
are protected by various and sundry international copyright
laws. Shadows of Isildur MUD is in no way affiliated with
J.R.R. Tolkien, nor the Tolkien Estate, and uses this
material to construct a representation of his world under
the Fair Use Clause of the United States Copyright Law.

[Sun May 19 10;54;29 2002 - Traithe]
[/quote]

[Stilton]

Originally Posted by uses this material to construct a representation of his world under the Fair Use Clause of the United States Copyright Law.

Awkward time to step into a discussion once it gets personal, but:

I've never seen a large derivative work claim fair use except for parody.  Which type of fair use are you engaging in? Small excerpts? Research?

Stilton

[Traithe]

No worries, Stilton. That's actually a good question. Primarily, I decided to place it under Fair Use at the time due to the large number of fanfiction/derivative works out there that do the same. While in the strictest sense the wording of the law wouldn't apply to a project like SoI, a decent case could likely be made; the advent of the internet has really had a huge impact on IP law, and so I wouldn't be surprised if more liberal interpretations of it had already become precedents somewhere.

If you have any other ideas regarding possible exceptions that might cover the usage, they'd certainly be appreciated - I'm going to investigate the 'contract law' approach pointed out above by Burr when I have the opportunity.

[EDIT] Bah, just realized I didn't even really answer your question. Heh. Yes, the "case" I think that might be made with Fair Use would likely center around the research/education wording built into the law. Sorry about totally missing your point. <g> [/EDIT]

-T.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ June 03 2003,17:21) No worries, Stilton. That's actually a good question. Primarily, I decided to place it under Fair Use at the time due to the large number of fanfiction/derivative works out there that do the same. While in the strictest sense the wording of the law wouldn't apply to a project like SoI, a decent case could likely be made; the advent of the internet has really had a huge impact on IP law, and so I wouldn't be surprised if more liberal interpretations of it had already become precedents somewhere.

And just how does running a mud constitute research? I also haven't seen -any- indication whatsoever that your mud exists for the purposes of education.

The wide-spread use of Napster sure didn't make stealing music legal. Why do you think a handful of muds that also steal IP make your doing the same thing legal or ethical?
--matt

[Brody]

Lacking any actual response from Tolkien Enterprises, I highly recommend you pay a visit to the Writers University, which keeps a running tally of authors and their tolerance for fan fiction and other derivative works. Tolkien Enterprises and New Line Cinemas, for example, are listed as tolerating such works. Terry Goodkind (Sword of Truth) and Anne McCaffrey (Pern), on the other hand...

http://www.writersu.net/?link=authpo...licy=tolerated

[Brody]

Another point of interest in my exploration of authors and their concerns about derivative works: Those that *do* lack tolerance for it, or have concerns about it, are more worried about people claiming the author turned around and stole a fan's idea for a work of fiction - not so much about the development of a community of enthusiasts. For example, J. Michael Straczynski and Terry Pratchett don't seem to *mind* fan fiction inspired by their works, they just don't want them in easily reachable public domains where THEY are known to hang out.

It seems they want to avoid being sued themselves, rather than worrying that these fanfic sites might be detrimental to their works/profits/etc.