[Wik]

Did I miss your reply to Brody in regards to whether you'd be willing to leave this forum over this slight to your honor, the_logos? You've been so meticulous about replying up to this point, I wouldn't want you to have missed giving a reply to everything we've said so far, so I thought I'd remind you of it. If I've missed it, I humbly apologize.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,15:29) Unifex: Originally Posted by You (and Burr, possibly) misunderstand my scope. (snip) But what if it didn't cause any harm? (snip) How can you honestly say that the harm is always greater than the benefit? Easy answer: I don't have to, or have the right to.

You don't have the right to say that something causes harm or benefit? That's quite disturbing.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,15:29) The person who gets to decide that is the IP holder, who decides to grant or not grant a license based on HIS decision about the benefits vs harm.

Read my post again; I'm not contesting this at all.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,15:29) It's not up to me (or you, or us as a community) to make the decision that the owner of the IP benefits from a certain use of it, and that therefore it's ok to do.

Do you still think this way even if we cannot obtain an express decision on the matter? Because if the owner doesn't make that decision then we simply don't know if it's okay or not. I must stress that this is not the same thing as knowing, and then going against the owner's wishes, which is what Vryce is guilty of and why any comparisons with him are futile.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,15:29) Yes, as you point out, the general rights granted the originator of an idea are arguably a social contract, but the application of these guidelines to individual instances are NOT.

Social contracts are useless unless they can be used to judge the ethicality of an individual's actions.

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 04 2003,15:59) As I've already explained in previous posts, the point is that you're in no position to judge the value of Tolkien's IP. You are not privy to the details of anything to do with the revenue gained from it. As the only people who are privy to that are the licensors, they are the only ones who have any business deciding if the value of their IP is increased or decreased. Thus the need to gain explicit permission.

Of course I am in no position to judge the entirety of the value of Tolkien's IP, but anyone with a basic understanding of complementary products can judge the relative value of a certain action. Consider, if I were to evangelize the series to a friend and that friend went out and bought the books and DVDs as a direct result of my actions, do you think the value of Tolkien's IP has not increased due to my actions? After all, why would they be going to the effort of selling these things if they didn't want them to be sold? I think we can have a very good understanding of what helps and harms the IP, even if we are not privy to the exact figures.

I missed this in your other post...

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 04 2003,13:21) What if a game like SoL decided that elves were sex-maniacs? At least SOME of the players are going to have their perception of Tolkien's work altered by that kind of premise and that deprives the IP holder of revenue just as surely as taking his car does.

It is ironic that the term doujinshi, or "fan comics" in Japanese is taken as synonymous with "fan-created hentai [strange [sex]] comics" due to their huge popularity. Many of these comics are sold for-profit in shops and conventions, sometimes right along-side the official works. In fact, some of CLAMP's artists began as doujinshi artists and worked their way up to original works. As I've told you before in another time at another place, many American animation companies study which fan-created works are popular in order to decide which Japanese animation to license. They also allow a myriad of infringing works to exist and even be sold at fan conventions at which their executives attend and speak at panels! This is a stark contrast to your statements that the perception of the work altered by these premises is always negative. Furthermore, it stands to bolster my point that we can have a good idea what helps and harms IP. That is, unless you have done more market research than all of those Japanese executives.

[Stilton]

the_logos:

Originally Posted by I would certainly never intentionally steal anyone's IP, associate with anyone who did, or allow that kind of practice to pollute our original IP.

Yes, I seem to remember the whip cracking pretty hard last time someone tried to be "less than creative" in your fan-fiction contest.

BTW, it just occured to me that Achaea's fan-fiction contests are a very good example of what an implied license really is: they publicly annouce that they will reward players for writing, art, etc based on the Achaea world. As far as I know, prospective entrants don't get signed documents from management giving them a license to create derivative works in order to participate. Note that (vs the present situation, where implied license is alleged) the IP owner is an active participant in the process of granting an implied license.


Stilton

[Stilton]

Unifxex:

Originally Posted by You don't have the right to say that something causes harm or benefit? That's quite disturbing.

I can say whatever I want, in terms of expressing an opinion. I don't have the right to give permission on behalf of an IP owner simply because of those feelings.

Most people will give different answers to the questions:
Is it moral to do X?
and
Is it legal to do X?

for at least some X

Originally Posted by Do you still think this way even if we cannot obtain an express decision on the matter? Because if the owner doesn't make that decision then we simply don't know if it's okay or not.

If you want to use IP, you have to obtain permission. If you don't KNOW if you have permission, then you don't HAVE permission.

Is being an in-your-face violator with a bad attitude and no respect for others morally worse than paying homage to your favorite author and not getting anything in return? Certainly, but that's got nothing to do with the actual question of whether this instance of fan-fiction is a legal use of the material or not.

