[the_logos]

Why is it that Medieiva is banned from this site, whereas Shadows of Isildur is actually permitted to advertise here? They're both run by thieves and it seems wholly unfair to punish one instance of IP theft and not another.

--matt

[Riga]

I'm sure that the owner of SoI will more eloquently defend himself, but I'll just toss in some information in case you're unaware. This was posted on mudconnector by Traithe when the topic came up in the past:


How is the owner of SoI a "thief"?

He posted this, complete with links, on the mudconnector:

Originally Posted by Hephos, Your avid concern for the welfare of the Tolkien estate's intellectual property is certainly appreciated. While I hadn't initially planned on devoting much time to addressing your concerns publicly, as I've a feeling they're more mean-spirited sniping than anything else, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and make the effort nonetheless. Now, according to the Tolkien Enterprises website: Anyone desiring to use one or more of the Tolkien fanciful names and/or characters in connection with merchandise, stage adaptations, or services offered to the public is requested to submit a written proposal to Laurie Battle, Director of Licensing, 2600 Tenth Street, Berkeley, California 94710. I have, in fact, submitted a written proposal to Ms. Battle regarding Shadows of Isildur, via email. As of yet, I have not received a response, which leads me to believe a number of things that I shall address below. I will add, however, that when I'm in northern California in about a month I plan on visiting their offices in Berkeley personally. Since I have not received a response regarding my proposal to Ms. Battle, I would assume that she (and by extension, Tolkien Enterprises) regards SoI as fair and benevolent use of Tolkien's intellectual property - use which, I might add, is quite limited in scope, as we in fact rely only on the setting, and not at all on the events and storylines contained in the Lord of the Rings (save where the history of Middle-earth is mentioned, as our setting is approximately 500 years before the War). This hunch is further reinforced by the fact that there are numerous MUDs on the internet which use some element of Tolkien (42 in the listings here at TMC); one of which is quite old and well-established. Given some of the Estate's past decisions regarding the protection of its intellectual copyright - do you really think that they would allow such a large number of MUDs to operate under that setting for such a long period of time, when their attention has been called to the situation? The actions of the Estate to this point are not indicative of an intellectual property holder who feels that a given application of a portion of said property is a breach of the Fair Use Clause of the U.S. Copyright Law and/or their license. Should they in fact return my efforts at contact to inform me that the MUD is in violation of their license, I would be the first to ensure that it was shut down. You are certainly welcome to contact them as well, which would not be unwelcome on my part, as perhaps you'll have better luck getting a response from them than I. Until that point, however, I would appreciate it if you would allow me the courtesy of posting promotions for the project in peace. Thank you. -T.

I imagine he'll be happy to defend himself again here, though. Also, he doesn't profit from his game, unlike Medeivia.

[the_logos]

[quote=Riga,May 30 2003,162]I'm sure that the owner of SoI will more eloquently defend himself, but I'll just toss in some information in case you're unaware. This was posted on mudconnector by Traithe when the topic came up in the past:


How is the owner of SoI a "thief"?

Originally Posted by I imagine he'll be happy to defend himself again here, though. Also, he doesn't profit from his game, unlike Medeivia.

Originally Posted by I'm sure that the owner of SoI will more eloquently defend himself, but I'll just toss in some information in case you're unaware. This was posted on mudconnector by Traithe when the topic came up in the past: <response snipped, but boiled down to the owner of SoL not getting permission, and assuming that in the absence of a 'no' the answer is 'yes.'

So if I send you a letter asking if I can steal your tv, and don't get a reply, I should just assume the answer is that you don't mind me doing it? It's also legally irrelevant whether a profit is being made, though I'd point out that the DIKU owners do not lose any money from Medievia's actions, while the Tolkien estate could possibly do so, as they are in the business of making money from their property.

--matt

[Brody]

I'm at a loss to understand why Shadows of Isildur is being targeted specifically for the rather extreme allegation of "intellectual property theft." If the game isn't being run for profit, and if the Tolkien estate has not issued a proclamation against such games, I really don't see what business it is of ours whether SoI is allowed to advertise - at the expense of that game's operators, not the Tolkien estate - here or anywhere else.

I've seen Wheel of Time-themed games advertised here too. Shall we simply issue a moratorium on advertising by *any* game based on an established/trademarked theme?

Maybe I've missed something that makes SoI a special case that deserves banning more than any other game with an established theme as its inspiration, but the evidence certainly hasn't made it to this thread yet .

