[the_logos]

I'm not sure why you think MUDs are some special case of intellectual property. Lots of precedent exists in IP law, and what Traithe is doing is illegal, as he himself has admitted.

--matt

[Brody]

[Burr]

[Orion Elder]

On the subject of the implied license, I would think it to be quite clear. the_logos keeps using that stealing a TV argument, however that is not as 'end of the line' as he makes it sound. The owner of that TV has not allowed many other people to steal his TV in the first place, without taking action against them.

So, let's touch up his analogy and make it relevant to the issue at hand:

Original, irrelevant analogy:
Derivative, relevant analogy:
So, while that TV analogy was thoroughly entertaining, it is entirely irrelevant to the point. The Tolkien people have allowed 'violations' to go unhindered for well over a decade (from what I gathered here). Enough instances of those 'violations' have been noticed that a list has been made of the general outcome of the action Tolkien has taken AGAINST them, and found that they will tolerate said actions. Traithe attempted to gain permission and was not denied, though he was also not accepted.

If you couple all this information, I would think it to be quite obvious how someone could infer an implied license. Now, they could easily reject his implied license, and he'd not have a leg to stand on... but, he's also said if they do so he would take down the game.

Now, I'm not saying it should be considered a 'loss' of rights, however this is what Feist was talking about. Tolkien's people have ignored enough instances of usage of their property that it now grants an implied license to those wishing to use it. The fact that Traithe went so far as to send a letter asking permission only strengthens his case, I would think.

I don't necessarily AGREE that this is the case. But, for the legal stance I would venture that Traithe is not without a valid defense.

[Yui Unifex]

Society is compensated through this system of exclusive ownership. They pay for the parts, add value, and then sell the completed product. It is crystal clear what the individual owes and to whom, so we can easily say how society was compensated for their work. Don't be silly and assume that I meant all of society was compensated.

Come again?

That's correct, and I agree. The IP owner has a claim that is greater than any other specific individual's, but not the only claim.

I disagree with this, though. If the creator had to overwhelm the value added by the rest of society, in the future it would be impossible for one to lay a claim of protectable IP since the intellectual foundations are increasing at an exponentional rate. But I don't even think the author needs to add something significantly valuable to lay his claim on his specific work.

Wow, say that again? You said that the whole of society gave no more benefits to an individual than an individual gave to the whole of society. An individual with a contribution equal to that of an entire society is a worthy individual indeed, but Tolkien was certainly not such a superman.

Does this argument apply to the topic at hand? Do you mean to say that a derivative work not expressly sanctioned by the creator removes enough of the benefits of the work that he is unfairly stuck with the costs of creation? This is the kind of explanation I'm looking for, thank you =).

You (and Burr, possibly) misunderstand my scope. I merely wish to know why Matt believes this is morally wrong as applied to the reasons why IP law exists, not have a discussion about the fundamentals of IP law. I say this because he said other laws he had no compelling reason to follow, and he has stated numerous times that Traithe's actions were immoral. I want to know why it is immoral, and saying "Because it's the law" just doesn't cut it given his previous statements.

Now Matt and Burr have given similar answers to my questions. Basically, they've said that it is unfair to create something only to have the benefits of IP control disappear. It causes "harm" (I would rather say that it causes a lack of benefit rather than harm, but we'll leave that debate to another day =)).

But what if it didn't cause any harm? What if Shadows of Isildur became popular, and the top players all went out and bought the novels and movies to complement their interest? We have this concept of complementary items in economics: If the demand of jelly goes up, for example, there might be a corresponding increase in demand for peanut butter so that people can make scrumptious sandwiches. How can you honestly say that the harm is always greater than the benefit?

That statement is underlined because it's important to my primary point. If the copyright holder were to expressly deny SoL, we can only assume that he has weighed the various circumstances and made a decision. I'm not arguing that this decision should be disregarded when it is made. Even if it were proven that SoL had a net benefit rather than a net harm to Tolkien's IP, I believe that the owner has the right to dig their own grave so to speak. But if they do not make an express decision, this is all still up in the air. Tolkien's IP may become more valuable because of this, not less, and so the moral imperative to stop infringement is simply not there because everybody is seemingly winning. It would be presumptuous of all of us to say that this specific case wrought a net benefit or harm. Therefore, I will err on the side of Traithe: Although it is presumptuous (and based completely on my anecdotal experience), I believe his work benefits Tolkien's IP more than it harms it. Ergo he is morally right in my eyes.

[Mikkel]

intellectual property, copyright and trademarks ...

you know, there's one thing in this discussion that bothers me ...

The Logos Group
The Logos Foundation
The Logos School
u.s.w...

you know, someone might want to desist from using the handle "the logos" until they can present written permission for the use of that name.

[Stilton]

Unifex:
Easy answer: I don't have to, or have the right to. 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.

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. 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.

Mikkel:
You DO know where the term "the logos" comes from, right? I don't think the originators are going to be filing claims...

If you're looking for something to complain about, how about the area in Achaea named "Aran'Rhiod" (put into the game around Jul, 2002, according to an announcement dated Jul 21)? I think it's WoT derivative (Tel'Aran'Rhiod meaning dreamworld or some such). Or maybe it's taken from some actual language and all the google links are just hopelessly poluted by the WoT fans.

Stilton

[the_logos]

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.

--matt

[the_logos]

Mikkel:
*roll* The word "logos" has been in the public domain for a couple thousand years.

Stilton:
Erk, I cannot stand the Wheel of Time books. I stopped around book 5 out of boredom. Cool world, bad storytelling. I can't say I remember why we chose the name or who chose the name (It's aran'riod, btw, not aran'rhiod). We've got a couple amateur linguist volunteers though so it may be the name came from them and has some meaning I'm not aware of. 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.

--matt

[the_logos]

You know, something just occured to me. I'm currently in the process of negotiating for exclusive license to a particular piece of IP (yeah, I know, imagine actually obtaining permission. Crazy concept.) and it occured to me that I were I dealing with Tolkien Enterprises, the mere existence of rip-off games like Shadows of Isildur would decrease the amount I'd be willing to pay for the right to do legal commercial text muds based on Tolkien IP as I'd either have to go to the hassle and expense of shutting them down or put up with illegally free competition. Take that for what it's worth but any business looking to license is going to feel the same way. You can bet that were there free huge-scale graphical muds (or mmogs or whatever acronym you prefer) based on Tolkien's IP, the Tolkien Estate would have gotten less money from Vivendi because of it.

--matt

[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]

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

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

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.

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

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...
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]

[Stilton]

Unifxex:
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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

Unifex:

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]

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.

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.

So, um, what is your point? =)

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

Yes, and we all know how 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?