Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Fharron · 06-11-2003, 12:06 AM

I do believe I am getting a little dizzy with all this round and round the posting tree. Let me put forward an imaginary series of actions and possible repercussions.

A company produces a product which is closely associated with the theme of good vs evil and the ability of the weak to overcome the strong, two little weevils bringing down a mighty oak tree. Now this company has also identified its customer base, and is aware that the product it produces is viewed by current buyers and potential buyers as a source of good all round family entertainment.

One day a small non profit making company, geared towards the provision of free entertainment for all the family, utilises an aspect of their product in their own creation. This company is relatively obscure, having no wide ranging visibility. The product it is producing does not impact upon the profits of the large organisation and neither does it cast the said product in a bad light. However the small company is in breach of the big companies IP rights. What should they do?

Should they send the small company a cease and desist order?

On the upside this might result in the closure of the small company. However since the companies profits are not being affected and few people know about the infringement it would be something of a mute victory, beyond the stamping of legal authority.

On the downside they may bring attention to the smaller company who may decide to carry on regardless. Being that the small company could cease operating at any time, and at such a time make recompenses to the large company. They might even shout about the situation, it only takes one newspaper article on a slow day to throw a spanner in the works. The visibility might also give some other companies, that could affect profits, the notion to throw their own hats into the illegal product ring (heh no pun intended).

Taking any overt actions runs the greater risk of shedding poor light on the franchise of the bigger company. How can they sell a product epitomising the struggle of the small people, people only wanting to help others and have a little fun along the way, and then crush them like flees, and for what money? Can we all say Ben and Jerry, the general public have a long track record of rooting for the underdog that is going up against the bullying corporate giant, whether the case is justifiable or not.

The point being made is that the potential for adverse publicity and decreased public image greatly outweighs the benefits of becoming involved with such a minor action, a small amount of either could decrease profits. It is more than likely that the big company will simply to choose to sweep the matter under the carpet than risk the slightest chance of a negative backlash. When you are reaping millions you don’t risk rocking the boat over a few pennies, or no money at all.

If there is a problem and nobody really knows about it then is it really a problem? No, at least not until you draw attention to it with blazing legal trumpets. Perhaps this is why Traithe hasn’t received a response yet, and perhaps this is why Traithe will never receive a response despite his best efforts. When all is said and done it is a matter for the owners of the LOTR IP, should they wish to train their howitzers on a housefly. After all it hardly impacts upon the majority of us in the same way that tolerating active code theft does.

Then again perhaps we should take the high moral ground and exert pressure on the MUD sites to remove games that are not strictly original. Crack the whip over a trivial issue that isn’t really any concern of ours, being that it has no direct or indirect affect on the majority of us. Perhaps we should force the owners to scour the listings in time consuming detective activity. We could even sit back and watch the games in the listings fall by, oh I don’t know 90%, watch them struggle to maintain their sites when advertising revenue plummets, rest content upon our bickering principles as visitors to the sites fall because they only list a scattering of games. Could it be that the moral champions have thought this all through and this is their aim, or could it be that they haven’t thought it through at all.

Are we to gather that the_logos would stand by his principles and contribute a fixed sum of money to TMS and other sites to ensure their continued running and make up for the shortfall in lost revenue (without asking for advertising space or anything in return). Not that other sites wouldn’t pop up over night to satisfy the demand of the vanquished muds. Thereby making the whole process somewhat ridiculous.

-----------------------
Who certainly doesn’t suffer from a lack of imagination, studied ethics for four years at university, but can’t see the point of making a mountain out of a hobbit hole.

06-11-2003, 12:06 AM	#200
Fharron New Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26	I do believe I am getting a little dizzy with all this round and round the posting tree. Let me put forward an imaginary series of actions and possible repercussions. A company produces a product which is closely associated with the theme of good vs evil and the ability of the weak to overcome the strong, two little weevils bringing down a mighty oak tree. Now this company has also identified its customer base, and is aware that the product it produces is viewed by current buyers and potential buyers as a source of good all round family entertainment. One day a small non profit making company, geared towards the provision of free entertainment for all the family, utilises an aspect of their product in their own creation. This company is relatively obscure, having no wide ranging visibility. The product it is producing does not impact upon the profits of the large organisation and neither does it cast the said product in a bad light. However the small company is in breach of the big companies IP rights. What should they do? Should they send the small company a cease and desist order? On the upside this might result in the closure of the small company. However since the companies profits are not being affected and few people know about the infringement it would be something of a mute victory, beyond the stamping of legal authority. On the downside they may bring attention to the smaller company who may decide to carry on regardless. Being that the small company could cease operating at any time, and at such a time make recompenses to the large company. They might even shout about the situation, it only takes one newspaper article on a slow day to throw a spanner in the works. The visibility might also give some other companies, that could affect profits, the notion to throw their own hats into the illegal product ring (heh no pun intended). Taking any overt actions runs the greater risk of shedding poor light on the franchise of the bigger company. How can they sell a product epitomising the struggle of the small people, people only wanting to help others and have a little fun along the way, and then crush them like flees, and for what money? Can we all say Ben and Jerry, the general public have a long track record of rooting for the underdog that is going up against the bullying corporate giant, whether the case is justifiable or not. The point being made is that the potential for adverse publicity and decreased public image greatly outweighs the benefits of becoming involved with such a minor action, a small amount of either could decrease profits. It is more than likely that the big company will simply to choose to sweep the matter under the carpet than risk the slightest chance of a negative backlash. When you are reaping millions you don’t risk rocking the boat over a few pennies, or no money at all. If there is a problem and nobody really knows about it then is it really a problem? No, at least not until you draw attention to it with blazing legal trumpets. Perhaps this is why Traithe hasn’t received a response yet, and perhaps this is why Traithe will never receive a response despite his best efforts. When all is said and done it is a matter for the owners of the LOTR IP, should they wish to train their howitzers on a housefly. After all it hardly impacts upon the majority of us in the same way that tolerating active code theft does. Then again perhaps we should take the high moral ground and exert pressure on the MUD sites to remove games that are not strictly original. Crack the whip over a trivial issue that isn’t really any concern of ours, being that it has no direct or indirect affect on the majority of us. Perhaps we should force the owners to scour the listings in time consuming detective activity. We could even sit back and watch the games in the listings fall by, oh I don’t know 90%, watch them struggle to maintain their sites when advertising revenue plummets, rest content upon our bickering principles as visitors to the sites fall because they only list a scattering of games. Could it be that the moral champions have thought this all through and this is their aim, or could it be that they haven’t thought it through at all. Are we to gather that the_logos would stand by his principles and contribute a fixed sum of money to TMS and other sites to ensure their continued running and make up for the shortfall in lost revenue (without asking for advertising space or anything in return). Not that other sites wouldn’t pop up over night to satisfy the demand of the vanquished muds. Thereby making the whole process somewhat ridiculous. ----------------------- Who certainly doesn’t suffer from a lack of imagination, studied ethics for four years at university, but can’t see the point of making a mountain out of a hobbit hole.