[Riga]

Once again, Triathe would probably be better off defending his actions, as I don't really care one way or the other (other than to have a sort of visceral abreaction to the nastiness of your post toward a guy that seems well-meaning, talented, and good-intentioned).

My understanding was that Triathe was going to meet, in person, with the folks at some Tolkien office in California in order to obtain express permission.

I believe, at heart, the difference between Traithe and Vryce is that Traithe is actually attempting to work with the holders of the copyrights. Vryce repeatedly shows he has no desire to do so. I imagine that if Traithe is asked to take down SoI by the Tolkien estates, he will do so. Vryce, obviously, won't.

[Riga]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,18:11) Maybe I've missed something that makes SoI a special case that deserves banning more than any other game with an established theme as its inspiration, but the evidence certainly hasn't made it to this thread yet .

Exactly. It makes me wonder if logos has a personal beef against Traithe?

It fairly boggles my mind, as Traithe has been an exemplary member of the RPI community at least. He actually advertises all the other main RPIs on his mud's website and basically just seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Note that I actually admin on another RPI and don't play SoI, so I don't really have much stake in this other than to wonder why the_logos is singling SoI out.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,18:11) I'm at a loss to understand why Shadows of Isildur is being targeted specifically for the rather extreme allegation of "intellectual property theft." If the game isn't being run for profit, and if the Tolkien estate has not issued a proclamation against such games, I really don't see what business it is of ours whether SoI is allowed to advertise - at the expense of that game's operators, not the Tolkien estate - here or anywhere else. I've seen Wheel of Time-themed games advertised here too. Shall we simply issue a moratorium on advertising by *any* game based on an established/trademarked theme? Maybe I've missed something that makes SoI a special case that deserves banning more than any other game with an established theme as its inspiration, but the evidence certainly hasn't made it to this thread yet .

I didn't intend to make Shadows of Isildur a special case. I have an equal problem with all ripped off IP. I was just using them as an example as I 've seen the banners here recently.

--matt

[Brody]

Still, I question how this counts as "ripped off intellectual property." He's not claiming to have created middle earth. He's not claiming to have invented the term "Hobbits." He's giving credit where it's due, and he's not charging people for the experience of sharing his affinity for Tolkien.

Show me the legal violation here. That's all I'm saying.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Exactly. It makes me wonder if logos has a personal beef against Traithe?

I don't even know who the guy is.

Originally Posted by It fairly boggles my mind, as Traithe has been an exemplary member of the RPI community at least. He actually advertises all the other main RPIs on his mud's website and basically just seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Note that I actually admin on another RPI and don't play SoI, so I don't really have much stake in this other than to wonder why the_logos is singling SoI out.

Yeah...I'm not sure what being a nice guy has to do with it.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,18:54) Still, I question how this counts as "ripped off intellectual property." He's not claiming to have created middle earth. He's not claiming to have invented the term "Hobbits." He's giving credit where it's due, and he's not charging people for the experience of sharing his affinity for Tolkien. Show me the legal violation here. That's all I'm saying.

Um...how about just starting with the name itself, "Shadows of Isildur." Or the fact that he's got "Minas Morgul" in the game.

Whether he claimed to invent the material or not isn't relevant.

--matt

[Brody]

Explain to me, in simple legal terms, how his paying to advertise for a free game inspired by the works of Tolkien, that in no way drains money from the Tolkien estate, is a rip-off of intellectual property?

Let's say I run a middle earth tabletop game in a coffee shop in town. I go down to Kinko's and make fliers to post on the gaming shop bulletin board. The flier says "Immerse yourself in Isengard!" And then proceeds to give basic information about the gaming sessions and the times when those sessions are held, plus directions to the coffee shop. Now, the gaming sessions are absolutely free - of course, you might want to go buy some Tolkien roleplaying materials or Tolkien's books to learn more about it (thus actually HELPING the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien and the corporations that have licensing agreements to publish such materials). Would it then be a violation of intellectual property rights to have run these games, at my own expense, and advertised to get people to come play?

I am still unsure where your footing is for all of this.