Originally Posted by Social contracts are useless unless they can be used to judge the ethicality of an individual's actions.

To rephrase then: society decides the rules. A judge decides how to apply them in individual cases. Any individual or group can make any claims about ethics they please, as long as they don't try to impose them on others outside the appropropriate legal process.

Originally Posted by I think we can have a very good understanding of what helps and harms the IP, even if we are not privy to the exact figures.

Do you think it would be legal for me to, without permission, publish a special edition LOTR, sell it for $1000/copy, and mail Tolkien Enterprises all of the money I get?

I don't think it would, although by your argument I'm certainly giving them more benefit per copy than their existing publishing arrangements.

Whether or not a use of IP is acceptable has nothing to do with how much good I (or anyone besides the owner) feel the action will do the owner.

Stilton

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Wik @ June 04 2003,16:19) Did I miss your reply to Brody in regards to whether you'd be willing to leave this forum over this slight to your honor, the_logos? You've been so meticulous about replying up to this point, I wouldn't want you to have missed giving a reply to everything we've said so far, so I thought I'd remind you of it. If I've missed it, I humbly apologize.

I didn't reply because it's not relevant to this thread. Start a new one if you want .
--matt

[Mikkel]

considered in no particular order:

1) it doesn't matter! "the logos" , especially when used to identify an incorporated entity, is still property, and thus can be stolen and infringed upon ... especially when one is claiming to be "the logos" instead of your friendly neighborhood average, every day,  generic, public use "logos".

there's also a band by that name. ye gods! (the term "gods" of course, used by permission) another infringement! maybe one should consider adding a footnote or disclaimer after their name, to ensure there is no confusion ... or intent to derive a profit.

2) it doesn't matter! of course I do. but as previously pointed out, the fact that originators don't chose to enforce their claim has no bearing on the [sic] matter!

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ June 04 2003,16:34) Furthermore, it stands to bolster my point that we can have a good idea what helps and harms IP. That is, unless you have done more market research than all of those Japanese executives.

I have probably not done more research than all those Japanese executives. However, I've also not done as much research as American music, film, or software executives, nearly all of whom are completely opposed to IP piracy.
--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Mikkel @ June 04 2003,17:14) considered in no particular order: 1) it doesn't matter! "logos" , especially when used to identify an incorporated entity, is still property, and thus can be stolen and infringed upon ... especially when one is claiming to be "the logos" instead of your friendly neighborhood average, every day, generic, public use "logos".

Do you actually understand IP law at all, or are you just throwing out conjectures?

Apple Computers doesn't own the word 'apple'. If I want to call myself Apple on this board, I'm violating no IP laws. Same with Logos.

Now, how about staying on topic instead of posting this red herring crap?

--matt

[Burr]

me:

Originally Posted by Unless you have evidence to the contrary, we can assume that society gave the copyright holder no more benefits than the copyright holder gave every other individual of society in return simply by being a part of that society.  Thus, the benefits added by society seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.

Unifex:

Originally Posted by Wow, say that again?

Ouch, I did say that poorly.  Allow me to try again.  Let A, B, and C be the unrealized value owned individually by three respective persons in a society of three.  Let X, Y, and Z be their respective innovations (a realization of value).  Let S be the total unrealized value owned jointly and equally by all members of society.

Let A, B, and C each be equal to 20.  Let S = 100, for there were once other contributing members of society, though they are now dead.  Then let's say A, B, and C each give a value of 5 to S, and then they each give a value of 5 to their respective creations.  S happens to provide 15 to each of their creations.

Now A, B, and C each equals 10.  S equals 60.  And X, Y, and Z each equal 20.

Now, someone might look at that situation and say, "Well, see, S provided more than any one of A, B, or C did."  However, we must remember that S belongs to A, B, and C, and thus can be allocated between them.  That means...

X = 5 directly from A, 5 indirectly from A (via S), 5 from B, and 5 from C.

A also contributed 5 to Y and 5 to Z (via S).  Thus, A exchanged an equal amount of value to B's and C's innovations as they did to A's innovation.  In effect, A compensated them (and him/herself, and thus the whole of society) for the value given to X, A's innovation, via S, society.

Thus, so long as we assume that member of society has contributed to society no less than the average of what was contributed by all members of society, then  we know that that member has compensated society for the value added by society to their innovation.  Thus, so long as they are willing to give up their claims to the innovations of all other existing members of society, then they can reasonably claim their innovation as their own, completely and fully, not a bit of it belonging to society as a whole.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,17:06) Unifxex: Originally Posted by You don't have the right to say that something causes harm or benefit? That's quite disturbing. I can say whatever I want, in terms of expressing an opinion. I don't have the right to give permission on behalf of an IP owner simply because of those feelings.

