Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 06-08-2003, 05:26 PM

Stilton, throughout your post you incorrectly accuse me of using "straw man" arguments. I have not. Please learn what they are before you attempt to accuse me of them.

Now that is a perfect example of a "straw man". I pointed out that they are aware of the dozens muds which have been based upon their setting over the last 12 years or so, but have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to it, while at the same time legally stamping on various other infringers - demonstrating that they are perfectly capable of dealing quickly with those who they feel are infringing on their work. Yet they have not said so much as a single word about the muds.

That is not even close to claiming "Failure to issue cease/desist orders implying consent".

If you cannot counter my points, please ignore them - do not claim I said something else and then attack that. Not only is it very poor form, but it also makes it very difficult to take this discussion anywhere, as I am forced to keep repeating what I actually said.

Which is the very point I've been trying to convince you of. Does this mean you've now changed from your earlier position of "I have been defending the proposition that you shouldn't assume consent from an IP holder until you actually see it"?

Right - most people.

Which - as I pointed out - is a defence against copyright infringement. In other words, it's a way of saying "Yes, I violated someone's copyright, but I have a good defence if he ever decides to take me to court".

But neither is the author doing that by posting to a discussion board. You make it sound so "black and white" - but it's not. I assume that is why you have still refused to answer my point about the stock areas - if it's not easy to answer, best to pretend you didn't read it, eh?

No. Because they've not even so much as said they care, even when they've been explicitly emailed about it, it makes minor use of their IP - while still a copyright infringement - something on a completely different scale to ripping the credits out of a Diku derivative, claiming it as your own work, and making money off it.

Yes, and I still do. That has nothing to do with what I've said in this thread.

06-08-2003, 05:26 PM	#174
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Stilton, throughout your post you incorrectly accuse me of using "straw man" arguments. I have not. Please learn what they are before you attempt to accuse me of them. Now that is a perfect example of a "straw man". I pointed out that they are aware of the dozens muds which have been based upon their setting over the last 12 years or so, but have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to it, while at the same time legally stamping on various other infringers - demonstrating that they are perfectly capable of dealing quickly with those who they feel are infringing on their work. Yet they have not said so much as a single word about the muds. That is not even close to claiming "Failure to issue cease/desist orders implying consent". If you cannot counter my points, please ignore them - do not claim I said something else and then attack that. Not only is it very poor form, but it also makes it very difficult to take this discussion anywhere, as I am forced to keep repeating what I actually said. Which is the very point I've been trying to convince you of. Does this mean you've now changed from your earlier position of "I have been defending the proposition that you shouldn't assume consent from an IP holder until you actually see it"? Right - most people. Which - as I pointed out - is a defence against copyright infringement. In other words, it's a way of saying "Yes, I violated someone's copyright, but I have a good defence if he ever decides to take me to court". But neither is the author doing that by posting to a discussion board. You make it sound so "black and white" - but it's not. I assume that is why you have still refused to answer my point about the stock areas - if it's not easy to answer, best to pretend you didn't read it, eh? No. Because they've not even so much as said they care, even when they've been explicitly emailed about it, it makes minor use of their IP - while still a copyright infringement - something on a completely different scale to ripping the credits out of a Diku derivative, claiming it as your own work, and making money off it. Yes, and I still do. That has nothing to do with what I've said in this thread.