[HaiWolfe]

There exist hundreds of MUDs based off of exisiting material. To name the ones listed over at MudConnector:

Roger Zelazny's Amber series
Babylon 5
Diablo
Dragonball
William Gibson's Cyberpunk
DragonLance
Dungeons and Dragons
Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star
Forgotten Realms
Harry Potter
Magic: The Gathering
Pern
Pokemon
Shadowrun
Star Trek
Star Wars
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series
Tolkien
Transformers
Ultima
Warhammer
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series
World of Darkness
X-Files

By your definition, all of these MUDs are intellectual property thieves, and should all be banned.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (HaiWolfe @ May 30 2003,19:33) There exist hundreds of MUDs based off of exisiting material.  To name the ones listed over at MudConnector: Roger Zelazny's Amber series Babylon 5 Diablo Dragonball William Gibson's Cyberpunk DragonLance Dungeons and Dragons Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star Forgotten Realms Harry Potter Magic: The Gathering Pern Pokemon Shadowrun Star Trek Star Wars Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series Tolkien Transformers Ultima Warhammer Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series World of Darkness X-Files By your definition, all of these MUDs are intellectual property thieves, and should all be banned.

Heh, it's not my definition of intellectual property. It's the definition of the laws of most western countries.

And yes, all those should be banned if the owners of the IP haven't given permission. I use Tolkien as an example largely because they are famous for being extremely forceful about their IP rights. For instance, the lawsuit against the neighborhood kid's birthday party clown in Long Island who called himself "Gandalf."

--matt

[Brody]

Originally Posted by For instance, the lawsuit against the neighborhood kid's birthday party clown in Long Island who called himself "Gandalf."

Not sure about the status of that frivolous lawsuit so far, but Gandalf the Wizard Clown is still in business: http://www.magicforpets.com/

And HE makes money off it. Unlike the purveyor of Shadows of Isildur.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,19:28) Explain to me, in simple legal terms, how his paying to advertise for a free game inspired by the works of Tolkien, that in no way drains money from the Tolkien estate, is a rip-off of intellectual property? I am still unsure where your footing is for all of this.

His paying to advertise is only an extension of his already existing violations. I just personally would prefer it if leading mud sites didn't take money from license violators.

I am a little baffled that some of you have such a difficult time understanding the concept of intellectual property. Whether you're providing something for free or charging for it is legally irrelevant. Whether you think the Tolkien estate might make money because of license violations is irrelevant. Of course, if the Tolkien estate (or perhaps Vivendi in this case, as given that Middle Earth Online is currently being developed by Turbine under contract with Vivendi, it's likely that all online massively multiplayer rights were sold or licensed to Vivendi) doesn't care, then I don't care, but as far as I can tell, they've never told the Shadows of isildur fellow that they don't mind.

However, if they do object there's no question that what Shadows of Isildur and all the other Tolkien muds are doing is simple and blatant IP theft. I'm going to give Tolkien Enterprises a call on Monday to see what they have to say. Then, I'll either shut up and apologize to anyone I've offended over this issue or do my best to point them to everyone who is abusing or stealing their IP.

--matt

[Brody]

Originally Posted by However, if they do object there's no question that what Shadows of Isildur and all the other Tolkien muds are doing is simple and blatant IP theft. I'm going to give Tolkien Enterprises a call on Monday to see what they have to say. Then, I'll either shut up and apologize to anyone I've offended over this issue or do my best to point them to everyone who is abusing or stealing their IP.

You are certainly well within your rights to do that, but I think there's a line between homage and a rip-off of intellectual property - a line that, in my opinion, hasn't been crossed by Shadows of Isildur or any other free-to-the-public game based on any established theme. If you need a crusade, by all means, the windmills are that way. But it seems ill-conceived, no matter how well-intentioned.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,19:58) Not sure about the status of that frivolous lawsuit so far, but Gandalf the Wizard Clown is still in business: http://www.magicforpets.com/ And HE makes money off it. Unlike the purveyor of Shadows of Isildur.

Gandalf the Wizard Clown is now using that name under license from Tolkien Enterprises. I have no idea what the terms of that license are, but the point is that he -actually got permission-. If muds like Shadows of Isildur can say the same thing, then obviously I have no issue with them. So far no one has shown me any evidence that any of them are doing anything but using the IP without license.

(And again, whether you charge money or not isn't legally relevant.)

--matt

[Brody]

Also, while you're on this warpath against intellectual property theft in MU*-land, you might as well load your cannons for bear against all fan clubs/sites that don't ask permission, as well as Yahoo newsgroups and any ISP that allows play-by-email games set in these established realms.