And where did I claim that you had the right to give permission? We are well within our rights in discussing the harm and benefit of our actions. What was disturbing was your statement that we had no right to do this. Perhaps you mis-stated something, then.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,17:06) Originally Posted by Do you still think this way even if we cannot obtain an express decision on the matter? Because if the owner doesn't make that decision then we simply don't know if it's okay or not. If you want to use IP, you have to obtain permission. If you don't KNOW if you have permission, then you don't HAVE permission.

This is simply not true: I don't know if I have permission to derive a great many works, and I'm sure that at least some creators would expressly grant me these rights. One can have absolutely no clue that they have permission to do certain things. You're also completely ruling out the creators that turn a blind eye, so to speak, to derivative works. Many authors don't explicitly grant licenses, but they don't forbid it either. This neutral path suits them just fine: If they explicitly granted them, they would be bogged down with the requests and tracking them if they decided to sell their IP. If they explicitly forbade them, they would alienate a portion of their fanbase.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,17:06) To rephrase then: society decides the rules. A judge decides how to apply them in individual cases. Any individual or group can make any claims about ethics they please, as long as they don't try to impose them on others outside the appropropriate legal process.

So, um, what is your point? =)

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,17:06) Certainly, but that's got nothing to do with the actual question of whether this instance of fan-fiction is a legal use of the material or not.

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ June 04 2003,17:06) Originally Posted by I think we can have a very good understanding of what helps and harms the IP, even if we are not privy to the exact figures. Do you think it would be legal for me to, without permission, publish a special edition LOTR, sell it for $1000/copy, and mail Tolkien Enterprises all of the money I get? I don't think it would, although by your argument I'm certainly giving them more benefit per copy than their existing publishing arrangements.

You don't seem to understand that I'm arguing ethics and morality, not legality.

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 04 2003,17:17) I have probably not done more research than all those Japanese executives. However, I've also not done as much research as American music, film, or software executives, nearly all of whom are completely opposed to IP piracy.

Yes, and we all know how trustworthy their statistics have been in these matters. But that's another thread and besides the point. You failed to respond to my points that we can have a good idea about what benefits and harms some IP. Or do you want to let stand your blanket-incorrect assertion that no matter what, we do not know the relative benefit and harm a certain action has upon some IP?

[Brody]

Just in case you feel that you haven't read enough about this topic already, I did some research and here's just the tip of the iceberg I found in the Usenet archives (featuring special guest appearance by KaVir here and there! ):

1994: MUDs and intellectual property: http://groups.google.com/groups?....um%3D13

1995: MUDs and intellectual property: http://groups.google.com/groups?....um%3D19

1995: TSR and intellectual property: http://groups.google.com/groups?....um%3D21

1996: Mercedes Lackey FAQ: http://groups.google.com/groups?....rnum=20

1999: Derivative MUDs: http://groups.google.com/groups?....um%3D34

2000: MUDs and intellectual property: http://groups.google.com/groups?....um%3D12

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ June 04 2003,18:21) But that's another thread and besides the point. You failed to respond to my points that we can have a good idea about what benefits and harms some IP. Or do you want to let stand your blanket-incorrect assertion that no matter what, we do not know the relative benefit and harm a certain action has upon some IP?

That's correct. The world is too complicated a place and our information is way too incomplete (nearly completely incomplete *g*) to make an informed judgement on the value an action or series of actions has on the overall value of a particular IP.

---matt

[Orion Elder]

This is a deviation of topic, but the_logos seems to have contradicted himself. He claimed he wouldn't associate with IP thieves, yet here he is on a public fora doing exactly that, with someone he claims is an IP thief, and his site is still listed here.

If he were sticking to his previous statement, I believe he would already have pulled his site, and would not resubmit it until after he'd accomplished his objective.

So, for those who are indeed wondering if he'd pull his site from here, I believe based on the evidence at hand that answer would be no.

Edit:
Cleaned up a bit, as it could have come off insulting and that isn't what I intended.

[Mikkel]

oh! methinks i hit a nerve.

then again, it is not unexpected - considering other examples of points discarded not by facing them but by declaration.

here, however, it is very revelant. because there is a touch of hypocrisy when one holds such a draconian position and yet has a suspect moniker themselves. one might begin to think it's only important when it has to do with somebody else.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Orion Elder @ June 04 2003,20:57) This is a deviation of topic, but the_logos seems to have contradicted himself. He claimed he wouldn't associate with IP thieves, yet here he is on a public fora doing exactly that, with someone he claims is an IP thief, and his site is still listed here. If he were sticking to his previous statement, I believe he would already have pulled his site, and would not resubmit it until after he'd accomplished his objective.

Pendantic arguments don't deserve a decent response. Do you seriously think I meant I wouldn't stand in a crowd or live in a city or be in a community with IP thieves?

--matt

[the_logos]

Quote: