[Shane]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 29 2006,16:34) Grouping yourself together with Matt and Medievia(arguably the two most accessable symbols of questionable ethics within the MUD-Community), also brings your own opinion and value-set into the line of ethical fire. Your own agenda or angle are fuzzy, but not particularly important to understand in order to further this conversation..

This right here... Mat and Medievia, both symbols of unethical behavior. And then the bit about questioning nhl's values.

[Shane]

Weird. Didn't post, then double post. Sorry.

[Sombalance]

Originally Posted by As long as your goal isn't to make money off of someone else's original works without their consent, it seems that the text-gaming community does not consider it to be unethical.

So, if someone created a new MUD using the DIKU code, but stripped out all of the credit information related to DIKU no one would complain as long as they don't make money off of it?

I went back and reread the posts in this forum and I think you (DonathinFrye) were probably on the money when you said

Originally Posted by The DIKU team has given a great resource to this community, and has helped this community arguably more than any other single, small team. They have allowed thousands and thousands of players free fun. The community, as a whole, has therefor embraced their wishes and vehemetly defended the DIKU license. It is for these reasons that it is deemed socially unacceptable or unethical, within our text-rpg community, to do what games like Medievia has done.

It does make DIKU sound like the little brother you need to protect from the bullies, but it sort of explains the level of intensity applied to this issue.

Another thing I've wondered is why does the DIKU team have to sue for copyright infringement? Base on the blue screen at the beginning of all the DVD's I watch, it is a federal crime. Couldn't they as the original copyright holders, file a claim?

Sombalance

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Sombalance @ April 30 2006,22:24) Another thing I've wondered is why does the DIKU team have to sue for copyright infringement? Base on the blue screen at the beginning of all the DVD's I watch, it is a federal crime. Couldn't they as the original copyright holders, file a claim? Sombalance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

"Though many jurisdictions impose criminal penalties for certain blatant acts of copyright infringement and may try to stop certain infringing imports at the border, copyright infringement is still mainly prosecuted through private lawsuits by the copyright holder or their exclusive licensees. When successful, these lawsuits will typically impose monetary damages against the infringer as well as injunctions against future infringing uses."

Also, I found this interesting.

"The failure of a copyright holder to bring a timely lawsuit against known infringers may later block such a claim by establishing an implied license, as may other acts or omissions that could informally signal consent to use the work."

[Sombalance]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,22:44) "Though many jurisdictions impose criminal penalties for certain blatant acts of copyright infringement and may try to stop certain infringing imports at the border, copyright infringement is still mainly prosecuted through private lawsuits by the copyright holder or their exclusive licensees. When successful, these lawsuits will typically impose monetary damages against the infringer as well as injunctions against future infringing uses."

Simply because the majority of copyright cases are handled privately, it doesn't mean that is the only option. In a situation like this, where "no profit" is part of the issue, a private lawsuit for monatary damages would probably not be productive and would be expensive for the original copyright holders.

I suspect (but do not know one way or the other) that the DIKU team is also limited to not profitting from the DIKU code. which may impact their ability to consider monatary damages in a civil case.

Sombalance

[the_logos]

DonathinFyre wrote:

Originally Posted by I'm merely speaking from my own personal experience of having attended college for two degrees, one of them being specifically in sociology. I have better things to do than to provide a bibliography every time someone with less education on a certain subject than myself tries to invalidate commonly accepted theories by saying what you have just said.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence but since it is "commonly accepted" none is required. I'm curious in what field of social science you believe that the assertion that the MUD community supports your personal interpretation of the Diku license is commonly accepted?

The real answer is 'none' of course, because there's never been any real research on this question, and thus there is no real evidence for it.

Originally Posted by However, the majority of DIKU-derived MUDs support the spirit of the DIKU License by not attempting to make profit off of the DIKU codebase, and by crediting the original team that created the codebase.

Let's not forget notifying the DIKU authors that you're running a DIKU. You and someone else (Emil) have asserted that the majority of DIKU-derived MUDs follow the license or the spirit of the license, but nobody's yet demonstrated that they've audited the majority of MUDs and somehow discovered proof that all of them notified the DIKU creators.

I'm also not aware of any proof that Medievia, or any other MUD supposedly violating the profit clause, is turning a profit. Do you have some? Have you seen their financial statements? If so, please, share them with us. Share the evidence with us.

In the real world, evidence is required, and your assertions don't appear to be backed up by any but your favorite type "common knowledge." Sounds like the sort of common knowledge that held the earth was flat to me, though no doubt you're going to reply that my refusal to recognize this "common knowledge" makes me unethical or something.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,22:03) Matt seems to have taken the accusation without even acknowledging it.

Sometimes there's just no point in responding to silly accusations and dignifying the attacker thereby.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Murpe @ April 30 2006,21:54) I know this might be out of context, but has anyone from the original DIKU team actually brought a case against any said license violators and took them to court? -- M

No. Which probably says a lot about how much they actually care about this issue or how much they think they've been harmed.