My point: Be careful about that slippery slope. I understand concerns about people stealing intellectual property for personal profit - I'd be right there with you in that argument. Shadows of Isildur appears to be an homage - a celebration of the world Tolkien created. It's not a commercial enterprise like the MMORPGs are going to be. It's little more than a large, free-to-play tabletop game linked together by computers - and unless you plan to go running around like the cardinal in the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch, raiding tabletop games like some 'net savvy Eliot Ness, you're really taking on a crusade that won't be worth the time or energy you'd be better off devoting to your own games.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,20:05) You are certainly well within your rights to do that, but I think there's a line between homage and a rip-off of intellectual property - a line that, in my opinion, hasn't been crossed by Shadows of Isildur or any other free-to-the-public game based on any established theme. If you need a crusade, by all means, the windmills are that way. But it seems ill-conceived, no matter how well-intentioned.

"Paying homage" doesn't fall under fair use. There's no line between "homage" and "theft". They're the same thing. Here's the law:

Owner's exclusive rights

Notice that the owner of copyrighted property has the -exclusive- right to produce derivative works, to perform the copyrighted material publically, etc. I don't know if muds are considered performance, but they are certainly considered derivatives. I brought up the public performance bit mainly because earlier you had asked if a private gaming group would violate the law (it wouldn't).

The law is straightforward: Unless your work falls under a fair use exemption (Satire, non-profit -educational- purposes, preservation of decaying works, etc), you're likely infringing. And actually, I don't even know if a non-profit mud set up expressly for educational purposes would work, as I don't think you can create a derivative work for that purpose.

Anyway, you're free to have your opinion, but your opinion doesn't count for much when the law says differently.

Really, the reason I started this thread was that I find it ironic that so many people moan about mud codebase violators and then happily embrace other types of IP theft. I think it's all bad form myself, though I have a bigger problem with, say, Tolkien IP theft, as it's possible to actually hurt Tolkien Enterprises financially by abusing their IP, whereas it's not possible to hurt the DIKU creators financially by abusing their IP. (Though I'd be just as happy to see Medievia shut down as most of you.)

And no, I don't need a crusade. I would just like to see some consistency from the mud crowd on these boards. You even mention Medievia and people throw fits and spend lots of time posting links copyright law, but you mention all the other violators out there and all you hear are the crickets.

--matt

[Brody]

I think you'd have to reach pretty far to call Shadows of Isildur a public performance, given the barriers to access: You need to *find it* to play it. You need directions to get there. You need appropriate software to log in. It's not that much different from a private tabletop gaming session. Public performance, in my opinion (I'm admittedly not a lawyer), would be on stage in a park, performing your own Tolkien works.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Also, while you're on this warpath against intellectual property theft in MU*-land, you might as well load your cannons for bear against all fan clubs/sites that don't ask permission, as well as Yahoo newsgroups and any ISP that allows play-by-email games set in these established realms.

I have a problem with fan clubs and sites that don't ask permission as well, but I'm not involved in their world like I am in the mud world. As for ISPs, they're common carriers and bear no responsibility for what goes on over their network. On the other hand, Topmudsites has expressly decided to ban Medievia for IP violation. Why not all the other IP violators as well?

Originally Posted by My point: Be careful about that slippery slope. I understand concerns about people stealing intellectual property for personal profit - I'd be right there with you in that argument. Shadows of Isildur appears to be an homage - a celebration of the world Tolkien created. It's not a commercial enterprise like the MMORPGs are going to be. It's little more than a large, free-to-play tabletop game linked together by computers - and unless you plan to go running around like the cardinal in the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch, raiding tabletop games like some 'net savvy Eliot Ness, you're really taking on a crusade that won't be worth the time or energy you'd be better off devoting to your own games.

A private, at-home table-top game doesn't violate anyone's IP rights, so I can't imagine why I'd have a problem with that. A publically available game most certainly does, which is why I have a problem with it.

Anyway, if your moral standard depends on whether an action hurts the copyright holder financially, I assume you've also got no problem with Medievia as it's not hurting anyone financially. But similarly, neither of us are in a position to judge whether a free game takes money away from or indirectly contributes money to Tolkien Enterprises by slightly altering the overall public perception of the license. Taken to an extreme, imagine a popular free game in which Gandalf was a child molestor. Surely you can imagine why, in that particular circumstance, Tolkien Enterprises might want to shut such a game down? Now consider the reality, which is that a licenseholder has a MUCH easier time simply banning the use of their property than it does monitoring everything that goes on in, say, a mud based on that property.

There are certainly arguments for why a licenseholder wouldn't care. I've read, for instance, that Jim Rigney (pen name Robert Jordan) has posted that he doesn't mind people creating free muds based on WoT. I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, I can understand the motivation behind him doing that. Why **** off your fans? On the other hand, he risks that material entering the public domain due to willful lack of enforcement regarding his copyrighted material (I believe so at least. I am not a lawyer.) Raymond Feist strictly enforces any violation of his copyright partially for that very reason, for instance.
--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,20:26) I think you'd have to reach pretty far to call Shadows of Isildur a public performance, given the barriers to access: You need to *find it* to play it. You need directions to get there. You need appropriate software to log in. It's not that much different from a private tabletop gaming session. Public performance, in my opinion (I'm admittedly not a lawyer), would be on stage in a park, performing your own Tolkien works.

So...because I need directions to the opera house, need a ticket to access the opera, and need software to buy that ticket online, it's not a public performance? Of course it is.

In any case, while I'm not a lawyer, I deal with our lawyers regularly on these issues and I'm quite certain that if Tolkien Enterprises objects, there's not even a question about whether a mud like SoL is legally infringing on their property.

--matt

[Brody]

Eh - some people might argue that your focusing on MU*-land is a conflict of interest: Your games are all set in original-theme worlds, right? Therefore you might be seeking to help yourself by trying to shut down all the "violators" and thus reduce the rather large volume of MUDs and improve your own position (which involves financial gain, if I'm not mistaken). I'm not saying that's what you're doing - you may very well have the most altruistic motives at heart. But it's what someone *could* think, if you selectively choose MU*-land as your venue of choice for combating intellectual property violations.

If you're going to champion intellectual property rights, do it across the board so as to eliminate *any* possible misconceptions about your motives.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,20:41) Eh - some people might argue that your focusing on MU*-land is a conflict of interest: Your games are all set in original-theme worlds, right? Therefore you might be seeking to help yourself by trying to shut down all the "violators" and thus reduce the rather large volume of MUDs and improve your own position (which involves financial gain, if I'm not mistaken). I'm not saying that's what you're doing - you may very well have the most altruistic motives at heart. But it's what someone *could* think, if you selectively choose MU*-land as your venue of choice for combating intellectual property violations. If you're going to champion intellectual property rights, do it across the board so as to eliminate *any* possible misconceptions about your motives.

Why would I even discuss other types of copyright violation on a website devoted to muds? I'm opposed to all forms of copyright infringement, of course, but none of them make sense to post on here.

And I don't have completely altruistic motives. Shutting down a bunch of copyright infringers isn't going to help our business to any significant degree, but the idea of someone infringing on my IP without my permission ticks me off. Same way a father who lost a son to cancer might choose to be more involved in the fight against one form of human suffering (cancer) than another form like hunger or AIDs.
--matt

[Brody]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this - as reasonable people can and sometimes must do.

In any event, good luck with your efforts.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brody @ May 30 2003,20:57) We'll just have to agree to disagree on this - as reasonable people can and sometimes must do. In any event, good luck with your efforts.

Well, I think there are two levels of disagreement.

1. Legal. On this, there's really no reasonable disagreement. It's illegal.

2. Moral. On this there is lots of valid potential disagreement. After all, IP law like all property law is entirely a legal invention. I object to a number of laws and violate them regularly with a clear conscience.

Anyway, you're right, probably no point in continuing this discussion. If I get in contact with the Tolkien folks, I'll post about it here.

--matt

[Traithe]

Oy vey - I'm a little late, aren't I? I didn't even realize this debate was raging until one of our players kindly directed a link to my attention, after I'd been away from the computer all day.

First - I wanted to say "thanks" for some of the kind words that I've seen said about me here. I'm honored to see others taking up my side of the case while I was absent, and appreciate it greatly.

Logos, I respect your position on the matter, and certainly admire your consistency. I do realize the somewhat precarious nature of my own arguments, from a strictly legal standpoint, as has been enumerated by yourself and numerous others in posts before.

I guess what strikes me the most about this thread and your argument is your distinction between the "legal" and the "moral". To wit:

Originally Posted by 1. Legal. On this, there's really no reasonable disagreement. It's illegal.