--matt

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Sombalance @ April 30 2006,23:09) Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,22:44) "Though many jurisdictions impose criminal penalties for certain blatant acts of copyright infringement and may try to stop certain infringing imports at the border, copyright infringement is still mainly prosecuted through private lawsuits by the copyright holder or their exclusive licensees. When successful, these lawsuits will typically impose monetary damages against the infringer as well as injunctions against future infringing uses." Simply because the majority of copyright cases are handled privately, it doesn't mean that is the only option. In a situation like this, where "no profit" is part of the issue, a private lawsuit for monatary damages would probably not be productive and would be expensive for the original copyright holders. I suspect (but do not know one way or the other) that the DIKU team is also limited to not profitting from the DIKU code. which may impact their ability to consider monatary damages in a civil case. Sombalance

Likely some district attorney, or the Attorney General of the US(!?) would have to sign on to make it a criminal prosecution if the mud is based here. Just getting here to make the official accusation might be more trouble than it is worth to the Diku team.

I guess my point was that it appears that by and large the blue screen on DVD's is just a scare tactic, but that the majority of the time it doesn't happen that way.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ April 30 2006,23:16) 3--> Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,22[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]3)]Matt seems to have taken the accusation without even acknowledging it. Sometimes there's just no point in responding to silly accusations and dignifying the attacker thereby. --matt

*chuckles*

And yet you continue exchanging barbs with him.

I am honestly curious how you got to be in the category of icons of unethical conduct is all. If you happen to know, please, before the little blood vessel in my temple explodes from curiosity... tell me...

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,23:32) Likely some district attorney, or the Attorney General of the US(!?) would have to sign on to make it a criminal prosecution if the mud is based here. Just getting here to make the official accusation might be more trouble than it is worth to the Diku team. I guess my point was that it appears that by and large the blue screen on DVD's is just a scare tactic, but that the majority of the time it doesn't happen that way.

Yes, they'd need the cooperation of government prosecutors for a criminal prosecution, but the scale here is so miniscule that they wouldn't waste their time on it. They have limited resources and are going to reserve those resources for cases where there is real or potential harm being done.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ April 30 2006,23:36) *chuckles* And yet you continue exchanging barbs with him. <!--emo& I am honestly curious how you got to be in the category of icons of unethical conduct is all. If you happen to know, please, before the little blood vessel in my temple explodes from curiosity... tell me...

It's off-topic, so I'll PM you.

--matt

[John]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ May 01 2006,06:12) Matt and the staff of Medievia are seen by certain zealots

Could you not make personal insults please? If you feel anyone else has made insults to you or someone else in this thread, ask them not to or PM the moderator for the sub-forum. But returning in kind is not the answer. I'm surprised this post has not yet been editted. Isn't this a moderated thread?

[the_logos]

John has a point. Let's try to avoid strongly-loaded terms in this thread. This thread has been admirably light on the flames so far. Let's keep it that way. I would prefer not to have to moderate as it just causes bad feelings.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by To be fair, what you seemed to have said was that Medievia AND Matt were both icons of unethical behavior, and it did seem as if you were then telling Nhl that he was going to suffer a little guilt by association in taking up any argument in their defense. As I said earlier, I am somewhat confused how Matt is some sort of a symbol for unethical behavior.

Discussing Matt's ethics in-depth would both be off-topic and pointless. I could start another thread about it, but you could research itself, because another thread would immediately resort to flaming.

I was not attempting to guilt-trip Nhl. I was pointing out, as I've tried to say several times, that when you decide to publically lobby an argument that goes against a given social norm/rule, you should be ready for the inevitable ethical judgements that will be made against you by those who believe strongly in the status quo. I, myself, am aware of this rule of thumb, and do not think any less of Nhl's opinions on the DIKU license. Any fuzziness on what motivates his opinion on this issue is not really important for the argument.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 01 2006,01:14) Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 30 2006,18:44) Copying is one of the rights. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: * To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; * To prepare derivative works based upon the work; * To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; * To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works; * To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and * In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. So what are you planning to do with the codebase which doesn't infringe any of those rights?  You can't compile it, you can't modify it, you can't make backups, you can't let other people connect to it... I'm a bit confused as you are using a more or less typical set of examples about writings, music, art and so forth.  Code copyright is the actual written code itself.  I have not seen anything in this example at all to suggest that the activities you list constitute a violation of the copyrights.

See here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

"These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works""

Compiling the source code creates either a "derivative work" or a "copy", depending on the specifics of the compilation process. Modifying the code creates a "derivative work". Creating backups as a "copy". Letting other people connect to it is a public "performance" or "display". All of these are exclusive rights under copyright law.

[Anitra]

the_logos April 30 2006,23:13

Originally Posted by I'm also not aware of any proof that Medievia, or any other MUD supposedly violating the profit clause, is turning a profit. Do you have some? Have you seen their financial statements? If so, please, share them with us. Share the evidence with us.

You keep repeating this argument in different forms.

How about the evidence that the Medievia representatives provide themselves? Like for instance Soleil repeatably requesting that Medievia be added to the 'professional games' list, which, if I recall right, has as one of the basic requirement that at least one staff member must be working full time on it? If you make a living from running a mud, (in fact, support a family on it), is that not making a profit?

Or how do you define 'turning a profit' yourself?