Originally Posted by 2. Moral. On this there is lots of valid potential disagreement. After all, IP law like all property law is entirely a legal invention. I object to a number of laws and violate them regularly with a clear conscience.

Regarding point number one: you are absolutely correct. Despite the efforts I have made at contacting the Estate and researching the issues (see the MudConnector post I believe someone referenced above), my assumption that it is permissible to use their IP because they have not responded negatively is, technically, erroneous - and the usage is, technically, therefore illegal. This brings me to the latter half of your second point: I object to a number of laws and violate them regularly with a clear conscience.

As long as we're clear that your decision to pursue this issue, and continually single out and attack my project on the public fora - is a result of a personal moral preference, since clearly you do not seem to maintain that the law deserves to be upheld simply because it is the law - I don't really have much else to say. Of course, I could point out that my own opinion on the matter stems from a similar source, and note that this entire debate therefore becomes a conflict of personal preference and moral values rather than consistent, by-the-letter legality.

In short, you're certainly entitled to repeatedly call me a "thief" on various public fora, but I hope you understand the difficulties of your own position.

Best of luck in your attempts to track down someone at T-Ent - with any amount of luck, one way or another, this entire issue (at least, as it pertains to SoI) will be resolved soon so that it may be left in peace.


-T.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ May 31 2003,00:10) As long as we're clear that your decision to pursue this issue, and continually single out and attack my project on the public fora - is a result of a personal moral preference, since clearly you do not seem to maintain that the law deserves to be upheld simply because it is the law - I don't really have much else to say. Of course, I could point out that my own opinion on the matter stems from a similar source, and note that this entire debate therefore becomes a conflict of personal preference and moral values rather than consistent, by-the-letter legality. In short, you're certainly entitled to repeatedly call me a "thief" on various public fora, but I hope you understand the difficulties of your own position.

Yes, I don't believe the law deserves to be respected merely because it is the law. Laws that "protect" me from myself (anti-drug laws, seatbelt laws, laws against suicide, etc) I feel no compunction to uphold. Laws that involve harming others, I generally do (though I have little problem with vigilantism, for instance).

I'm firmly on the side of believing that infringing on someone else's copyright is wrong. I don't care if it's a mud codebase, Tolkien, or music, software or movies via Kazaa. I even sent a check to Microsoft once due to the fact that 2 years previously I had ripped them off with an illegal copy of Word.

The fact is, it would make me a complete hypocrite to feel or do otherwise (and happily I have no inclination to forgive that kind of behavior, so no danger there). Our players have created quite a few fansites, of course, and occasionally I've granted some of them the right to duplicate some of our help files or whatnot. But man does it **** me off when I find someone stealing our stuff without having gotten permission first. I don't care if they're doing it in homage. Common courtesy demands you obtain permission first, if nothing else. If you can't, shrug, don't do it. You have no right to it.

--matt

[Delerak]

Sure you have the right to take whatever you want on the internet. No one can stop you...and if you think they can, just look at your own arguement and all the lists of muds that have "stolen" IP. No one cares really, mainly because they know deep down there is nothing you can do, short of coming to my house and having me arrested? Which you of course know where my house is? I live in Europe? Can western laws touch me here? Who knows, who cares, it's an empty battle, clearly lost from the beginning, but I agree with you, I hate how people steal and covet IP, but there is nothing you can do, I tell you this out of experience...

-Delerak

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Delerak @ May 31 2003,01:18) Sure you have the right to take whatever you want on the internet.  No one can stop you...and if you think they can, just look at your own arguement and all the lists of muds that have "stolen" IP.  No one cares really, mainly because they know deep down there is nothing you can do, short of coming to my house and having me arrested? Which you of course know where my house is? I live in Europe? Can western laws touch me here?  Who knows, who cares, it's an empty battle, clearly lost from the beginning, but I agree with you, I hate how people steal and covet IP, but there is nothing you can do, I tell you this out of experience... -Delerak

Well, I'm not willing to give the battle up. I've had some bad experiences working with law enforcement, but I've also had a positive experience where someone who stole our code was arrested by the F.B.I. It was a #### of a time getting them to do anything, but I tell you, that 18 year old kid apparently cried like a baby when the G-men showed up at his parents house (where he lived) and seized all the computer equipment in the house and arrested him. Little bastard.

I mean, I tend to agree that intellectual property has only about a 50/50 chance of surviving in its current form, but I just refuse to surrendur to side of entitlement and greed.

--matt